On the Reading of Good Books

I'd like to share a delightful post sent by a friend. It was written by a man named Bob Trube, and in his post he talks about reading, particularly what he calls "reading well". Trube writes:

Among the resolutions people make each new year is some variant on “read more books.” That’s certainly a goal that I can applaud when the average number of books read by adults is twelve a year (a number skewed by avid readers; most people read about four a year). But I have a hunch that many of these resolutions fare no better than those of losing weight or exercising more, and probably for the same reasons: lack of specific goals that are realistic, forming a habit, social support and a good coach. I will come back to these but I want to address something I hear less about – reading well.

For a number who read this blog, I don’t have to convince you about the value of reading, and in many cases, you already have good reading habits and exceed that book a month average. And even if you don’t, you probably sense that reading isn’t about numbers of books but part of a well-lived life. You read not only for amusement or diversion but to better understand your world and how to live one’s life in it. That can be anything from understanding the inner workings of your computer and how to use it better to a work of philosophy or theology or even a great novel that explores fundamental questions of life’s meaning, living virtuously, or the nature of God.

Trube goes on to list four aspects of reading well:

1. Reading well is an act of attentiveness. We read well when we read without external and internal distractions. A place of quiet and a time when we are not distracted with other concerns helps us “engage the page.” It also helps to turn off the notifications on your phone or tablet, or better yet, put the electronics in another room. Read on an e-reader without other apps if you prefer these to physical books.
2. Visual media often encourages us to passively absorb content. Books of substance require our active engagement–noticing plot, characters, and the use of literary devices like foreshadowing, allusions and more. Non-fiction often involves following an argument, and paying attention to the logic, the evidence, and whether the argument is consistent. Reading well can mean jotting notes, asking questions, or even arguing with the author. Above all it means reflecting on what we read, and how the book connects with our lives.
3. Reading well over time means choosing good books to read. What is “good”? I’m not sure there is one good or simple answer. There are a number of “great books” lists out there and they are worth a look. You might choose one of those to read this year. One test of a book’s worth is whether people are still reading the book and finding value in it long after its author has passed. Also, in almost any genre, there are reviews, websites, and online groups. Over time, you will find sources of good recommendations.
4. Finally, I’d suggest choosing something to read off the beaten path. Reading authors from other cultures, or a genre you don’t usually read can stretch your horizons. This year, I want to work in some poetry and get around to the Langston Hughes and Seamus Heaney that I’ve had laying around.

He closes with a few thoughts "For those who simply want to read more and get into the reading habit." I encourage you to go to the link and check them out.

I sometimes wonder if reading isn't becoming a lost art, like knitting. Our lives are so full of work and other obligations that we don't have much time to read. Even during what leisure we may have we're constantly plugged in to some device or other that distracts us and makes reading seem boring by comparison. Yet good books are like vitamins and minerals for the mind. They nourish and enrich us in ways that last for a lifetime.

If you're one who would like to read more, but just can't seem to get into it, check out the tips that Trube gives at his blog. They're very good.

Abandon Religion, Embrace Superstition

There's an odd phenomenon apparently unfolding among millenials. As belief in God declines, belief in the efficacy of astrology is growing.

In other words, there's evidently a longing among young adults for transcendence, for something more than what materialism can offer them, but unwilling to return to the religious beliefs of their forefathers, they've been casting about among the occult for something else to serve as a substitute.

Denyse O'Leary wrote about this phenomenon some time ago at Mercatornet.

She noted that polls reveal belief in astrology at about 25% of the population in North America and Britain and that superstitious beliefs in general, e.g. belief in ghosts and witches, are increasing especially among liberal-minded young adults. Indeed, top liberal websites like Buzzfeed, Bustle and Cosmo feature much more superstitious content than do conservative sites.

Moreover, an education in science is no proof against an inclination toward superstition:

[I]nterestingly, “sciencey” types who lack scepticism about Darwin are often superstitious, despite the longstanding dismissal of occult beliefs from science.

The 2003 study, done at a British science fair, found that twenty-five percent of the people who claimed a background in science also reported that they were very or somewhat superstitious.

She closes with these observations:

Superstition feeds on itself. Like a drug habit, it at once satisfies and creates an appetite for more -- in this case, an appetite for occult knowledge, as opposed to transparent knowledge. That appetite can affect a person's perception of everyday reality.

It’s not science that holds superstition in check in Western society. It’s traditional Western religion, which insists on transparent truths (truths that all may know) and forbids attempts at occult, secret truths.

It's puzzling that people who scoff at the possibility of miracles and the existence of a supernatural God are nevertheless open to the possibility of an occult world of ghosts and demons, etc. Why is the latter any more plausible than the former?

The early twentieth century British writer G.K. Chesterton once said that, "When people cease to believe in God they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything." Perhaps we're seeing evidence of the truth of Chesterton's claim in the early twenty first century.

TDS

Why does the left hate Trump? Their disdain is so visceral, so seemingly irrational that some have called it Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). After all, given his accomplishments you'd think progressives, particularly those in the media, would be at worst neutral toward him, if not actually in love with him.

Yet when he announces that the United States is pulling out of Syria, a move that the left would slobber all over were it made by President Obama, the progressives at the cable shows have suddenly, like Bruce Banner transmogrifying into the Incredible Hulk, metamorphosed into war hawks, deriding the decision to pull out of a quagmire as a foreign policy blunder.

When the president gets a criminal justice reform bill through the legislature with 87 Senators voting for it, a bill for which the left has been pushing for decades, the progressives scarcely can bring themselves to notice that it was Jared Kushner and Donald Trump who were the key movers of the measure.

When it's announced that the Trump economy has generated the lowest minority unemployment numbers in history the left quibbles that that achievement germinated under Obama. Yet it's hard to point to anything the Obama administration did that would have produced these results.

When the president adopts protectionist trade policies, long a progressive desideratum, he's harshly castigated for starting a tariff war with China.

The left was embittered by Trump's temerity in defeating the lackluster Hillary Clinton in 2016 and hopeful, in what is perhaps an interesting case of psychological projection, that he will soon be implicated in some plot with the Russians to have stolen the election.

Yet despite the Stakhanovite efforts of Robert Mueller's team of Democratic prosecutors to leave no stone unturned they've apparently failed to turn one over that reveals any evidence of "collusion."

In fact, the inability (so far) to find any evidence that Trump and Putin have been holding hands has deflated progressives' hopes for impeachment and actually incensed them even further.

Of course there are policies the president has implemented or is pursuing that the left opposes - tax cuts, a border wall, a freeze on immigration from countries in which terrorism is spawned - but these seem hardly the sorts of issues that might be expected to generate the arrant hostility the left has shown toward the man.

After all, taxes were cut drastically under the sainted Democrat John Kennedy and a border wall and restrictions on immigration were popular among many liberal Democrats until less than a decade ago.

Of course, Trump also refuses to be bound to unwise agreements entered into with other nations by his predecessors. He's renegotiated NAFTA to make North American trade fairer for all parties, pulled out of the nuclear agreement with Iran which was mostly ineffective in halting Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, and walked away from the Paris climate accords.

The latter is especially galling to the left since climate change has for liberals the status of a religious dogma, but the data on climate change is disputable, and subsequent events in France should give the left at least some reason to think that it might be a good thing we're no longer bound by those agreements.

Some will point to Trump's boorish, uncouth attitudes toward women as the root of the left's contempt for the president, but it's hardly credible to think that people who would gleefully vote for the Kennedy brothers, Bill Clinton, Robert Menendez, et al. are sincerely upset over Donald Trump's sexually dubious biography.

Others accuse him of racism and bigotry, but the allegations are usually stand-alone assertions, lacking in any hard supporting evidence, suggesting that perhaps there just isn't any.

In sum, the degree of hatred on the left seems wildly excessive, over the top, unfounded, and irrational, but maybe the explanation for it has nothing to do with any of the sorts of things mentioned above. Maybe the reason has to do with a growing desperation incited by what Trump is doing to the judicial branch of government.

In the past, the left could always count on activist courts to circumvent refractory legislatures and implement progressive policies, but Trump is quietly appointing dozens of judges to the federal bench who believe that their role is to interpret the law, not to make it.

Moreover, he's already appointed two Justices to the Supreme Court who seem to share that judicial philosophy, and, if he's re-elected in 2020, and if the Senate remains in Republican hands, he's almost certain to name one or two more.

This would change the ideological direction of the Court for at least another generation and constitute a potential disaster for progressives. It could halt, and perhaps even reverse, the left's long, steady slog toward a socialist, statist nirvana that they've assumed was just around the corner. Their long march through the institutions will have goose stepped right into quicksand.

Thus, the left's hope and sense of urgency that Trump be removed from office or otherwise politically neutered. The left fears that many of the progressive gains of the last thirty years or so are grievously threatened by a conservative judiciary, perhaps irretrievably, and in their panic they're saying and doing some remarkable, some absurd, some almost insane things.

Despite the fact that President Trump is doing much that they wished President Obama would've done, his reshaping of the judicial branch has made progressives desperate, and fear and desperation have apparently spawned in their liberal breasts an implacable hatred for the president.

Is an Israeli/Palestinian Peace Possible?

Every administration since Truman's has wrestled with the question of how to secure peace in the Middle East between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Some believe that there'll never be peace until one or the other side is exterminated or driven from the region.

Others think that the Palestinians really do want to live peacefully alongside their Israeli neighbors and that the key is persuading the Israelis to make enough concessions to Palestinian demands that the Palestinians will be mollified.

A recent poll taken among Palestinians is, however, a splash of cold water in the face of optimists who believe that peace is attainable and just over the horizon. The Washington Free Beacon provides a summary of the poll's findings:

• If a new presidential election was held today between the current president, Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas, and the leader of the terrorist group Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas would beat Fatah 49 percent to 42 percent.
• 88 per cent said that Palestinians who sell property to Jews are traitors. 64 percent said the punishment for selling property to Jews should be the death penalty.
• Palestinians oppose the concept of a two-state solution, 55 percent to 43 percent.
• "A large minority of 44 percent thinks that armed struggle is the most effective means of establishing a Palestinian state next to the state of Israel while 28 percent believe that negotiation is the most effective means and 23 percent think non-violent resistance is the most effective."
• In lieu of negotiations, "54 percent support a return to an armed intifada," i.e. terrorism.
• 50 percent of Palestinians reject in principle the holding of negotiations in order to resolve the conflict.

When such large percentages of people are opposed to any genuine rapprochement it's hard to see how there can be any peaceful solution to the "Palestinian Problem." It causes one to wonder whether the last seventy years of low grade conflict interspersed with intense spasms of open warfare won't be the template for the next seventy years as well.

For a concise, five minute overview of the problem watch this Prager U. video:

The Moral Crisis of Our Time

In early 1968, a year of enormous social convulsion in the U.S. and Europe, philosopher William “Will” Herberg (1901-1977), published an essay entitled “What Is the Moral Crisis of Our Time?” The essay has become a classic and James Toner offers some reflections on it here.

Toner writes:

As a college senior reading that essay, I was struck by its analytical and prophetic power.

Herberg’s thesis was as perceptive as it was succinct: “the moral crisis of our time consists primarily not in the widespread violation of accepted moral standards . . . but in the repudiation of those very moral standards themselves.” The moral code of the Greeks, based upon reason, and of the Hebrews, based upon Revelation, had atrophied, he wrote, to the point of dissolution.

We were “rapidly losing all sense of transcendence.” We were adrift, by choice, in a sea of disorder with no “navigational” standards to consult....

We have always flouted moral standards but rarely in the history of Western civilization have we come to the place where we reject the very idea of morality altogether, but that's where large segments of our culture are headed in these postmodern times.

[Herberg] pointed to Jean-Paul Sartre’s advice to a young man living in Nazi-occupied France as an example of the moral bewilderment increasingly held as “authentic” in the 1960s.

The man had asked Sartre if he should fight the Nazis in the Resistance movement or cooperate with them, obtaining a sinecure in the Vichy Regime. The choice hardly mattered, said Sartre, as long as the decision was authentic and inward. If there are no objective standards to govern moral choice, then what is chosen does not matter. The only concern is whether one chooses “authentically.”

Thus Herberg concluded: “The moral crisis of our time is, at bottom, a metaphysical and religious crisis.”

Herberg prophesied rabid subjectivism, all-pervasive antinomianism, and a soul-searing secularism, what Pope Benedict was much later to call the “dictatorship of relativism.”

We now may be so mired in narcissistic norms that we cannot even understand Herberg’s jeremiad: “No human ethic is possible that is not itself grounded in a higher law and a higher reality beyond human manipulation or control.”

The reason of the Greeks and the Revelation of the Hebrews are now replaced by modernist profane worship of man by man: thus, tyranny beckons and awaits.

The problem that Herberg puts his finger on can be expressed in the following chain of hypothetical propositions:

• If there is no God (No transcendent moral authority with the power to hold men ultimately accountable) then there can be no objective moral duties.
• If there are no objective moral duties then the only duties we can have are subjective duties, i.e. duties that depend ultimately on our own feelings, biases, prejudices and predilections.
• A subjective duty is self-imposed, but if it's self-imposed then it can be self-removed.
• Thus, if our only moral duties are subjective then there are no moral duties at all since we cannot have a genuine duty if we can absolve ourselves of that duty whenever we wish.

Unless there is a transcendent moral law-giver which (or who) can hold us responsible for our choices in life then there is no such thing as a moral obligation.

As the great Russian novelist Tolstoy put it:

The attempts to found a morality apart from religion are like the attempts of children who, wishing to transplant a flower that pleases them, pluck it from the roots that seem to them unpleasing and superfluous, and stick it rootless into the ground. Without religion there can be no real, sincere morality, just as without roots there can be no real flower.

The price we pay in a secular age is the loss of the ability to discern, evaluate and even talk about good and evil, right and wrong. This is what Herberg saw so clearly coming to fruition in the sixties. It's what Friedrich Nietzsche prophesied in the 19th century in books like Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy of Morals. It's what atheist philosopher Jürgen Habermas means by the following:

Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this we have no other options. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.

Toner continues:

Herberg quotes cultural historian Jacob Burckhardt (1818-1897): “When men lose their sense of established standards, they inevitably fall victim to the urge for pleasure or power.”

You can read a PDF of Herberg's original essay here, but unfortunately the quality is not good.

On Christmas Eve

Christmas is a magical time, but it's not the trappings of the secular world that make it magical - except maybe for very young children - rather it's the sense of mystery surrounding the Incarnation. The magic is a by-product of the belief that Christmas celebrates a miracle, the Creator of the universe deigning to become one of His creatures so that in the fullness of time He and His creatures could enjoy each other forever.

It's that belief, affirmed by Christians for 2000 years, that's so awe-inspiring and which fills us on Christmas with an ineffable sense of love and being loved, a sense that makes the whole experience of Christmas Eve tingle with magic and mystery.

The secular, commercial world has drained much of that excitement from the night by pretending that the source and traditional meaning of the night is irrelevant. All the talk of Santa Claus, ads for cars, beer, and phones, all the insipid "holiday" songs and movies - none of these do anything at all to touch people's hearts or imaginations. They don't inspire awe. Christmas Eve is sterile and empty without the message of the Gospel and the conviction that this night is special, not because of the office Christmas party, last minute shopping, or Home Alone reruns, but because it's a night haunted by the presence of God and set apart for the delivery of the greatest gift in history.

Here are two traditional Christmas pieces that capture some of the beauty, mystery, and power of this night. I hope you enjoy them and hope, too, that each of you has a wonderful, meaningful Christmas and a very special 2019:

It might be best just to listen to this next one without watching it since the video is a bit out of sync with the audio:

A Message from Space

Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer have teamed up to write a piece for National Review commemorating an event that occured on Christmas eve fifty years ago. Here are some excerpts:

Emerging from the moon’s far side during their fourth orbit, they [Apollo 8 astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and Bill Anders] were mesmerized by their vision of Earth, a delicate, gleaming swirl of blue and white, contrasting with the barren lunar horizon — the famous Earthrise picture.

To mark the event, the crew decided, after much deliberation, to read the first ten verses from the book of Genesis, starting with the familiar “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The reading, and the reverent silence that followed, went out over a live telecast to an estimated 1 billion viewers, then the largest audience in television history....

Reading the creation story while viewing the earth from 220,000 miles away seemed fitting, but, as Gonzalez and Meyer note, there are many who think that the God of Genesis had nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

Yet we know so much more today about the universe than we did fifty years ago, and it gets increasingly more difficult to deny that the universe has an overwhelming appearance of having been intentionally engineered. Here's Gonzalez and Meyer:

Astronomers now know that Earth is a rare, life-friendly “oasis in the big vastness of space,” as Borman later reflected. In the past few decades they have discovered that life on our planet depends on many improbable “rare-earth” factors. Earth must orbit the sun at just the right distance, with just the right axial tilt, and with just the right-shaped orbit and right planetary neighbors.

Life depends on Earth having a moon of the right size at the right distance. The solar system as a whole must also reside in a narrow life-friendly band of space within our galaxy, the “galactic habitable zone.”

We’ve also come to appreciate that we inhabit a privileged platform for scientific discovery. Earth’s crust is endowed with the abundant mineral and energy resources required for advanced technology, including that necessary for sending astronauts to the moon.

Our clear atmosphere and location far from the center of a large galaxy allow us to learn about the universe near and far.

There are so many more properties of earth that make it suitable for life that they could've mentioned, but they chose instead to expand their topic to encompass the whole universe:

At a deeper level, physicists now know that the universe itself exhibits extreme fine-tuning. Even slight changes to the relative masses of fundamental particles or to the strengths of fundamental forces, or to the force driving the accelerating expansion of the universe or to its initial arrangement of mass and energy, would have rendered the universe incapable of sustaining life.

In the 1960s, physicists had just begun to discover examples of such fine-tuning. Now they know of many more. This suggests “the common sense interpretation,” as Cambridge University astrophysicist Fred Hoyle put it, “that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics” to make life possible.

Nor are the discoveries pointing to intentional agency limited to just the physical sciences:

In the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered that DNA contains digital information, which many biologists and computer scientists have likened to software code. Molecular biologists have since elucidated a complex information-processing system serviced by equally complex nano-machinery in even “simple” one-celled organisms.

These discoveries have thwarted attempts to explain the origin of life by undirected processes. By 1980, Francis Crick would acknowledge that the origin of life appears “to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

These developments and many, many more affirm the wisdom of the Apollo 8 astronauts' choice of readings on that Christmas eve in 1968.

The Etymology of Xmas

Some people get a little miffed during the Christmas season over the use of Xmas rather than Christmas, but perhaps their discomfiture is misplaced, as the late theologian R.C. Sproul explains:

People seem to express chagrin about seeing Christ’s name dropped and replaced by this symbol for an unknown quantity X. Every year you see the signs and the bumper stickers saying, “Put Christ back into Christmas” as a response to this substitution of the letter X for the name of Christ.

First of all, you have to understand that it is not the letter X that is put into Christmas. We see the English letter X there, but actually what it involves is the first letter of the Greek name for Christ. Christos is the New Testament Greek for Christ. The first letter of the Greek word Christos is transliterated into our alphabet as an X. That X has come through church history to be a shorthand symbol for the name of Christ....There’s a long and sacred history of the use of X to symbolize the name of Christ, and from its origin, it has meant no disrespect.

This is interesting and helpful, but I still suspect that a lot of people use Xmas to avoid writing Christmas and have no idea what the etymology of the word is. In any case, Sproul goes on to explain the origin of the fish as a symbol for Christianity:

The church has used the symbol of the fish historically because it is an acronym. Fish in Greek (ichthus) involved the use of the first letters for the Greek phrase “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” So the early Christians would take the first letter of those words and put those letters together to spell the Greek word for fish. That’s how the symbol of the fish became the universal symbol of Christendom.

I hope this Xmas has been a wonderful and meaningful day for you.

The Story of St. Nicholas

This is a post I've put up on VP a few times during the Christmas season that I think you'll find interesting:

Theologian James Parker offers us a brief history of the original Santa Claus and how the myths around him grew.

Here's an excerpt:

Most people simply do not realize the rich ancient heritage behind the Santa Claus story. The secularized and sanitized contemporary version pales in comparison with the deeply Christian ethos and content of the original.

Much exaggerated legendary material is connected with his life and ministry, but if nothing else, the legends tell us what values and beliefs the church held as important as they were projected onto Nicholas. To the bare minimum of facts, legend has supplied intriguing details through such writers as St. Methodius (patriarch of Constantinople in the 850s) and the Greek writer Metaphrastes in the 10th century.

The story goes that Nicholas was born in A.D. 280 to pious and wealthy parents who raised him in the fear and admonition of the Lord and taught him "sacred books" from the age of five. He was forced to grow up quickly upon the sudden death of his parents.

Inheriting his family's wealth, he was left rich and lonely, but he had the desire to use his wealth for good. The first opportunity to do this happened when he heard about a father who, through an unfortunate turn of events, was left destitute with three daughters. Without marriage dowry money, the daughters would be condemned to a life of singleness and prostitution, so Nicholas threw some small bags of gold coins into the window of the home (some traditions say down the chimney), thereby saving the children from a life of misery.

Later as a teenager, Nicholas made a pilgrimage to Egypt and Palestine. Upon returning home he felt called to ministry and was subsequently ordained. He spent time at the Monastery of Holy Zion near Myra until an old priest had a vision that he was to be the new bishop.

The congregation overwhelmingly elected him bishop, and he became known for his holiness, passion for the Gospel and zeal. He challenged the old gods and paganism at the principal temple in his district (to the god Artemis), and it was said that the evil spirits "fled howling before him."

There's more to the story. Nicholas was imprisoned during the persecution of Christians under the Roman emperor Diocletian, savagely beaten, and later released under Constantine's Edict of Milan (313 A.D.).

Those who survived Diocletian's purges were called "confessors" because they wouldn't renege on their confession of Jesus as Lord.

When Bishop Nicholas walked out of the prison, the crowds called to him: "Nicholas! Confessor!" He had been repeatedly beaten until he was raw, and his body was the color of vermilion. Bishop Nicholas was also said to have intervened on behalf of unjustly charged prisoners and actively sought to help his people survive when they had experienced two successive bad harvests.

Nicholas opposed Arianism, the belief that Jesus was a created being and not divine, and according to some, perhaps apocryphal, traditions, actually attended the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. where he got into a physical altercation with Arias himself.

Whether that's true or not, the story of St. Nicholas (Say Saint Nicholas quickly with an Italian accent and you get Santa Claus) is a lot different, and much more interesting, than the popular mythology surrounding him.

Read the whole thing at the link.

The Problem of Evil (Part III)

In the last couple of posts we discussed one classical response by theists to the problem of evil based upon the assumed existence of human free will. It was pointed out, however, that although human volition might account for some kinds of evil, what's usually called moral evil, the question remains as to why an all-powerful, benevolent God would tolerate evil that resulted not from human free will but from natural causes like storms, accidents, famine, and disease.

Before attempting to address this question, we should be reminded that the understanding of God's power that we're working with holds that God can do anything that is logically possible to do, i.e. God can do anything that does not entail a contradiction or a logically inconceivable state of affairs.

For example, it is not within God's power to create a world in which it would be true to say that God did not create it. That's a logical impossibility and not even God can do the logically impossible.

So, the question before us is, wouldn't a perfectly good and omnipotent creator have designed a world in which there was no natural evil?

One way to answer this question, perhaps, is to suggest that it may not be possible, even for God, to create a world governed by physical laws in which there's no potential for harm. Any world governed by gravity, for instance, and the law of momentum is going to contain within it the potential for people to fall and suffer injury.

Thus the laws of gravity and momentum are not compossible with a world free of the potential for injury. Once God decided to create a world governed by laws, those laws entailed the possibility of harm.

At this point it might be objected that theists hold that God creates heaven and that heaven is a world in which there is no natural evil so it must be possible for a world governed by laws of some kind to exist without there being any human suffering. If God could create heaven, why wouldn't he, if he was perfectly good, create this world like that?

Perhaps the answer is that God did create this world like that. Perhaps the reason that there is no evil in heaven is that God's presence suffuses that world, fills every nook and cranny and acts as a governor, an override, on the laws which might otherwise result in harm to beings which exist there.

The skeptic might rejoin that even were he to grant that God's presence in heaven could serve as an override to the laws which govern that world, that doesn't help the theist because there's no reason why God couldn't do that here in this world as well, and, since he doesn't, he must not be perfectly good.

This is, however, exactly what Judeo-Christian theology says that God did, in fact, do. The account goes something like this: God created a world regulated by the laws of physics and indwelt that world with man, his presence negating any harmful effects the expression of those laws may have had. Although the potential for harm existed, there was no disease, suffering, accident, or even death.

At some point, however, man betrayed the idyllic relationship that existed between himself and God. In an act of cosmic infidelity, man chose to use his freedom in a way, the only way, apparently, that God had forbidden. It was as if a good and faithful husband returned home to discover the love of his life in bed with his worst enemy.

If, as the idea of an "open future" suggests, God did not foresee (though he was aware of the possibility) this crushing blow coming, it must have broken his heart, metaphorically speaking. Man had made a choice to treat with contempt the wishes of his creator, and God would not force him to do otherwise.

Grief-stricken at the rejection he suffered at the hands of his beloved, God withdrew his presence from the world, leaving man, in his self-imposed, self-chosen alienation and estrangement, to fend for himself against the laws and forces which govern the universe.

God did not abandon man entirely, but he has given man his autonomy, he has set man free in the world. All subsequent history is the story of God's attempt to woo mankind back to himself, to win back the heart of his unfaithful lover. God's love for us still burns, and he wants us back despite our disloyalty. Indeed, in the Christian account, he desires our love so much that he redeems us himself.

Man's infidelity deserves eternal divorce, eternal separation, from God, but God atones for our unfaithfulness himself on the cross in the person of Jesus the Messiah. The story of God's redemption is a magnificent, beautiful, tragic story, a romance, a story of faithfulness, goodness and perseverance, and it's the reason why Christians celebrate Christmas. It's a story that makes sense of human history.

If God does not exist, if death is the end of our existence, then all of life, all of history, is a "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." There is no purpose, there is no significance. It's all absurd. The evil which besets us, the suffering, pain, and grief we experience, are all meaningless. They're all for nothing.

Atheism, carried to its logical conclusion, ends in nihilism, the belief that nothing has meaning, nothing has value, nothing matters.

In the face of this despair Christianity infuses life with hope, meaning, and dignity. Christianity redeems the absurdity of the world by insisting that nothing in our world is for nothing. There is a reason for our existence and a reason why there is evil. We may not know what it is, but if we were created by God we may assume that God had a purpose for doing so, and that that purpose is our purpose.

If our world is beset by evil we have grounds for hoping that there is a reason why God endures it, and that in some future existence justice will be done and suffering will be no more.

Atheism offers no such hope. In a world without God people are born out of nothingness, they suffer, and eventually sink back into the void from whence they came, and there's no significance or meaning to any of it at all.

Atheism offers no basis for hope that there is any ultimate meaning to life or any ultimate justice in the world. It offers no basis for believing that right and wrong are grounded in anything other than subjective feelings. It offers no basis for granting human beings dignity and significance.

In a world without God there's no point or purpose to life beyond whatever short-term goals we set for ourselves to keep us from reflecting on the fact that everything we do ultimately goes for naught.

The Christian narrative may not be true, but each of us, including the atheist, should certainly want it to be and should certainly hope that it is. Inexplicably, though, most atheists hope for the very opposite. They hope that they are right that there is no God.

The atheist, in fact, finds himself in the awkward position of holding firmly to a view which, one might think, he should hope with all his heart and mind is completely wrong.

The Problem of Evil (Pt. II)

Yesterday we began a three part series on the problem that suffering (or evil) poses to theistic belief. We left off by asserting that the traditional anti-theistic claim that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent Creator fails because it's possible that the Creator is both able to prevent evil and desires to prevent evil but nevertheless has good reasons for permitting evil to exist.

If the theist adopts this line of argument, however, he or she is likely to be challenged to suggest a candidate for a good reason for allowing the awful suffering that has been inflicted upon men, women and children by nature and other men throughout history.

One possible response put forward by Christian theologians and philosophers ever since Augustine in the fourth century goes something like this:

Part of God's essence is that he is perfect love. Love desires an object, something to lavish itself upon, something to live in a relationship with. He could have made man so that man would have no choice but to love God, but this would be about as satisfying as programming the screen saver of your computer to say "I Love You." The most satisfying relationships are those between persons who are free to both receive and give love. Thus God created persons to live in a love relationship with him, and he endowed them with the quality of freedom so that they could genuinely choose to requite his love or to reject it.

This freedom is what makes us human, it makes us more than brutes, it gives us dignity. Without freedom we're little more than sophisticated robots and there's no dignity in that. Freedom is part of the Imago Dei. God gives us the freedom to choose as a marvelous gift, and to the extent that we misuse that gift, to the extent we use our freedom wrongly, moral evil enters the world.

So God could prevent moral evil and wants to eliminate it, but doing so would entail depriving us of the very thing that makes us human and makes our relationship with him meaningful, our free will. This would not only reduce us to automatons and destroy our humanity, it would nullify the whole purpose for which we were created in the first place, which is to live in a freely chosen love relationship with God.

Some might deride the idea that this love between God and man is worth allowing men to inflict such terrible misery upon his fellows. Whether this is so is difficult to ascertain from our vantage. We have to look at the matter sub specie aeternitatis, or from the standpoint of eternity. Surely, if this life is all there is then all human suffering is meaningless and existence is a cruel hoax for hundreds of millions of people whose lives have been filled with it.

On the other hand, if this life is a relatively brief interlude between nothingness and eternity, then our temporal suffering, as horrible as it may be, may ultimately seem a very small price to pay for having lived it.

So, the suggestion that moral evil exists because God gave man free-will as a means of enhancing and elevating our relationship to him seems plausible. It also seems plausible that the reason God does not prevent evil is because he considers it an even greater evil to strip us of our freedom and thus of our humanity.

However, this brings us to the difficulty we mentioned at the beginning of yesterday's post. Let's assume that it's possible to know the future. Let's assume, therefore, that God knows the future and thus knows what would happen in any world, not just this one, that he could create.

Among the worlds God could have created are worlds in which people are free to choose, but in which they always choose to do right.

Imagine God before the creation of the world. He has an image in his mind of every world he could possibly make. Because he knows everything it is possible to know (assuming that it is possible for God to know the future) he knows every choice that every being would make in every one of those worlds if that world were to actually be created.

At least one of those worlds, it would seem, would contain free beings who always chose to do the right thing. They could have chosen to do wrong, but they don't.

Such a world is certainly possible, after all, since Christians believe that heaven will be such a world. So the question is, would not a perfectly good and loving God have created that world instead of the world he did create where people are free but choose to do evil far too often?

Why, in other words, didn't God create the best world he possibly could? For God to have done less is to have deliberately created a world in which some people would suffer terribly, and then, if the traditional Christian view of hell is true, spend eternity in further torment, when he could have created a world in which no one would suffer from moral evil and no one would choose hell.

People would be free to choose in this world and would always choose to love God and each other. So, if that world is a possible world, one which God could have created, why didn't he create that world instead of this one? The fact that he didn't, it is alleged, is powerful reason to conclude that God is not perfectly good.

Faced with this question the theist is put in a difficult spot. He can plead that at this point our ability to understand God's ways simply fades out; or he can resort to something like Alvin Plantinga's concept of trans-world depravity, a flaw that afflicts every human in any possible world in which humans exist, and thus makes it impossible for God to create a world in which free people always choose to do right.

Or he can say that perhaps one of the things that is beyond God's power is to know what free beings will choose in a future which does not yet exist.

In this latter view, the world God fashioned may well be the best possible world he could have created, consonant with the existence of human freedom. Given that God desired to create a world in which humans were free, he had to accept that although he knew all possible outcomes, he didn't know for sure, or deliberately chose not to know, how man would use his gift of freedom.

Would man use it to love or to hate? In order to have creatures to love, God took a tremendous risk. He knew the stakes and deemed the risk to be worth taking.

As was said earlier, despite the advantage of providing an answer to the question why God didn't create a better world than the one he did create, there are serious difficulties with this theory and for that reason many theologians and philosophers think it to be on balance not worth the cost of what has to be given up in order to embrace it.

Some have even called proponents of this "Open Future" idea heretics.

In any case, the argument that evil is a consequence of human freedom, to the extent that it is persuasive, only accounts for why there is moral evil. It doesn't explain the existence of natural evils such as accidents, famines, disease, etc.

We'll talk about that tomorrow.

The Problem of Evil (Pt. I)

The philosophical problem of suffering (or evil) has come up in my classes so I thought it might be useful to reach back to a pair of posts from 2004 (7/27 and 8/8) which offer a few thoughts on the topic. The first post follows and the second will be up tomorrow:

In an earlier post entitled God and Time I mentioned that despite the serious liabilities entailed by the idea that God does not have complete knowledge of the future - that is, he doesn't know what choices free beings will make in their future - it is nevertheless an attractive idea because it provides the theist with an answer to a difficult apologetic question. That question arises in the course of attempts to give a reply to the problem of evil.

Let's look at that problem first and then the problematic question that it raises.

No doubt the most troubling objection to the existence of a God as traditionally construed by theists is the existence of evil in the world. Whether people are persuaded by the presence of evil that the existence of a God is unlikely or whether they employ evil as an a posteriori rationalization for the disbelief they've already embraced, it is a difficult challenge for theists and has been since at least the time of the ancient Greeks.

One thing that needs to be said about the problem is that despite its power to instill and sustain doubt, the reality of evil does not constitute a proof against God's existence. Its philosophical strength, its advocates argue, is that it makes the existence of God unlikely.

The traditional argument takes the form of a dilemma:

1.If God is perfectly good he would want to prevent evil.

2.If God is all-powerful he would be able to prevent evil.

3.However, evil exists.

4.Therefore, either God is not perfectly good or God is not all-powerful.

In either case, God is not the God of traditional theism.

As I said a moment ago, this is not a proof that God doesn't exist or that he's not all-powerful or good because it's possible to slip between the horns of the dilemma and reply that God could be both able to prevent evil and wants to prevent evil but for some reason chooses to permit it to occur.

Most anti-theists grant this as a theoretical possibility, but, they argue, the existence of evil makes the existence of an all-powerful all-loving God improbable. After all, they ask, what kind of God would allow evil to exist if he could prevent it? What loving father would stand by and do nothing as his child suffers if he could do something to stop it?

No reason the theist can come up with, the skeptic argues, can justify the suffering of an innocent child. Thus, it is unlikely that the world is the product of the kind of God theists believe in.

Before we consider the classical theistic response to this challenge we should lay a bit more groundwork.

First, we need to understand that to say that God is omnipotent is not to say that he can do anything at all. Rather, it is to say that God can do anything that it is logically possible to do. This means that it is beyond God's power to do anything which entails a contradiction of some sort.

For example, it is not within God's power to create a world in which it would be true to say that God did not create it, or, it is not within his power to bring it about that you and I, or God himself, never existed. These are contradictory states of affairs and therefore logical impossibilities.

A theist, though, might object here that God is not constrained by the laws of logic, that God really can make a square circle if he wishes, but if one wants to argue this way he has to recuse himself from arguing at all and retreat into a private mysticism where nothing much can be said about God. To abandon the constraints of logic is to put God beyond the ability of men to reason about him, or to know anything about him, because anything that one could say about God could be both true and false at the same time, which is incoherent.

The second thing we should mention is that there are two basic kinds of evil. There is evil that emerges from human volition, and there is evil which results from natural causes like disasters, disease, famine, etc. The first we may call moral evil and the latter we'll call natural evil.

Having established this, tomorrow we'll look at why God might allow moral evil to exist, given that all sides agree that it's within his power to prevent it. We'll take up the question of natural evil in part III.

The BGV Theorem and the Cosmological Argument

One of the most popular forms of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God (or at least something like God) goes like this:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

The argument then goes on to flesh out what sort of attributes a cause of the universe must have, and it turns out that those attributes describe a being that comes pretty close to the God of theism. It must, for example, transcend space, time, and materiality. It must be unimaginably powerful, intelligent, and personal.

Skeptics, however, take issue with the second premise. They argue that the universe could be past eternal, i.e. that it never had a beginning, but this view seems to run counter to the standard Big Bang model of cosmology which states that the universe exploded into being from a single point about 14 billion years ago.

One of the most prominent cosmologists in the field is a physicist named Alexander Vilenkin, who, along with Alan Guth and Arvinde Borde, developed the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem which asserts, among other things, that any universe that has the characteristics that ours does, had a beginning. Vilenkin writes about the implications of this theorem in an interesting piece here.

The passages most relevant to the second premise of the above argument are these:

Inflation [of the universe] cannot be eternal and must have some sort of a beginning.

[T]he universe could not have existed for an infinite amount of time before the onset of inflation.

This leads immediately to the conclusion that a cyclic universe cannot be past-eternal.

The answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.

Nevertheless, Vilenkin sees a problem with the first premise. He asserts that it's possible for a universe to pop into existence out of nothing:

If all the conserved numbers of a closed universe are equal to zero, then there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing. And according to quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen with some probability.

...No cause is needed for the quantum creation of the universe.

The theory of quantum creation is no more than a speculative hypothesis. It is unclear how, or whether, it can be tested observationally. It is nonetheless the first attempt to formulate the problem of cosmic origin and to address it in a quantitative way.

Two things: Vilenkin is not saying that the universe actually did begin causelessly out of "nothing," but rather that quantum theory can't rule it out.

Secondly, Vilenkin employs a metaphysically problematic concept of "nothing." He seems to be saying that the pre-creational state could have been a physical system of zero energy out of which the universe could have arisen uncaused. This state he defines as "nothing," but a physical state of any sort is surely not nothing.

It may have no material substance and the positive and negative energies may total zero or there may be no energy at all, but if it's a physical state then it's not nothing. We may have difficulty comprehending it and describing it, but at least we can say that it is something.

Nothing means "not anything," and what Vilenkin describes does not fit that definition.

In any event he closes his paper with these thoughts:

When physicists or theologians ask me about the BGV theorem, I am happy to oblige. But my own view is that the theorem does not tell us anything about the existence of God. A deep mystery remains. The laws of physics that describe the quantum creation of the universe also describe its evolution. This seems to suggest that they have some independent existence.

What exactly this means, we don’t know.

And why are these laws the ones we have? Why not other laws? We have no way to begin to address this mystery.

Well, with due respect to Professor Vilenkin, a good beginning to addressing the mystery can be found in the argument at the top of this post.

The "Hush Money" Bomb

Now that charges have been brought against Trump lawyer Michael Cohen for paying money to silence women with whom Mr. Trump had apparently had illicit relationships, Democrats are giddy at the prospect that the president will be implicated in a campaign finance violation which could lead to criminal charges.

It's not clear, though, whether Mr. Trump actually committed a crime or, if so, how serious a crime it is, but if the Democrats push for prosecution thinking they finally have the "bomb" that'll finish off the Trump presidency they might find themselves in the position of Wile E. Coyote who had the bomb blow up in his face every time he tried to use it to finish off the Roadrunner.

As Elad Hakim reminds us in a piece at The Federalist,

According to the Chicago Tribune, members of Congress have a “taxpayer hush money fund,” where claims for sexual harassment, discrimination and other workplace issues are settled and paid out with money supplied by the U.S. Treasury.

Unlike the payments in Trump’s case, which were seemingly made using personal funds, congressional settlements and payoffs used taxpayer funds. More importantly, if prosecutors take the position that hush-money payments made to protect a person’s reputation and family should be deemed campaign related expenditures (because they might affect an election), the precedent could be very problematic and far-reaching.

Indeed. If Trump is prosecuted how will our august legislators, whose number must rise to many dozens and include many Democrats, avoid similar legal jeopardy? If Trump is somehow legally "exposed" for using campaign funds, which may have been his own money, to pay off his paramours, how much more legal exposure should congresspersons have for using taxpayer money for the same purpose?

Hakim again:

If Trump’s payments are deemed to be campaign-related expenses for the purpose of impacting an election, should each and every House or Senate member who has engaged in such conduct face criminal charges?

According to The Daily Signal, “Last year, it was reported that Congress has secretly paid out over $17 million to settle close to 300 cases by staffers claiming sexual and other forms of harassment and discrimination.”

If prosecutors failed to pursue charges relating to each of these individual claims and payments (normally these are made in secret and the identities of the parties are withheld unless suit is filed), would they be applying the law arbitrarily and unfairly?

Hakim closes with this admonition:

Although some legal scholars have openly stated that the payments in Trump’s case do not appear to have violated campaign finance rules, Mueller, prosecutors in the Southern District of New York and congressional Democrats should think long and hard about the precedent they are attempting to set.

While their eyes are set on one particular person, the potential impact could end up netting many others who have engaged in similar (or worse) conduct.

Little wonder that some Democrats are now suggesting that, on second thought, maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to make a big deal out of Trump's hush money payments.

1776 or 1789?

In his recent book Last Call for Liberty, Os Guinness adopts as his theme the idea that our culture is riven between those who walk in the traditions of two historical revolutions: The American revolution of 1776 and the French revolution of 1789.

Borrowing Guinness' motif we might ask which of these traditions informs our own thinking. How do we regard the freedoms vouchsafed in the first two amendments to the United States' Constitution? Indeed, how do we think of freedom itself?

Do we believe, for instance, that individuals have the right to voice whatever they believe to be true as long as they neither inflict nor encourage physical or economic harm to others?

Should individuals who disagree with the consensus on matters of race, science, gender, politics or religion be free to express those views without being sanctioned and compelled to silence? Should people have to risk being assaulted, losing their jobs or being shouted down merely because their views are unpopular?

If you believe that certain unpopular views are offensive and hateful and that no one should have the right to voice them publicly then you stand in what Guinness calls the tradition of 1789.

If you believe that minority views should be granted the same rights as majority views and that minority opinions should be countered not with rudeness, violence or the loss of one's livelihood but with superior arguments respectfully formulated, then you stand in the tradition of 1776.

If you believe that people should be free to practice their religion even if it inconveniences someone else, as long as it does others no physical harm, then you stand in the tradition of 1776.

On the other hand, if you believe that those who hold religious beliefs that run counter to the popular consensus on race, science, gender, etc. should be compelled to conform to the consensus beliefs then you stand in the tradition of 1789.

The French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote in 1762, that "Whoever refuses to pay obedience to the general will (i.e. the state) shall be liable to be compelled to it by the force of the whole body. And this is in effect nothing more than that he may be compelled to be free."

Rousseau's disciples have ever since taken him to be condoning state coercion of not only behavior but also of speech.

Liberty encompasses freedom to and freedom from. In the 1776 tradition the freedom to hold and voice opinions, to practice one's religion and to be free from needless government constraint are prized.

Another French philosopher, Voltaire, has been credited with having declared that he may disagree with what you say, but he will fight to the death for your right to say it. If he indeed did say this then he walked in the tradition of 1776.

Those who today impose speech codes on campus, who police politically correct expressions, who shout down speakers with whom they disagree walk arm in arm with those who imposed the French Terror in the wake of 1789.

Moreover, if you believe that the second amendment confers upon individuals the right to defend their families, themselves and their property you're following the path of the American founders. If you believe that no such right accrues to individuals, nor should accrue, then you're following the path of those who rose to power in the immediate aftermath of the French revolution.

The 1776 tradition holds that individual persons are significant because each is endowed by his or her Creator with certain inalienable rights. The 1789 tradition, or at least the mindset that arose in the wake of 1789, holds that the individual is simply a cog in the grand machinery of the state and has only those rights which the state deigns to grant. The state is everything, the individual is nothing.

The thinking of 1789 led quickly to a bloodbath by guillotine from 1792 to 1794 in which as many as 40,000 persons were slaughtered, and that pattern reemerged in the Russian revolution of 1917 which produced Stalin and the deaths of millions, and also in Mao's Cultural Revolution in the 1960s which led to the deaths of millions more.

If you believe that individuals have dignity, worth and certain inalienable rights you will feel a kinship with the American founders. If you believe that individuals are of value only insofar as they're useful to the state then you'll feel a kinship with the French Jacobins, the Stalinists and the Maoists who sought to carry this view to its logical conclusion and who would do so again today in Europe and in the U.S. if ever they're allowed to rise to power.

Why Impeachment Is a Bad Idea

The Democrats at CNN and MSNBC can scarcely restrain their glee at the prospect of impeaching Donald Trump when the new congress convenes in January. Even so, the more realistic among them are probably counselling against impeachment, unless something much more criminally substantial turns up against the president.

Impeachment proceedings against a president whose approval ratings are in the high forties could easily blow up in the Democrats' faces as David Marcus at http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/11/why-democrats-would-be-insane-to-impeach-donald-trump/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=e28d0d6e26-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-e28d0d6e26-83778945 The Federalist explains.

Marcus opines that it would be a grave error on the part of the Democrats to impeach Trump and offers several reasons, chief among which are the similarities with the last impeachment of a president. Here's a summary:

Clinton’s troubles began with having a difficult time keeping his pants on. Also like Trump, lying about and trying to obfuscate an illicit tryst was eventually the high crime or misdemeanor that Republicans in the House in 1998 latched onto.

When the dust settled from the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1999, his approval rating sat at an astounding 73 percent. That’s a note of caution to Democrats who believe that, having taken the House of Representatives, they should impeach Donald Trump....

[W]hile the American people did not believe Clinton, they also did not believe he had acted badly enough for Congress to overturn the results of a free and fair presidential election....

Let’s think about this for a minute. The thrice-married Trump, who has been known to boast about adultery like a suburban dad who won the best lawn in the neighborhood award, apparently had sex with a porn star and a Playboy playmate. That seems about par for his course.

But wait! He lied about it! Well, yeah, also pretty much behavior we knew about and expected. But there’s more! He might have violated campaign finance law! Okay, but so do a lot of campaigns. Usually they pay a fine and we all move along.

The House can impeach the president, i.e. bring charges against him, but it is the role of the Senate to convict and there's zero chance of that happening, as of now, in the GOP-controlled Senate.

The Democrats know this and even the most otiose voter will learn it eventually. The electorate will thus see the Democrats' efforts as a grand waste of time and money whose only purpose was to hurt Trump politically.

This is precisely why President Clinton gained so much support from the Republicans' attempts to get him out of office. It was seen as a mean-spirited overreach, an effort to destroy a man for political reasons.

Marcus closes with this:

Trump’s eventual and almost certain acquittal in the Senate would be just as much a victory for him as it was for Bill Clinton. The Democrats, including presidential hopefuls, who supported it would be roundly embarrassed by having wasted the nation’s time, money, and attention tilting at an impossible windmill.

This is not a close call. If at some point Robert Mueller, CNN, or the Washington Post discover some crime that even Senate Republicans admit is disqualifying for Trump’s presidency, then by all means, impeach him. Nothing we have seen so far suggests that such a contingency is particularly likely.

For the sake of the country’s sanity, and their own political chances, the Democrats should holster their impeachment pistol and worry about explaining to Americans why one of them, not Trump, should be president of the United States.

Actually, it might be easier to try to get Trump convicted of whatever charges the House Democrats bring against him than to explain to the American people how or why any of them would offer the nation a superior alternative to Donald Trump.

Only Our Closest Relatives?

An article in Science Daily on altruistic behavior in plants, of all things, quotes a Harvard evolutionary biology professor named William Friedman:

"One of the most fundamental laws of nature is that if you are going to be an altruist, give it up to your closest relatives," said Friedman. "Altruism only evolves if the benefactor is a close relative of the beneficiary."

Either Friedman doesn't consider altruism in humans to be a product of evolution, which would be an odd stance for an evolutionary biologist to take, or he's never heard of Mother Teresa.

Rising Seas

We've all heard the gloomy prophecies that global warming will, by the end of the century, have caused a calamitous rise in sea levels, notwithstanding our previous president's confident bluster that his election ten years ago portended a reversal of the trend.

Last June Penn State climatologist Michael Mann prophesied that the oceans would rise six to eight feet by the year 2100. Climatologist James Hansen, who also predicted in 1988 that New York City's West Side Highway would be flooded within twenty to forty years, warns that such an outcome would cause coastal cities to be inundated and precipitate mass migrations of urban dwellers into the hinterlands.

But not all climate scientists are convinced. One skeptic is Judith Curry who argues that the data simply don't warrant the dire claims of her colleagues.

In an article at The Daily Caller Curry is quoted as saying that, “Projections of extreme, alarming impacts are very weakly justified to borderline impossible.”

The article goes on to say that,

Curry, however, sees estimates of sea level rise above two feet by the end of the century as “weakly justified” even at high levels of warming. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts the likely range of sea level rise at 10 to 32 inches.

Alarming sea level rise predictions are based on “a cascade of extremely unlikely-to-impossible events using overly simplistic models of poorly understood processes,” Curry wrote in her report.

Current sea level rise is well-within natural variability of the past few thousand years, according to Curry. Curry said coastal communities should base their future flood plans on likely scenarios, such as one to two feet, rather than high-end scenarios.

“There is not yet any convincing evidence of a human fingerprint on global sea level rise, because of the large changes driven by natural variability,” Curry wrote. “An increase in the rate of global sea level rise since 1995 is being caused by ice loss from Greenland.”

However, the “Greenlandic ice loss was larger during the 1930s, which was also associated with the warm phase of the Atlantic Ocean circulation pattern,” Curry wrote.

In other words, sea level fluctuations are normal and the predictions of her colleagues are hyperbolic. In any case, there's probably at present not much more that the U.S. can do, practically speaking, than it has already done to reduce greenhouse gasses. Surely, there's little appetite for following the French example.

French President Macron apparently thought that the French people would be willing to bite the bullet and pay higher fuel costs in order to reduce their petroleum consumption and fund renewable energy sources, but he seems to have badly misjudged the willingness of the French middle class to impoverish themselves in order to keep the Riviera beaches available for the great, great, great grandchildren of the French elites.

Today Paris is in flames, and so are Macron's hopes of lessening the French carbon footprint.

Barnacle Goose

From time to time I've posted on birds that I've been fortunate to see in my little corner of the world. One bird that makes it into eastern Pennsylvania once or twice each winter is a resident of Greenland but which occasionally wanders south in the winter into the Middle Atlantic states.

The bird is called the Barnacle goose and it's perhaps the most handsome of all the geese seen in the United States. Recently, one of these birds turned up in a park about an hour and a half from my home, so, since I had never seen one before, I decided over the weekend to go see this one.

One thing that makes Barnacle geese especially interesting is the manner in which their young are fledged. They're hatched on ledges high up on cliff faces, but their natural milieu lies in the water hundreds of feet below. Watch this video to see the remarkable manner by which they get from the ledge to the water:

That any of them survive is surely one of the wonders of the animal kingdom.

A Young Woman You Should Know About

Thirty years ago the last place people would've thought free speech was imperilled was North American universities, yet today the pressure on students to conform to politically correct speech codes in some schools is enormous.

Consider the story of a young grad student named Lindsay Shepherd who attended Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada:

On November 1, 2017, during a first-year undergraduate class Shepherd was teaching, she showed two clips from a public Canadian television channel. The first featured [University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson], who has been an outspoken opponent of Canadian laws that mandate the use of transgender pronouns.

A heated discussion among the students followed the videos. Later, a student approached an LGBTQ support group, which then filed a complaint with the university’s Diversity and Equity Office. That office requested a meeting with Shepherd on November 8.

Shepherd secretly recorded the meeting, which turned into an interrogation. During the 40-minute circus, university staff (who acknowledged her “positionality” regarding open inquiry), accused her of having created a “toxic climate for some of the students” by playing the clips and approaching the topic neutrally (emphasis mine).

One professor even compared the pronoun debate to discussing whether a student of color should have rights. He also called Peterson a member of the “alt-right” and compared playing a clip featuring Peterson to “neutrally playing a speech by Hitler or Milo Yiannopoulos.” Peterson’s perspective was also rejected as “not valid,” as, apparently, not all perspectives are up for debate.

Shepherd released the recording to Canadian media. Not long afterward, WLU’s president, Deborah MacLatchy, apologized, as did Nathan Rambukkana, a professor and Shepherd’s academic advisor, who was the main antagonist in the meeting. MacLatchy said the meeting did not “reflect the values and practices to which Laurier aspires.”

Shepherd filed a lawsuit in June 2018 against the university, Rambukkana, and several others, for damages of $3.6 million, claiming “harassment, intentional infliction of nervous shock, negligence, and constructive dismissal.” Peterson also filed a lawsuit against Laurier and several university staff.

It's incredible that adopting a "neutral" standpoint on a controversial issue would get an instructor into trouble with her administration in an institution which is putatively committed to free and open inquiry.

It's also ironic because Shepherd considered herself, until this episode, to be a leftist progressive who supports environmental causes and gay marriage. Since then, however, she has published a video on her website which she titles "Goodbye to the Left" in which she explains why she no longer considers herself a leftist although she still retains the same position on many of the social issues she did previously.

The left, however, is so rife with censorship, victimhood culture and moral righteousness that she no longer feels a part of it. Her video has received almost a million views. You can read more about Shepherd at the link as well as get links to her video and youtube channel.

Her story is a common one. Liberals who value free speech and the free flow of ideas are finding themselves hounded, intimidated and driven from their jobs and careers by an intolerant, Stalinist left that brooks no challenge to, questioning of nor deviation from its dogmas.

The left is fond of purging from its midst anyone who sits just the slightest bit to their right, but by eliminating everyone situated to the right of the progressive mainstream they ensure that the mainstream continually moves leftward toward fascism, communism or some other tyrannical totalitarianism.

The left - not just the extremists in Antifa but also those who populate our college and university faculties and administrations as well as many in the upper echelons of the Democratic party - is a very real threat to the freedoms we take for granted as Americans, freedoms that are today under the greatest assault of any time in our nation's history.

Lindsay Shepherd and many others are unfortunately having to discover this the hard way. Google, for instance, the stories of liberals like Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax, Evergreen College biology professor Brett Weinstein or Google software engineer James Damore to see how liberals who have the temerity to express heterodox opinions are harrassed and even have their careers ruined by the progressive brown shirts.

It's our future unless people who value our traditional freedoms stand up to the bullies and stop voting into office those who are the bullies' political enablers.

Biological Machines

Among the phenomena which support the claim that life is the product of intentional, intelligent design is the sheer number of complex molecular machines that operate in each of the trillions of our body's cells to ensure that these cells carry out the functions that keep us alive.

One of these machines is the system of proteins that synthesizes adenosine triphosphate (ATP) from adenosine diphosphate (ADP). Here's a short video animation that describes how this machine, called ATP synthase, works:

There are thousands of such machines in the cell, all of which, on the standard Darwinian account, somehow developed - through random, undirected, processes - not only their structure, not only the coordination with other systems in the cell necessary for proper function, but also the genetic regulatory mechanisms that control how and when the machine operates. If it happened, it's a near-miraculous achievement for blind, undirected processes.

David Hume, in his famous essay On Miracles, wrote that when we hear an account of a miracle we should ask ourselves whether it's more likely, given our experience, that a law of nature had been violated or that the witness was somehow mistaken. Hume argued that a mistaken witness is always more likely than that a law of nature had been violated, and we should always, he insisted, believe what's most likely. Applying Hume's principle to the present case, we should ask ourselves, what is the greater miracle, that an astonishing mechanism like ATP synthase came about by chance and luck or that it came about by intelligent engineering?

It seems to me that the only way one can assert the former is if they've already, a priori, ruled out the possibility of the existence of the intelligent engineer, but, of course, that begs the question. Whether the intelligent engineer exists is the very matter we're trying to answer by asking whether blind chance or intelligence is the best explanation for the existence in living things of such machines as ATP synthase.

If we allow the evidence to speak for itself rather than allow our prior metaphysical commitments to dictate what the evidence says then I'm pretty sure most people would agree that the kind of specified complexity we see in this video points unequivocally to the existence of a designing mind.

If this video has piqued your interest here's another that pushes us toward the same conclusion. It's an animation of just a few of the structures and processes in a living cell. Note the amazing motor protein that carries the vesicle along the microtubule:

How does the motor protein "know" to carry the vesicle along the microtubule and where to take it? What regulates the process? What's the source of the information needed to choreograph this phenomenon? How and why did such a complex system ever come about? Was it all just blind chance and serendipity or was it somehow a product of intelligence? On which of those possible explanations, intelligence or blind, purposeless, random processes, are such mechanisms more likely?

Why People Are Poor

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute has a book coming out this week titled The Inclusive Economy: How to Bring Wealth America’s Poor in which he argues that the primary reasons for poverty in this country are the laws and policies enacted by the government which make it harder for the poor to escape to the middle class.

He talks about his thesis in an article at National Review Online. His article opens with this:

Why are people poor? Conservatives and liberals offer very different explanations.

Conservatives point to a “culture of poverty” and suggest that much deprivation is the result of flawed choices and behavior by the poor themselves. They point to a strong correlation between poverty and a failure to follow the so-called “success sequence”: finish school, get a job, get married, and only then have children. Relatively few people who do those things end up in poverty.

Liberals, on the other hand, say that that is all very well, but choices are always constrained by the circumstances in which people live. Therefore, conservatives are wrong to discount structural factors, such as racism, gender-based discrimination, and economic dislocation, that can help shape people’s choices.

There is truth to both explanations. One can’t strip the poor of agency by treating them as if they were little more than chaff blown by the wind, with no responsibility for their choices. But neither should we ignore the context in which those decisions are made. For all the progress we have made, not everyone starts with an equal opportunity.

Tanner argues that five areas of government policy impede economic and social progress among the poor.

Criminal Justice: Studies show that a criminal record dooms an inmate's children to poverty, and having a criminal record makes it harder to get a job and get married once released, both of which increase out-of-wedlock births.

Tanner cites a 2016 statement from President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers:

Having a criminal record or history of incarceration is a barrier to success in the labor market, and limited employment or depressed wages can stifle an individual’s ability to become self-sufficient. . . . Further, criminal sanctions create financial and emotional stresses that destabilize marriages and have adverse consequences for children.

Education: Poor children generally find themselves stuck in failing schools. These schools are not failing because they don't receive enough money, rather they fail for a host of socio-economic reasons that indeed may be intractable. The problem is that there are lots of motivated kids languishing in these schools who are essentially being taught nothing. The answer is to give parents a choice as to where their children will go to school.

Tanner writes:

An effective anti-poverty program would break up the government education monopoly and limit the power of the teachers’ unions. One can debate the precise merits of charter schools vs. vouchers vs. tuition tax credits, but, in the end, we must give parents more choice and control over their children’s education.

You'd think that people who talk about social justice would be on board with this, but it's the left which has over the years consistently thwarted attempts to give parents more options in their children's schooling.

Housing Policy: According to Tanner, government zoning and land-use policies can add as much as 40 percent to the cost of housing in some cities. In places such as New York City and San Francisco, the zoning cost is even higher, at 50 percent or more, and these regulations don’t merely increase the cost of rent which already consumes a big chunk of a poor family's resources; they effectively lock the poor out of areas with more jobs or better schools.

Savings: Tanner asserts that, "Asset tests for public programs punish the poor for saving. And Social Security squeezes out opportunities for the poor to save for themselves. We need to reconfigure a wide variety of current policies to encourage thrift, saving, and investment."

Inclusive Economic Growth: Tanner urges our leaders "to pursue policies such as low taxes, reduced government debt, and deregulation, policies that spur investment, entrepreneurship, and the economic growth that will increase the wealth of our society."

He goes on to add that,

[I]t’s not enough to encourage economic growth if the poor remain locked out of participation in that growing economy. That means we need to eliminate barriers such as occupational-licensing rules, occupational zoning, and the minimum wage.

For example, it's estimated that more than 1,100 different professions (25 to 30 percent of all job categories) require a license in at least one state, from florists to funeral attendants, from tree trimmers to make-up artists. The removal of licensure barriers not only unlocks employment and entrepreneurial opportunities for the poor in low-skill occupations but also lowers prices.

Similarly, occupational zoning can prevent a poor person from starting a small business in his or her home. And minimum-wage laws can block low-skilled workers from getting that first job, and therefore a start on the economic ladder.

Liberals will cheer Tanner's advocacy of criminal justice reform while conservatives will applaud his remaining four policy recommendations. The larger point, though, is that government bureaucracy, mandates and general officiousness does more to hurt the poor than to help them.

That's another assertion that conservatives will register strong agreement with.

Unfortunately, the poor, generally, keep voting for people who think that the way to eliminate poverty is to enact policies that make it harder for people to overcome it.

He concludes with this:

An anti-poverty agenda built on empowering poor people and allowing them to take greater control of their own lives offers the chance for a new bipartisan consensus that rejects the current paternalism of both Left and Right.

More important, it is an agenda that will do far more than our current failed welfare state to actually lift millions of Americans out of poverty.

It all makes sense to me.

Are Humans Merely Animals?

It's been said that the 20th century abolished the difference between man and animal (via Darwinian materialism) and that the 21st century seeks to abolish the difference between man and machine (via AI, among other things).

Whether the latter effort will be successful remains to be seen, but the conflation of man with other mammals is hard to credit. The differences between human beings and animals are not simply quantitative - humans are not simply more intelligent - they're qualitative as well.

Humans, for example, have a sense of beauty and a desire to be surrounded by it. We possess a sense of humor, a sense of morality, a sense of the transcendent, an ability to create music and an ability to think abstractly, all of which are unique in the animal kingdom.

Paul Gosselin, in his book Flight from the Absolute, adds a few more unique human capacities. He writes that in addition to some of the aforementioned, mankind's abilities include:

...the awareness of his own existence, awareness of his future death (even when not imminent), his ability to develop and perceive his identity, his ability to develop a belief system and build a culture/civilization on this basis.

Perhaps, though, the most amazing ability possessed uniquely by humans is language. Gosselin quotes linguist Noam Chomsky who wrote:

When we study human language, we are approaching what some might call the "human essence," the distinctive qualities of mind that are, so far as we know, unique to man ....this creative aspect of normal language use is one fundamental factor that distinguishes human language from any known system of animal communication.

Ideas have consequences. Gosselin observes that if the difference between humans and animals is only quantitative we're led to the conclusion that there's no reason to treat humans differently from animals. He quotes philosopher Mortimer Adler in this regard:

If a difference in degree justifies a difference in treatment, why would not superior men be justified in treating inferior men in whatever way men think they're justified in treating non-human animals....[Men] kill animals for for the enjoyment of the sport; or, ... for the purposes...of medical research.

Now, if these actions can be justified by nothing more than a difference in degree between human and non-human animals, why is not the same justification available for the actions of Nazis or other racists?

Indeed, the superior/inferior distinction has been used throughout human history to justify all manner of slaughter and slavery.

"But," someone might object, "humans have a responsibility to act differently because we're aware of what we're doing." Yes, but then we're not only conceding that humans are indeed unique, we're imputing to them a special responsibility that no other creature has. Where does this responsibility come from? If we're solely a product of blind, purposeless evolutionary forces how can we be burdened with any responsibility other than, perhaps, to insure our own survival?

We humans insist that we have a responsibility to treat others as equals, not as inferiors, and not only this but a responsibility, too, to preserve the earth's resources for future generations. But such responsibilities only exist if they're imposed on us from outside ourselves.

The naturalistic view that tells us that we're just an animal leaves no room for any such outside imposition of responsibility, nor can it it account for it by invoking the evolutionary process. It is, in other words, a totally baseless assumption, an article of blind faith, that the naturalist has no reason for holding other than that it makes him feel good.

Eight Questions

One thing that the last couple of decades of watching the political machinations of the progressive left has taught us is not to expect consistency from them.

At the outset of WWII the left was a strong defender of Adolf Hitler's National Socialist party. Their support for Hitler was due entirely to their love for Stalin's communism. Stalin and Hitler were allies so the American left swooned over Hitler. Then Hitler invaded the U.S.S.R. and overnight the left became the mortal enemy of all things German.

Their fickle inconstancy has been the trademark of our progressive friends ever since. Here are a few questions raised by contemporary events that illustrate the point:

Why do progressives swear complete fealty to science when the issue is evolution or climate change but abandon or even reject biological science altogether when the topic is gender identity?

Why do progressives praise former president George H.W. Bush as a man of great accomplishment and decency now that he has passed, despite having slammed and mocked him when he was president and voting for a scandal-plagued serial adulterer instead of Bush in the 1992 election?

I don't wish to sound insensitive, but the question is hard to avoid: Is it the case for the left that the only good Republican is a dead Republican?

Why has the left condemned the Trump administration for using tear gas on migrants who were throwing rocks at the border police and charging the crossing, but said nothing when the Obama administration used tear gas against migrants an average of once a month during the last five years of Obama's presidency?

Why do progressive Democrats denounce as bigots those who hold views on illegal immigration and gay marriage similar to those held by progressive heroes like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama up until the day before yesterday?

Why do liberals tell us repeatedly that we have no right to judge the morals of other cultures and then express outrage when our government refrains from condemning Saudi Arabia for murdering a journalist?

Why do liberals denounce assaults on women but say little about the practice among some immigrant communities in this country of female genital mutilation which has victimized over 500,000 women?

Why would the left call it racist hate if white students were to demand that they be given public spaces on campus from which minority students were excluded, or refuse to allow black students to sit at their lunch table and have the university president actually defend them in a Washington Post editorial, but not if, as was actually the case, blacks were to do exactly the same thing vis a vis whites?

If progressives wish to have more credibility with people of common sense they need to be a lot more consistent in the positions they take. Otherwise, they just look like people who'll say anything in order to gain power and political advantage.

Science and the Good

A new book by sociologist James Davison Hunter and philosopher Paul Nedelisky explores the history of attempts by scientists and philosophers in the West to develop a moral law without invoking any transcendent moral lawgiver or any other theological presuppositions. That project, Hunter and Nedelisky conclude, has failed.

It's apparently beyond the scope of their book (titled Science and the Good) to explore the reasons why this 400 year effort has failed to produce the desired moral code, but those reasons, it seems to me, are fairly obvious.

No non-theistic account of morality can explain why human beings have dignity, rights and worth. No secularized morality, which by its nature excludes ultimate accountability, can have any binding force.

It cannot impose duties or obligations, nor can it give a plausible explanation of what it means to say that a particular behavior is wrong. Nor can secular ethics give a satisfactory answer to the egoist who asks why he would be wrong to care only about his own interests and not bother himself at all with concerns about the well-being of other people.

This is why naturalism, or atheism, leads logically to moral nihilism even if most naturalists don't take the atheistic train all the way to that station.

Judeo-Christian morality, based on God's revelation to man, is the only plausible ground for a morality that does not end up in nihilism.

Only if we're made in the image of God by a Creator who loves us do we have dignity, worth and human rights.

Only if an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, perfectly good Creator has designed us to be a certain kind of creature and wills that we behave in accord with the Manufacturer's specifications can we say that violating that will is wrong.

Only if the Creator holds us accountable for how we live are we, in fact, accountable in any meaningful sense.

Only if the Creator insists that we love our neighbor, with all that that entails, do we have moral obligations to others.

Take away the Creator, God, and all of the foregoing evanesces, like the body of the Cheshire cat in Alice. To the extent any of it persists at all it's just an arbitrary expression of personal taste or mere illusion.

This goes a long way, I think, toward explaining why our culture is in the inauspicious state it's in today. We're like astronauts floating about in space trying to decide which way is up. Our moral judgments, like the astronaut's, are purely a result of our own subjective feelings and have no purchase on anyone else. As Rousseau put it 250 years ago, "Whatever I feel is good, is good; whatever I feel is bad, is bad."

In his book The Atheist's Guide to Reality Duke philosopher Alex Rosenberg, himself an atheist, puts the matter more plainly than most. He maintains that having abandoned God, atheism leaves us with science as the only reliable source of knowledge.

This faith in the epistemic power of science is called scientism and, Rosenberg argues, it leads straight to nihilism, but most people, unlike him, balk at going that far. He gives three reasons for their hesitancy:

In a world where physics fixes all the facts, it’s hard to see how there could be room for moral facts. In a universe headed for its own heat death, there is no cosmic value to human life, your own or anyone else’s. Why bother to be good? ….

First, nihilism can’t condemn Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or those who fomented the Armenian genocide or the Rwandan one. If there is no such thing as “morally forbidden,” then what Mohamed Atta did on September 11, 2001, was not morally forbidden. Of course, it was not permitted either. But still, don’t we want to have grounds to condemn these monsters? Nihilism seems to cut that ground out from under us.

Second, if we admit to being nihilists, then people won’t trust us. We won’t be left alone when there is loose change around. We won’t be relied on to be sure small children stay out of trouble.

Third, and worst of all, if nihilism gets any traction, society will be destroyed. We will find ourselves back in Thomas Hobbes’s famous state of nature, where “the life of man is solitary, mean, nasty, brutish and short.” Surely, we don’t want to be nihilists if we can possibly avoid it. (Or at least, we don’t want the other people around us to be nihilists.) ….

Scientism, he avers, can’t avoid nihilism. We need to make the best of it. He writes:

To avoid the aforementioned outcomes, people have been searching for scientifically respectable justification of morality for least a century and a half. The trouble is that over the same 150 years or so, the reasons for nihilism have continued to mount.

Both the failure to find an ethics that everyone can agree on and the scientific explanation of the origin and persistence of moral norms have made nihilism more and more plausible while remaining just as unappetizing.

So, what's an atheist to do? The choice is either give up one's atheism or give up on morality. Rosenberg and others, strangely enough, opt for the latter.