Theism as an Inference to the Best Explanation (Pt. V)

Today's post concludes our series on theism as an inference to the best explanation for numerous facts about ourselves and the universe we inhabit.

I'd like to finish up with these four existential traits of human beings:

15. Our desire for justice
16. Our need for meaning and purpose
17. Our belief that we have an enduring self
18. Our desire to survive our own death

Human persons long for justice, but it's a longing for which there's no fulfillment if death is the end of our existence. We yearn to see good rewarded and evil punished. Our hearts break when evil appears to triumph over good, but it's the common human experience that many good people live lives filled with terrible fear, pain and grief and then they die.

Meanwhile, many who were the cause of that suffering come to the end of their lives peacefully and content after many years of pleasure. In a world without God everybody comes to the same end, everyone vanishes, and there's no reward or punishment, just nothingness. In the world of the atheist, it doesn't matter ultimately whether you're Mother Teresa or Adolf Hitler, and there's no hope that justice will ever be done.

Only if there's a transcendent moral authority, like God, who has the power to hold us accountable for how we treat others is justice in any ultimate sense possible.

Humans also crave meaning to our existence. We can't bear living a life we know to be pointless and insignificant, but in the absence of God death nullifies everything and renders it all nugatory. There's no fixed purpose or value to anything we do. Everything we strive for is destined to perish either after we die or eventually in a solar explosion that will incinerate the earth, after which there'll be not a trace that humans ever existed. What will all of our efforts and achievements matter then?

All our struggles are like the furious running of a gerbil in his treadmill. Our lives are just a footprint in the sand at the edge of a space-time surf. When all is washed away and the cosmos is left as though we were never here, the greatest acts of heroism, charity, and scientific discovery will mean absolutely nothing.

If the atheist is correct, if our existence is simply a temporary fluke of nature, a cosmic accident, then we have no reason to think that anything we do actually matters at all in any permanent sense. If, on the other hand, we have been created by God we may assume that He had some purpose for making us. We may not know what that purpose is, but we have a basis for hoping that there is one. Indeed, if there is a God then we have reason to hope that what we do is not ephemeral, it's eternal, and that each life has an everlasting meaning.

Another point: In a Godless world the concept of soul becomes problematic and with it the notion of a self other than the physical body. Since our body is constantly changing, however, we are continuously creating a new self, moment by moment, year by year. There is nothing which perdures through time which makes me the same person I think I was ten years ago. There is no permanent "I," only a kaleidoscopic, fragmented bundle of patterns, impressions, memories, none of which has any real significance in determining who I really am.

As T.S. Eliot put it in The Cocktail Party, "What we know of other people is only our memory of the moments during which we knew them. And they have changed since then....at every meeting we are meeting a stranger." Our sense that we are a self strongly suggests, however, that there's more to us than just our physical being. Yet, unless there is a God physical flux is all there is.

If there is a God, then it's possible that our self, our identity, persists through time because He constantly holds us, our individual essence, in being in His mind. So, while in one sense we're constantly morphing into someone different, in another sense we remain the same person we've always been.

Finally, human beings want desperately to live and yet we know we're going to die. In a Godless universe, the fate of each of us is annihilation. There's no basis for hope that loved ones we've lost still somehow exist or that we'll ever "see" them again. There's no consolation for the bereaved, no salve for grief. Many face this bravely, of course, but, if they're reflective, they must acknowledge that their bravery serves to mask an inner despair. Many still harbor a profound wish that their loved ones still exist and that they'll someday be reunited with them.

But if death is the end of our existence our life truly is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," a Shakespeare put it in MacBeth. If death is the end then human existence is completely absurd. But, of course, death is the end if the materialist is right.

Only if God exists is there a realistic basis for hope of something beyond this life. Only if God exists can we have a reasonable hope that our longing for life will be fulfilled.

So, we are confronted with a choice: Either we believe that there is no God and that consequently our existential yearnings are inexplicable and unfulfillable, a view which leads to nihilism, or we believe that there is a God and that we possess those yearnings because they point us to the source of their satisfaction. They point us toward God.

In other words, the existence of God is, I believe, the best explanation for the human condition. The atheist has no good explanation for these yearnings and must take a leap of faith to avoid the nihilism and despair toward which her worldview pushes her. She has to live as if God exists while denying that He does. Many atheists actually repudiate their own naturalism simply by the way they choose to live their lives.

I've sought in this series of posts to briefly suggest why the simplest explanation for the nature of the world and the deepest longings and feelings of the human spirit is that they are what they are because they conform to some existential reality. Those profound convictions are most simply accounted for by positing the possibility of their satisfaction, but they can only be satisfied if there is a being that corresponds to the traditional notion of God.

If theism is correct we can find intellectual and emotional contentment in the hope that the tragic condition of the world and of our lives is only temporary, that death is not the end and that a beautiful future lies ahead.

If God exists then we can assume that He made us for a reason, that there is a purpose to our existence and that we have dignity and inalienable rights as human beings because we are made in the image of God and loved by Him. If God exists then there is a transcendent moral authority which obligates us to respect others, which provides us in this life with an objective standard upon which to base moral judgment and which will ultimately mete out justice.

We feel guilt because we're actually guilty. We feel free because we're actually free. We have an identity that endures because that identity exists in the mind of God. If God exists there is a basis for hope and some sense can be made of an otherwise senseless and existentially chaotic world.

The atheist, if he's consistent with his belief that there is no God, finds himself completely at odds in almost every important way with the nature of his own being. He finds himself inexplicably out of synch with his world. He is alone, forlorn, abandoned in an empty, unfeeling, indifferent universe that offers no solace nor prospect that there might be meaning, morality, justice, dignity, and solutions to the riddles of existence. The atheist lives without expectation or hope that any of the most profound yearnings of our hearts and minds can ever be fulfilled.

How, then, do we come to have these yearnings? Why would natural selection shape us in such a way as to be so metaphysically and psychologically out of phase with the world in which we are situated?

It's possible, of course, that the atheistic answer is correct, that this is just the way things are, and we should simply make the best of a very bad situation. Yet surely the skeptic should hope that he's mistaken. Surely he would want there to be a God to infuse the cosmos with all the richness it is starved of by His absence.

Nevertheless, I've never known or read one who held such a hope. It's incomprehensible that some, like philosopher Thomas Nagel, for instance, actually cling to the fervent desire that there be no God. This is tantamount to wishing, bizarrely enough, that life really is a meaningless, senseless, cruel and absurd joke. Nagel writes in his book The Last Word:

"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."

Nagel's ability to see his motivations clearly is uncommon and commendable, but his honesty and insight are little compensation for the profound sadness one feels at what he finds in his own heart. How anyone can actually wish the universe to be the sort of place where meaning, morality, justice, human worth and all the rest are vain illusions, is very difficult, for me at least, to understand.

Theism as an Inference to the Best Explanation (Pt. IV)

The theme of the last three posts has been that if we employ the principle of inference to the best explanation to the question of the existence of God it's reasonable to conclude that the best explanation for a host of facts about the world and human existence is that there is an intelligent mind, a God, that accounts for them.

In today's post I'd like to briefly examine six facts of human existence and explain why I think theism accounts for them more seamlessly than does naturalism. The six facts are these:

9. Our desire for answers to life's deepest questions
10. Our sense of moral obligation
11. Our sense of guilt
12. Our belief in human dignity
13. Our belief in human worth
14. Our belief that there are basic human rights

Since these are facts about the human condition they comprise what might be called an existential case for the existence of God:

Consider the first of these. It's part of the human psyche to desire answers to life's most profound questions. As human beings we want answers to the deepest, most perplexing questions raised by our existence, but in the world as the atheist sees it there are no answers, there's no assurance about anything that matters, except that we'll eventually die.

We shout the "why" questions of human existence at the vast void of the cosmos - Why am I here? Why do we suffer? Why do we want from life what we cannot have? - but in a Godless universe there's no reply, only silence. The cosmos is indifferent to our desire for answers. We are alone, forlorn, as Sartre put it, and our quest for answers is absurd.

If there are no answers to these questions it's a puzzle as to why we would've evolved in such a way as to feel such an urgency for answers to them. If, on the other hand, God exists then it's possible that each of those questions has an answer, and if there are answers then the fact that we have those questions and desire their answers makes sense. We may not know what the answer is, but we have a reasonable hope that our questions aren't futile or meaningless and that there is a reason why they gnaw at us.

The atheist must counsel acquiescence to the disconnect between our deep need and the impossibility of fulfilling that need. The theist is in a position to counsel hope.

Another aspect of the human condition is that we are burdened with a deep sense that we are obligated to act morally. As human beings we strive to ground morality in something more solid than our own subjective preferences, but if there is no God there is nothing else upon which to base them. In a purely material world morality is nothing more than whatever feels right to the individual.

This is not to say that the non-theist cannot live a life similar in quality to that of a theist. She can of course, but what she cannot say is that what she does is morally good or right in any objective sense. There simply is no objective moral good unless there is an objective, transcendent standard of goodness, and the existence of such a standard is precisely what non-theists deny. Consider these two quotes from some well-known atheists:

"In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. The way our biology forces its codes is by making us think that there is an objective higher code, to which we are all subject." Philosopher Michael Ruse.

"Life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind indifference." Biologist Richard Dawkins.

For the atheist moral judgments can be little more than expressions of personal preference, and no one's preference is any more authoritative than anyone else's. This leads ineluctably toward a might makes right egoism, either on the level of the individual or the level of the state.

Whatever those who possess power do is neither right or wrong, even if they commit torture or genocide, it just is.

Moreover, unless there is a transcendent moral authority there is nothing whatsoever which obligates us to act in one way rather than another. What could possibly obligate me, in a moral sense, to act in the interest of others rather than in what I perceive to be my own interest? Given naturalism, there is nothing which obligates us to care for the poor, nothing which makes kindness better than cruelty, nothing to tell us why the holocaust was morally wrong.

Given atheism, morality is either subjective, and thus arbitrary and personal, or it doesn't exist at all, and our sense, our conviction that it does exist is simply self-deception. If God exists, however, then, and only then, does our intuition that objective moral value and obligation also exist make sense.

Related to the preceding point, we experience feelings of guilt, and have a sense that guilt is not just an illusion, but without an objective standard of morality before which we stand convicted there can be no real guilt. Human beings are no more guilty in a moral sense than is a cat which has caught and tortured a bird. The feeling of guilt is merely an evolutionary epiphenomenon which arose to fit us for life in the stone age and which, like our tonsils, we no longer need. Indeed, it's a vestige of our past that we should suppress since it bears no relation to any actual state of affairs.

On the other hand, if there is an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good Creator of the universe, then our sense that we are actually guilty has an explanation. We feel guilt because we have transgressed the moral law instituted by the Creator before whom we stand and to whom we must give an account.

It is this Creator who imposes upon us moral obligation. Take away God and there's no moral law, there's no moral duty, there's no transgression, and no guilt. As the great 19th century Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky put it, "If God is dead everything is permitted."

An additional fact about our existence is that we profess a belief in human dignity but modern atheism tells us that we are little more than machines made of flesh - sacks of blood, bone and excrement. There is no soul; there's nothing about us that makes us much different than any other mammal. We are more intelligent, of course, but that only makes the difference between us and a cow about the same as the difference between a cow and a trout.

In the absence of God there's no reason why someone who has the power should not use it to manipulate and exploit the rest of us like the farmer exploits his cattle for his own purposes, slaughtering them when he might profit from so doing. The universe reminds us we're nothing but "dust in the wind" and there's no dignity in that.

If, however, we are made in the image of God and personally and specifically loved by Him then we have a basis for believing that we are more than a machine. We have a ground for human dignity that is simply unavailable on the assumption of naturalistic atheism.

Related to the previous point is the further truth that most of us have a belief in human worth, but if all we are is an ephemeral pattern of atoms, a flesh and bone mechanism, then in what does our worth as human beings consist? We have value only insofar as others, particularly those who wield power, arbitrarily choose to value us.

If atheism is true there is no inherent value in being human. Only if theism is true and we are valued by the Creator of the universe can human beings have any objective worth at all. There is no other non-arbitrary ground for it.

Similarly, we have a belief that human beings have certain fundamental rights. Unfortunately, if there is no God there's nothing at all upon which to base those rights save our own prejudices and predilections. As Thomas Jefferson acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence, we have the right to life and liberty only because we are children of the Creator of the universe who has invested those rights in us and in whose eyes we are precious.

If there is no Creator then there are no human rights, just arbitrary rules, mere words on paper, which some people agree to follow but which could easily be revoked.

When atheists talk about human rights someone might ask them where those rights come from. Who confers them? Who guarantees them? If it is not God then it must be the state, but if so, our rights are not inalienable. If the state decides what rights we shall have then the state can determine that we have no rights at all.

The fact is that if atheism is true human rights are no more substantial or real than the grin of the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland.

More tomorrow.

Theism as an Inference to the Best Explanation (Pt. III)

Continuing the case for theism as the best explanation for the evidence available to us, let's consider the next four examples of that evidence:

5. The fact of human consciousness
6. The joy we experience in an encounter of beauty
7. The fact that we believe our reason to be reliable
8. Our sense that we have free will

One quality of the world that sits better on the assumption of theism than atheism, particularly atheistic materialism, is the existence of human consciousness.

How does it happen, for instance, that mere matter can produce qualia (e.g. the sensation of red or pain or the taste of sweet)? How do electrochemical reactions in our neurons produce a value, a doubt, gratitude, regret, expectation, or frustration, boredom, or disappointment? How does material substance produce forgiveness, resentment, or wishes, hopes, and desires? How does it appreciate (e.g. beauty, music, or a book)? How does it want, worry, or have intentions?

How do the chemicals that make up the matter of the brain happen to make that matter aware of itself and its surroundings? How does matter come to hold beliefs or understand what it believes? How does pure matter impose a meaning on a text that one reads or a lecture to which one listens?

These are vexing questions for a materialist view of the world. It may be that if we put the proper chemicals in a flask under the appropriate conditions the flask would become conscious or feel pain, but we have no idea how it could do so, and the belief that it could is simply an article of materialist faith.

In other words, on the assumption that human beings are solely material beings consciousness is inexplicable. After all, a robot could function pretty well without experiencing any conscious phenomena at all, so why did consciousness evolve in humans?

The existence of consciousness suggests that material substance is not the only constituent of reality, which may be one reason why some materialists (called eliminative materialists) pretty much deny the existence of consciousness.

If there is, in addition to the material substance in our world, also mental substance, how could such a thing have arisen in a purely physical/material universe? The hypothesis that there is an intelligent Creator of the universe who is itself pure mind presents us with an explanation where naturalism must just shrug its shoulders.

Related to the matter of consciousness is the question of beauty, or more precisely, why it is that gazing at, or listening to, something beautiful should fill us with delight, or even rapture. It's possible, I suppose, to formulate some convoluted ad hoc hypothesis in terms of purposeless physical forces acting over billions of years on dozens of fortuitous mutations to produce response mechanisms to certain stimuli in our neuronal architecture. But why?

Why should a sunset fill us with wonder and a mountain range fill us with awe? Why and how would blind, unintentional processes produce such responses? What urgency would such seemingly gratuitous responses have in the struggle for survival that the whole panoply of mutations and selective pressures would be brought to bear to cultivate them?

A simpler explanation for such phenomena, perhaps, is that our encounters with beauty, like our encounters with good, are intimations of God. Beauty is one means by which God reveals Himself to us in the world. Our encounters with beauty are glimpses He gives us of Himself, and the delight we feel in them is a prelude to heaven.

Another aspect of the world that is better explained in terms of a theistic rather than an atheistic or naturalistic worldview is our sense that reason is a trustworthy guide to truth. If matter, energy, and physical forces like gravity are all there is then everything is ultimately reducible to material, non-rational particles. If so, our beliefs are just brain states that can be completely explained in terms of non-rational chemical reactions, but any belief that is fully explicable in terms of non-rational causes is not likely itself to be rational.

Therefore, if materialism is true, none of our beliefs, especially metaphysical beliefs, can be trusted to be rational or true, reason itself is a non-rational illusion, and the reliability of scientific investigation, like "truth," is chimerical. Thus the atheistic materialist is in the awkward position of having no rational basis for believing that materialism, or anything else, is true.

As Stephen Pinker of MIT has said, "Our brains were shaped [by evolution] for fitness, not for truth." Only if our reason is an endowment from an omniscient, good Creator do we have actual warrant for placing confidence in it.

We may, if we don't believe that there is a Creator, decide to trust reason as an act of faith, but it's very difficult to justify the decision to do so since any such justification must itself rely upon rational argument. And, of course, employing reason to argue on behalf of its own trustworthiness begs the question.

The next characteristic of human beings that makes more sense given the existence of God than given the truth of atheism is our sense that we are free to make genuine choices and that the future is open. In the absence of God our sense that we are free to choose and are responsible for those choices is problematic.

In a Godless world we are just a collection of physical particles, and ultimately physical particles have no freedom, they simply move according to physical laws. There is no free will, there is only an inexorable determinism. At any given moment there is only one possible future, and our belief that we can freely create a future is pure sophistry and illusion.

Thus an atheist who faults me for writing this post is acting inconsistently with his own assumptions. If there is no God I am compelled to write and express these ideas by causes beyond my control and for which I am not responsible. Indeed, if there is no God, it's hard to see how anyone could ultimately be responsible for anything they do.

Theism as an Inference to the Best Explanation (Pt. II)

Yesterday's post introduced the concept of inference to the best explanation and seventeen facts about the world and the existential human condition, the best explanation for which, I argue, is God, or something very much like God. Today we'll consider the first four of those facts:

1. The fact that the universe had a beginning
   
2. The fact of cosmic design
   
3. The fact that life's origin is inexplicable on naturalism
   
4. The fact of biological information
   

The first of these facts is our conviction that the universe must have had a cause and didn't cause itself. The universe is contingent, or seems to be. It's therefore prima facie reasonable to think that its existence depends upon something beyond itself. It's possible, perhaps, that it somehow created itself, but that seems counter-intuitive and ad hoc.

Many atheists tell us that the existence of the universe is just a brute fact and that nothing is gained by positing a Creator since the Creator Itself requires an explanation. As philosopher Del Ratzsch points out, however, this sort of reply, as common as it is, is not very compelling. He invites us to consider an analogy to the discovery on Mars of a perfect ten-meter cube of pure titanium .

Most people would think that the cube was produced by some kind of intelligent beings, aliens, and would regard the cube as virtual proof that such beings existed. Suppose, though, that there are those who deny either the existence or relevance of alien beings, claiming that the cube is just there - a brute fact of nature. Suppose, too, that when pressed for some further explanation of the cube, their reply was to point out that the advocates of the alien theory had no clue as to where the aliens came from or how they had manufactured the mysterious structure.

Such a reply would certainly sound odd.

The inability to say anything much about who the aliens were or where they came from doesn't count at all against the theory that intelligent agents were responsible for the cube, nor does it mean that the alien theory is no better than the brute fact theory. The existence of an intelligent alien manufacturer of the cube is surely an inference to the best explanation.

The second fact about the world that is easier to explain on the theistic rather than the atheistic hypothesis is that the parameters, forces and constants which govern the cosmos are exquisitely fine-tuned. Here is one example of the dozens which could serve:

If the initial density of matter in the universe had deviated by as little as one part in 10 to the 60th power (a value referred to by scientists as the "density parameter"), the universe would have either fallen back on itself or expanded too quickly for stars to form. This is an unimaginably fine tolerance.

Imagine a stack of dimes stretching across 10 to the 30th universes like our own. Let the dimes represent calibrations on a gauge displaying every possible value for the density parameter. Imagine, too, that a needle points to the dime representing the critical value. If the initial density of our cosmos deviated from that critical value by a single dime our universe, if it formed at all, would not be suitable for life.

Or imagine a console featuring dials and gauges for each of the dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of constants, parameters, and other cosmic contingencies which define the structure of our world. Imagine that each dial face shows trillions upon trillions of possible values. Each of those dials has to be calibrated to precisely the value to which it is actually set in our world in order for a universe to exist and/or for life to thrive.

Of course, it could be an astonishing coincidence that all the dials are set with such mind-boggling precision. Or it could be that there are a near infinite number of universes having all possible values and that ours just happens to be one that is perfectly calibrated for life. But not only is this an extraordinarily unparsimonious hypothesis, it also elicits the question of what it is that's generating these universes and what evidence we have that they even exist.

It's much simpler to bow to Ockham and assume that there is just one universe and that its structure manifests a level of engineering of breath-taking precision, a conclusion perfectly compatible with the idea that there's an intelligent agent behind it all. "It's crazy," as philosopher Richard Swinburne says, "to postulate a trillion universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job."

One further point: Scientists assume as they study the universe that it is rational, that it lends itself to rational inquiry, but if so, then an entirely non-rational explanation for it seems less likely than an explanation which incorporates rational causes.

The third fact is that it has proven exceedingly difficult to explain how the first living unit, a cell able to metabolize, reproduce, eliminate waste, manufacture proteins, etc., could have ever arisen solely by chance. The odds against a chance origin of life, with no input from an intelligent agent, are so improbable as to make belief that it happened a matter of extraordinary blind faith.

It's somewhat like insisting that a very complex, fully functional and self-replicating computer could have arisen by the action of sun, wind, rain and lightning swirling through a junkyard for a couple million years.

A fourth fact about the world from which we might infer that there is an intelligent agent involved somehow in its development is the existence of biological information. The biosphere is information-rich, a fact which raises the question where this information came from and how it ever came about.

The naturalist's answer is that the information, such as we find in DNA and cellular processes, resulted from blind mechanistic forces acting purposelessly and randomly over eons of time. Such a feat is within the realm of the logically possible, of course, but if we're going to limit ourselves to the lessons of experience we must acknowledge that information whose provenience we can ascertain is always the product of an intelligent mind.

Random processes can produce highly improbable patterns (like the particular pattern of craters on the moon) and they can produce very specific recognizable patterns (like the repetition of a single letter typed by a monkey), but what we've never observed a random, non-teleological process do is generate both (such as we find in a computer program). Yet that is precisely what we have in the genetic code.

The genetic code and the complex of proteins and transcription molecules necessary to decipher that code, must've arisen prior to the ability to replicate and thus prior to the action of any selection mechanism, in other words, by sheer chance. Believing it happened is somewhat analogous to believing that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could leave in its wake a fully assembled and functional jet airplane.

There may someday be a satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the origin of biological information, but until that day arrives the obvious existence of that information suggests an intelligent agent lurks somewhere in its history.

More tomorrow.

Theism as an Inference to the Best Explanation (Pt. I)

Among the indictments of religious believers registered by skeptics such as the coterie of anti-theists lead by Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, et al. is that belief in God is at best irrational and at worst pernicious. Theism, the believer is condescendingly assured, is all blind faith and no evidence, but should a theist try to pin down his antagonist and ask him exactly what he means by "evidence," it often turns out that the word is employed as a synonym for "proof."

Well, perhaps there's no proof that there is a personal God, but that's hardly a reason not to believe that one exists. After all, we can prove very little of what we believe about the world, yet we don't hold our beliefs less firmly for that.

The skeptic's claim that there's no evidence for God and that theistic belief is thus irrational is, ironically, the reverse of the truth. It is actually, in my view, more rational to believe that a personal transcendent creator of the universe exists than to disbelieve it. Moreover, if what I argue below is correct, the logical consequences of atheism turn out to be psychically and politically toxic.

Indeed, though it may come as a surprise to some readers, almost all the evidence that counts on one side or the other of the question of belief in God rests more comfortably on the side of the believer. This is because almost every relevant fact about the world, and every existential characteristic of the human condition, makes more sense when viewed in the light of the hypothesis of theism than it does on the assumption of atheism.

Put differently, the conclusion of theism is what philosophers call an inference to the best explanation.

I don't mean to suggest that there are no facts about the world that militate against the existence of God - there are, of course. The existence of suffering is the most troubling example. Nor do I mean to suggest that atheism can offer no account at all of the facts of human existence that I discuss in what follows. Perhaps it can. I only argue that on the assumption of atheism the facts are more difficult to explain, in some cases exceedingly so, than they are on the assumption of theism.

If that is the case, it follows that it's more reasonable to believe that the best explanation for them is the existence of a personal God.

Here are eighteen facts about the world and human experience that I will argue, over the course of the next several days, are easier to explain on the assumption that traditional Judeo-Christian theism is true than on the assumption that metaphysical naturalism (atheism) is true:

1. The fact that the universe had a beginning
   
2. The fact of cosmic design
   
3. The fact that life's origin is inexplicable on naturalism
   
4. The fact of biological information
   
5. The fact of human consciousness
   
6. The joy we experience in an encounter of beauty
   
7. The fact that we believe our reason to be reliable
   
8. Our sense that we have free will
   
9. Our desire for answers to life's deepest questions
   
10. Our sense of moral obligation
    
11. Our sense of guilt
    
12. Our belief in human dignity
    
13. Our belief in human worth
    
14. Our belief that there are basic human rights
    
15. Our desire for justice
    
16. Our need for meaning and purpose
    
17. Our belief that we have an enduring self
    
18. Our desire to survive our own death
    

Nine Questions about Black Holes

Australian cosmologist Luke Barnes answers nine questions submitted to him by a young student about black holes. If you've ever wondered about any of these questions, or even if you haven't, you'll want to watch the video Barnes has put together on this. Here are the questions:

1. How do scientists know there is a supermassive black hole in the centre of every galaxy?
2. Many sites say scientists don’t know how supermassive black holes are formed. Are there any theories?
3. Why does a star explode into a supernova when it runs out of energy?
4. If it has run out of energy, where does the energy for the explosion come from?
5. Why do extremely dense objects have so much gravity?
6. Does a black hole really ‘blow out’ matter sometimes and why?
7. When a black hole consumes more matter does its gravity increase?
8. Can black holes die?
9. Is it possible for a black hole to have an ‘other side’ and if so what could it be?

And here are Barnes' answers to these questions:

Slouching Toward Totalitarianism

In her magisterial 1951 work titled The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt writes that totalitarian tyrannies grow out of the fragments of a highly atomized society comprised of lonely, alienated and isolated individuals who have lost faith in the institutions of their culture and who lack both a knowledge of, and appreciation for, their history.

Rod Dreher picks up on this theme in his recent book Live Not by Lies. He writes that our contemporary young, despite the superficial connectedness they may feel as avid consumers of social media, are largely unhappy and isolated to a historically unprecedented degree.

Their loneliness and ennui manifest themselves in epidemic rates of teenage depression and suicide which psychologist Jean Twenge says have placed us "on the brink of the worst mental health crisis in decades." Much of the deterioration in the mental well-being of those born since 2000, she claims, "can be traced to their phones."

Walk into a restaurant or any gathering place where you might find groups of young (and maybe not-so-young) people sitting together and it's not unusual to see each of them alone in their own world, staring at their phones, or wearing ear buds or head sets that exclude any meaningful interaction with others.

I've visited people in their homes who keep the television on so loud conversation is all but impossible, and, of course, lonely people congregate in night clubs where the music creates a din over which it's impossible to talk. Even in a crowd we're often functionally alone.

Dreher says that modern technology and social media are just two of the forces creating the conditions for what he calls a decadent, pre-totalitarian culture. Along with social atomization, widespread loneliness, the embrace of radical ideologies, the erosion of religious belief, and the loss of faith in our institutions leave society "vulnerable to the totalitarian temptation."

Totalitarian tyrants will do all they can to destroy a sense of community in the people they oppress because community is a support system that encourages resistance. It's much easier to control people when they lack the sense of identity that comes from belonging to something bigger than themselves.

Where in our modern society do we find community? The family is disintegrating, churches are empty, neighborhoods are populated by people who frequently move on after a few years, and now with the Covid pandemic schools are closing, sports teams are disbanded and gatherings are restricted by the state to a couple dozen people. It's harder than ever to feel a sense of belonging to something.

When people lack community, a sense of belonging, they'll crave the fellowship and identity that an ideological commitment provides. They'll sign on to any movement that gives them a sense of importance and fills their otherwise empty lives with meaning, even if that meaning is at bottom an illusion.

It is precisely this promise of a meaningful life that propelled the Bolshevik communists to power in an effete Russia after 1917 and enabled the rise of Hitler in a worn out Germany in the 1930s.

Could we, too, be slouching toward totalitarianism? If we think it couldn't happen here then perhaps we understand neither history nor human nature nor the parlous condition of our contemporary culture.

Evolution and Parsimony

There's a universally accepted principle of thought which says that given a choice between multiple explanations for a phenomenon the preferred explanation is the one which is simplest and fits all the facts. The principle is sometimes called the Principle of Parsimony, because it stresses that our hypotheses should always be as simple (parsimonious) as the evidence allows.

Mathematician Granville Sewell at Evolution News and Views wrote a piece some years ago inviting us to imagine a scenario illustrating this principle:

A high school science teacher rents a video showing a tornado sweeping through a town, turning houses and cars into rubble. When she attempts to show it to her students, she accidentally runs the video backward .... [T]he students laugh and say, the video is going backwards! The teacher doesn’t want to admit her mistake, so she says: “No, the video is not really going backward. It only looks like it is .... and she proceeds to give some long, detailed, hastily improvised scientific theories on how tornadoes, under the right conditions, really can construct houses and cars.

At the end of the explanation, one student says, “I don’t want to argue with scientists, but wouldn’t it be a lot easier (simpler) to explain if you ran the video the other way?”

That's the most parsimonious explanation of the phenomena depicted in the video, certainly more so than the teacher's contrived explanation, and thus it should be preferred.

Sewell relates this to the problem of undirected Darwinian evolution.

Imagine, he writes, a college professor assigning the final project for students in his evolutionary biology class.

“Here are two pictures,” he says. “One is a drawing of what the Earth must have looked like soon after it formed. The other is a picture of New York City today, with tall buildings full of intelligent humans, computers, TV sets and telephones, with libraries full of science texts and novels, and jet airplanes flying overhead.

Your assignment is to explain how we got from picture one to picture two .... You should explain that 3 or 4 billion years ago a collection of atoms was formed by pure chance with the ability to duplicate itself, and these complex collections of atoms were also able to pass their complex structures on to their descendants generation after generation, even correcting errors that crept in.

Explain how, over a very long time, the accumulation of genetic accidents resulted in greater and greater information content in the DNA of these more and more complicated collections of atoms, and how eventually something called “intelligence” allowed some of these collections of atoms to design buildings and computers and TV sets, and write encyclopedias and science texts....

When one student turns in his essay some days later, he has written, “A few years after picture one was taken, the sun exploded in a supernova, all humans and other animals died, their bodies decayed, and their cells decomposed into simple organic and inorganic compounds. Most of the buildings collapsed immediately into rubble, those that didn’t, crumbled eventually. Most of the computers and TV sets inside were smashed into scrap metal, even those that weren’t, gradually turned into piles of rust, most of the books in the libraries burned up, the rest rotted over time, and you can see see the result in picture two.”

The professor says, “You have reversed the pictures! You did it backwards” “I know,” says the student, “but it was so much easier to explain that way.”

The fictitious student has put his finger on the problem with any theory of biological origins that excludes intelligent agency. The idea that blind chance and the laws of chemistry alone could have conspired to create a living cell, or produce a process as extraordinary as butterfly metamorphosis, or create a structure as unimaginably complex as a human brain requires so many assumptions and ad hoc explanations, so much suspension of incredulity, that it's far simpler, and much more in keeping with our everyday experience, to posit that these marvels were the intended product of an intelligent mind.

Otherwise, Sewell concludes, the process is like a movie running backward. The whole of biological history is as improbable, on naturalism, as assuming that purposeless, undirected forces like tornadoes could actually cause scattered debris to assemble into complex, well-integrated structures.

It's much simpler to assume that an intelligent mind must've somehow been directing the whole process toward a preconceived end.

Ethics and Evolution

In an essay titled Evolution and Ethics written in 1893 Thomas Huxley, otherwise known as "Darwin's bulldog," puts his finger on one of the chief difficulties with trying to establish a naturalistic basis for morality. One popular candidate for such a basis is the evolution of the moral sense in human beings, but Huxley, despite his total fealty to Darwinian evolution, illuminates the hopelessness of this strategy:

The propounders of what are called the “ethics of evolution,”... adduce a number of more or less interesting facts and more or less sound arguments in favour of the origin of the moral sentiments, in the same way as other natural phenomena, by a process of evolution.

I have little doubt, for my own part, that they are on the right track; but as the immoral sentiments have no less been evolved, there is, so far, as much natural sanction for the one as the other. The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist.

Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before.

Huxley's right, of course. If the inclination to be kind and tolerant has evolved in the human species then so has the inclination to be selfish, violent, and cruel. So if evolution is to serve as our "moral dictionary" what grounds do we have for privileging kindness over cruelty? Both are equally sanctioned by our evolutionary history, and thus we can't say that either is better or more right than the other.

Huxley goes on to dispense with the notion that the evolutionary development of our ethical sensibility can provide us with some sort of guide to our behavior:

There is another fallacy which appears to me to pervade the so-called “ethics of evolution.” It is the notion that because, on the whole, animals and plants have advanced in perfection of organization by means of the struggle for existence and the consequent ‘survival of the fittest’; therefore men in society, men as ethical beings, must look to the same process to help them towards perfection.

The problem is that, for naturalists, the processes of nature are the only thing they can look to for moral guidance.

Having rejected the notion that there exists a transcendent, personal, moral authority, the naturalist, if he's to avoid nihilism, is left trying to derive ethics from what he sees in nature, which leads to what I regard as the most serious problem with any naturalistic ethics: There's simply no warrant for thinking that a blind, impersonal process like evolution or a blind, impersonal substance like matter, can impose a moral duty on conscious beings.

Moral obligations, if they exist, can only be imposed by conscious, intelligent, moral authorities. Evolution can no more impose such an obligation than can gravity. Thus, naturalists (atheists) are confronted with a stark choice: Either give up their atheism or embrace moral nihilism. Unwilling to do what is for them unthinkable and accept the first alternative, many of them are reluctantly embracing the second.

Consider these three passages from three twentieth century philosophers:

I had been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn’t…The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality….

I experienced a shocking epiphany that religious believers are correct; without God there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality….

Even though words like “sinful” and “evil” come naturally to the tongue as, say, a description of child molesting, they do not describe any actual properties of anything. There are no literal sins in the world because there is no literal God…nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality. Joel Marks, An Amoral Manifesto

----------------

The world, according to this new picture [i.e. the picture produced by a scientific outlook], is purposeless, senseless, meaningless. Nature is nothing but matter in motion. The motions of matter are governed, not by any purpose, but by blind forces and laws….[But] if the scheme of things is purposeless and meaningless, then the life of man is purposeless and meaningless too. Everything is futile, all effort is in the end worthless. A man may, of course, still pursue disconnected ends, money fame, art, science, and may gain pleasure from them. But his life is hollow at the center. Hence, the dissatisfied, disillusioned, restless spirit of modern man….

Along with the ruin of the religious vision there went the ruin of moral principles and indeed of all values….If our moral rules do not proceed from something outside us in the nature of the universe - whether we say it is God or simply the universe itself - then they must be our own inventions. Thus it came to be believed that moral rules must be merely an expression of our own likes and dislikes. But likes and dislikes are notoriously variable. What pleases one man, people, or culture, displeases another. Therefore, morals are wholly relative. W.T. Stace, The Atlantic Monthly, 1948

----------------

We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or amoralists….Reason doesn't decide here….The picture I have painted is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me….Pure reason will not take you to morality. Kai Nielson (1984)

What these thinkers and dozens like them are saying is that the project of trying to find some solid, naturalistic foundation upon which to build an ethics is like trying to find a mermaid. The object of the search simply doesn't exist, nor could it.

How Is it That We Understand?

One major controversy in the philosophy of mind is driven by the claim that computers can think, or will soon be able to. If that claim is true then it makes it a lot easier to assume that the brain is a kind of computer and that what we call mind is simply a word we use to describe the way the brain functions.

Or put another way, mind is to brain what computer software is to the computer's hardware. This view is called "functionalism."

In 1980 philosopher John Searle published an argument that sought to show that functionalism is wrong and that there's more to our cognitive experience than simple computation. His argument came to be known as the Chinese Room argument and neuroscientist Michael Egnor has a helpful discussion of it at Evolution News and Views. Egnor describes the argument as follows:

Imagine that you are an English speaker and you do not speak Chinese. You've moved to China and you get a job working in a booth in a public square. The purpose of the booth is to provide answers to questions that Chinese-speaking people write on small pieces of paper and pass into the booth through a slot. The answer is written on a small piece of paper and passed back to the Chinese person through a separate slot.

Inside the booth with you is a very large book. The book contains every question that can be asked and the corresponding answer -- all written only in Chinese. You understand no Chinese. You understand nothing written in the book. When the question is passed through the slot you match the Chinese characters in the question to the identical question in the book and you write the Chinese symbols corresponding to the answer and pass the answer back through the answer slot.

The Chinese person asking the question gets an answer that he understands in Chinese. You understand neither the question nor the answer because you do not understand Chinese.

Searle argues that you are carrying out a computation. The booth is analogous to a computer, you are analogous to a CPU, and the information written in Chinese is analogous to the algorithm. The question and the answer written on the paper are the input and the output to and from the computer.

In other words, the computer, like the person in the booth, has no understanding of what it's doing. As Egnor says: "Thought is about understanding the process, not merely about mechanically carrying out the matching of an input to an output according to an algorithm."

Searle's argument denies that computers "think." They simply follow an algorithm. Since humans do think, however, and do understand, either our brains are not computers or functionalism is not true.

Searle points out that the computation performed by the booth and its occupant does not involve any understanding of the questions and answers provided. His point is that computation is an algorithmic process that does not entail or require understanding, but since we do understand when we perform a computation, human cognition is something qualitatively different from mere computation.

This leads to the question of how a material chunk of meat, the brain, can generate something as mysterious as understanding. If all the material that makes up a brain were placed in a laboratory flask would the flask understand? Would it be conscious?

That human beings are capable of such marvels is evidence that there's more to our cognitive abilities than our material brain. Perhaps that something more is an immaterial mind or soul that's cognitively integrated with the material brain and which the brain cannot function without.

Short Memories

A lot of folks on the left are criticizing Donald Trump for claiming that the vote last Tuesday was fraudulent. I don't know if it was or not, but gee whiz, does anyone seriously think listless Joe Biden really won something like six million more votes than Barack Obama received in 2008 and 15 million more than Hillary Clinton got in 2016?!

We should remember this the next time we hear someone say miracles don't happen.

Anyway, Trump is being told by our media overseers that he should stop making such an unseemly fuss and just go away quietly. What short memories we have.

1. The Democrats fought tooth and nail for Al Gore in Florida after the 2000 election. They didn't concede until every last scintilla of hope was extinguished, and after Gore finally did concede a month or so after the election the Democrats continued to insist that he was the real president and that George W. Bush had stolen the office.

2. After the 2016 election millions of people signed petitions urging the electors who were to cast their ballot in the electoral college for Trump to "do the right thing" and vote for Clinton even though they were pledged to vote for Trump.

3. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have been claiming for four years that Trump is an illegitimate president. They offer not a shred of evidence, but they refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of his tenure nonetheless.

4. When Stacey Abrams challenged the results of her governor's race in Georgia in 2018 the media cheered for her and urged her not to give up. She still claims that the election was rigged, that she actually won, and she's still being feted by progressives and the media.

5. Hillary Clinton adjured Joe Biden that if he was behind when the networks called the election he "should not concede under any circumstances."

By claiming that the results reported from several swing states are fraudulent, and refusing to concede until every legal recourse is explored, Trump is only following the precedent the Democrats themselves have created. Now they're criticizing him for doing what they themselves have done and, were circumstances reversed, would be doing again today.

Live Not by Lies

In his new book, Live Not by Lies, Rod Dreher draws a comparison between the conditions which prevailed in Europe and Russia before the communist revolution in 1917 and the conditions which prevail in the contemporary West.

Dreher believes that the U.S. is ripe for a totalitarian takeover of our culture, though perhaps not of the murderous sort witnessed in virtually every communist country during the 20th century.

In his book he quotes Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a victim of the Soviet prison camps known as "the Gulag." Solzhenitsyn described the totalitarianism of 20th century Soviet state and the horrific suffering of political and religious prisoners at the hands of the Soviet secret police (KGB).

These wretches had their skulls squeezed with iron rings, they were lowered into acid baths, they were trussed up naked to be bitten by ants and bedbugs, they had red hot iron rods shoved up their colon, they had their genitals crushed beneath the boot of their torturers, they were kept from sleeping for days, subjected to thirst, and beaten to a pulp.

Other prisoners have testified to being starved and kept outdoors in freezing cold for hours with nothing on but their underwear.

This was communist totalitarianism (the word refers to the complete and total control of every aspect of a person's life by the state), and it's the logical endpoint of leftist ideology. It was vividly portrayed in books like Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon, Solzhenitsyn's In the First Circle and The Gulag Archipelago, Czeslaw Milosz's The Captive Mind and films like The Lives of Others.

But Dreher isn't warning that this sort of mass scale barbaric brutality is coming to the West. What he sees on our near horizon is what he calls a "soft totalitarianism." It's more like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World than George Orwell's 1984. It's a totalitarianism in which coercion is exercised by the masters of the culture who compel conformity through speech codes, fear of ruined businesses and careers, tax penalties, loss of opportunities and massive surveillance.

Nevertheless, the prevailing social conditions are so similar to those prior to 1917 in Russia that he's convinced that we should prepare for it.

Some of the conditions that he says make us vulnerable to a very profound restriction of our freedom are a loss of confidence in institutions like the family and government; the loss of belief in objective truth; waning religious commitment; the rise of identity politics in which someone is considered evil simply because of their race, gender, social class or religion; an unwillingness to transmit our heritage to the next generation and a perversion of such history that is transmitted (e.g. the 1619 project); alienation and isolation, especially among the young; and a diminution of the value people place on freedom of speech, the press, assembly and religion.

Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), Dreher alleges, are playing the same role today that the Bolsheviks played in early 20th century Russia. Cancel culture puts at risk entire careers and the livelihoods of those who hold opinions contrary to those approved by the SJWs.

Add to all this the enormous potential for surveillance afforded by modern technology (imagine how easy it would be for all those smart devices in the home, like Alexa, to be programmed to monitor every conversation) and the untoward influence six giant tech companies - Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Google, Apple and Microsoft - exert over our culture, and it's easy to see that we are precariously close to a precipice.

Here's one example of what's in store if the left continues to gain control over both our culture and our government. It doesn't appear in Dreher's book because it just came to light in the last day or so.

Some on the left have acknowledged that they're keeping an enemies list of people who worked for or otherwise supported Trump. The purpose of the list is to insure that those people have their careers ruined. The following is excerpted from the link:

Jennifer Rubin, a columnist at the Washington Post tweets:

Any R[epublican] now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not to follow the will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into "polite" society. We have a list.

And she’s not alone in keeping a list. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tweeted her approval of a project started by someone named Michael Simon, who’s keeping track of people who were Trump supporters. They’re finished.

Simon is a former Obama administration analytics guy who has started the “Trump Accountability Project” to keep a list of, as Democratic congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez calls them, “Trump sycophants.”

“Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future? I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets [sic], writings, photos in the future,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.

Simon responded, in a now-deleted tweet: "Yes, we are. The Trump Accountability Project (@trumpaccproject) Every Administration staffer, campaign staffer, bundler, lawyer who represented them – everyone."

One has to be alarmed by this sort of thing, even if one was originally skeptical of Dreher's thesis. It's all of a piece with the behavior of the left in the wake of every revolution in which they succeeded in toppling the established order going back to Paris in 1789, Russia in 1917, China in 1949 and Cuba in 1959. The victors rounded up all those who opposed them, all those who refused to go along with the Marxist-Leninist program, and stripped them of their jobs, their careers, their homes, threw them into horrid prisons, tortured them and murdered them by the millions.

Our contemporary SJWs may not go so far as state sanctioned murder - Dreher doesn't think they will - but they have every intention of ending the careers and wrecking the lives of those who oppose them.

There's more about this group of political revenge-seekers ontheir website.

They make laughable President-elect Biden's promise to bring us all together in unity and harmony. Fat chance of that as long as his party harbors petty tyrants like these.

Some Thoughts on the Election

I write this on November 6th while the vote tallies in several major states are still incomplete. Nevertheless, assuming the trends which show Mr. Biden heading to the White House are correct the good news for conservatives is that the news isn't all bad.

I'm pretty sure that had voters judged Mr. Trump on the basis of what he has accomplished for the country and the world and not on the basis of his lamentable personal characteristics or the portrait the media has been at pains to paint of him - in other words, if Americans judged Trump like they judge their music and movie celebrities - the President would have won easily.

But be that as it may, the election results were in some respects encouraging for conservative Republicans and less so for Democrats. In fact, just about the only reason the Democrats have for rejoicing is that their candidate won the presidency. Everything else for them is rather bad news. Here's why:

1. The Democrats had high expectations for a "blue wave" which would sweep large numbers of Democrats into office at the national and state level and give them control of the nation's destiny for generations into the future, but the wave never materialized.

The Republicans appear to have retained control of the Senate despite having almost twice as many members up for reelection than did the Democrats (23/12). Republican control of the Senate will stifle any plans the Democrats may have had to "expand" the courts, add states to the union, abolish the electoral college and end the filibuster.

Moreover, any radical economic legislation, such as the Green New Deal, issuing from the House of Representatives will be Dead on Arrival in the Senate.

Any judges that Mr. Biden would have opportunity to appoint will have to be reasonably moderate since Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can block or slow walk any radical progressives which might come up for confirmation.

2. Contrary to expectations, the Democrats picked up no seats in the House and stand to actually lose a dozen or more which may slow down the legislative ambitions of the leftmost members of the chamber. They anticipated gaining as many as fifteen seats, but they've lost, at this point in the counting, about ten and may ultimately lose even more.

Since the minority party usually does well in mid-term elections when the other party holds the White House, the GOP may be poised to take back the House in 2022.

3. Also contrary to expectations, as of this writing, no state legislatures were flipped from Republican to Democrat, but one was flipped the other way.

Likewise with state governorships where the GOP picked up one.

4. The Democrats suffered a severe erosion in their base constituency, especially among Hispanics. Minorities voted for Republicans in numbers not seen since 1960. Barack Obama promised to bring the races together, but did little or nothing to accomplish it. Trump has made a surprising start, especially given the relentless media narrative that he's an inveterate racist.

There appears to be a tectonic shift taking place in American politics. Throughout much of the 20th century Democrats were seen as the party of the working class and minorities while Republicans were perceived to be the party of the wealthy corporate execs. Today that's reversing. Republicans are rapidly gaining traction with the working class and minorities and the Democratic party is populated with rich celebrities and fat cat CEOs from Silicon Valley, Wall Street and elsewhere.

One caveat about this, though. The shift may be more a function of President Trump's popularity with blue collar workers and minorities than a function of their fondness for the Republican party. Unless the party learns something about governance from Mr. Trump, its popularity with these groups may prove ephemeral.

In any case, perhaps the biggest advantage of a Biden presidency for Democrats will be that he'll be able to revoke all of Mr. Trump's executive orders, the same orders which were largely responsible for the pre-pandemic economic boom. Despite his campaign promises and the pressure he'll be under from the progressive wing of his party, I'm not sure Mr. Biden is going to be eager to do that.

5. The media, both the news media and social media, as well as most pollsters, have taken an enormous and well-earned hit to their credibility. Having forecast a Democratic blowout they're left having to explain how they could've gotten it so badly wrong. Again.

6. Even if he serves his entire four year term (and that's a huge "if") Mr. Biden will almost certainly be a one term president. Mr. Trump could run again in 2024 if he wishes. He'd be the same age then as Mr. Biden is now, so his age shouldn't prevent him from running and winning.

Of course, this assumes that when the final vote counts are in and the lawsuits are all adjudicated Mr. Biden will have prevailed and Mr. Trump will have come up short. As of right now, however, that's by no means a certainty.

Naturalism, Utilitarianism and Egoism

My students are in the midst of discussing Utilitarian ethics as well as the view called ethical egoism so I thought I'd rerun this older post on the topic:

Peter Singer is a philosopher at Princeton who has gained substantial notoriety for invoking his utilitarian ethical principles to justify infanticide and animal rights. In a piece at The Journal of Practical Ethics the editors interview Singer and question whether utilitarians can, or do, live consistently with their own ethical philosophy.

Here's part of the interview:

Editors: Frances Kamm once said...that utilitarians who believe in very demanding duties to aid and that not aiding is the same as harming, but nevertheless don’t live up to these demands, don’t really believe their own arguments....She concludes that ‘either something is wrong with that theory, or there is something wrong with its proponents’.

What do you think about this argument? Why haven’t you given a kidney to someone who needs it now? You have two and you only need one. They have none that are working – it would make a huge difference to their life at very little cost to you.

Peter Singer: I’m not sure that the cost to me of donating a kidney would be “very little” but I agree that it would harm me much less than it would benefit someone who is on dialysis. I also agree that for that reason my failure to donate a kidney is not ethically defensible.... Donating a kidney does involve a small risk of serious complications. Zell Kravinsky suggests that the risk is 1 in 4000.

I don’t think I’m weak-willed, but I do give greater weight to my own interests, and to those of my family and others close to me, than I should. Most people do that, in fact they do it to a greater extent than I do (because they do not give as much money to good causes as I do).

That fact makes me feel less bad about my failure to give a kidney than I otherwise would. But I know that I am not doing what I ought to do.

This response raises several questions, but I'll focus on just one. Singer believes it's wrong not to give the kidney and he feels guilty about not doing so, yet why should he? In what sense is his violation of utilitarian principles morally wrong? Indeed, why is utilitarianism morally superior to the egoism to which he admits to succumbing?

To put it differently, if Singer chooses to be a utilitarian and donate the kidney while someone else chooses to be an egoist and keep his kidneys, why is either person right or wrong? Given Singer's naturalism, what does it even mean to say that someone is morally wrong anyway?

On naturalism there's no moral authority, except one's own subjective convictions, and no accountability, so in what way is keeping one's kidneys an offense to morality?

Elsewhere in the interview, Singer notes that his ethical thinking is based on the work of the great 19th century ethicist and utilitarian Henry Sidgwick and mentions that,

Sidgwick himself remained deeply troubled by his inability to demonstrate that egoism is irrational. That led him to speak of a “dualism of practical reason” — two opposing viewpoints, utilitarianism and egoism, seemed both to be rational.

In other words, the choice between them is an arbitrary exercise of personal preference, although Singer doesn't agree with this because he believes evolution affords grounds for rejecting egoism. It's hard to see how this could be the case, however, since it's difficult to understand how blind impersonal processes like random genetic mutation and natural selection could impose moral duties.

Nor is it easy to see how acting against the trend of those evolutionary processes can be morally wrong. How is one doing anything wrong if he chooses to act contrary to the way mutation and natural selection have shaped the human species? Why should he accept the ethical results of evolutionary history any more than we accept the physical limitations imposed on us by gravity when we go aloft in an airplane or hot air balloon?

The only reason we have for not putting our own interests ahead of the interests of others - as in the example of the kidney - and the only rational reason we would have for feeling guilt over our failure to consider the needs of others is the belief that such failures are a transgression of an obligation imposed upon us by a transcendent personal moral authority.

Singer lacks such a belief and can thus give no compelling explanation for his feelings of guilt nor any compelling reason why one should be a utilitarian rather than an egoist.

Putting One's Worldview to the Test

One of the tests of any worldview is whether one can live within it consistently. On this test the worldview called naturalism - i.e. the view that the natural world is all there is, no supernatural entities exist - falls short since many, if not most, naturalists find that they have to give up some beliefs and assumptions that are very difficult to let go. Among the things for which there is no room in a logically consistent naturalistic ontology are the following:

1. ultimate meaning in life
2. free will
3. objective moral right and wrong
4. the intrinsic value of human beings
5. objective human rights
6. mind/consciousness
7. an adequate ground for beauty, love and truth

On the other hand, not only do each of these fit comfortably in a classical Christian worldview, it could be argued that they're actually entailed by that view. The logic of naturalism, though, compels one to regard them all as illusions, but few naturalists can live consistently with that. They find themselves constantly acting as if their lives have meaning, as if there really are objective moral rights and wrongs, as if they have free will.

They can only deny the reality of these things at the theoretical level, but in the way they live their everyday lives they affirm their reality over and over again. They find themselves forced, in a sense, to become poachers, helping themselves to meaning, morality, human rights, free will and the rest from the storehouse of 2000 years of Christian heritage, because their own worldview cannot provide them.

But when one has to poach from competing visions of reality in order to make life bearable one is tacitly sacrificing any claim to be holding a rational, coherent worldview. To be consistent a naturalist should indeed be a nihilist and accept the emptiness, sterility and despair nihilism entails, yet even though some naturalists recognize these bitter fruits of their view of things, few can bring themselves to accept them. They embrace the naturalism while simply suppressing or ignoring the logical implications as if they don't matter.

For those who do accept the consequences of their naturalism, the loss of the aforementioned crucial existential human needs is more than compensated for, in their minds, by the liberation from God that lies at the heart of naturalism. It's all worth it, they tacitly calculate, to be free of any obligation to a supreme being.

Naturalists are free to embrace this schizoid view of life, of course, but they're not free to live as if they can hold on to those existential needs while denying the only adequate ground for them and at the same time declare their worldview to be more rational than the Judeo-Christian alternative.

A Warning from Ancient Rome

As stores and shops in our cities board up in anticipation of riots in the wake of our election, as groups like Antifa and BLM and their enablers among the progressive left threaten to destroy our institutions and erase our heritage, and, as less violent but equally corrosive forces permeate academia and our pop culture, this post, first put up on VP a couple of years ago, seems appropriate:

Here are words of a man who lived over two thousand years ago in circumstances not too dissimilar from those we find ourselves in today. His words might cause us to pause and reflect. The man is Marcus Tullius Cicero, one of the chief citizens of Rome in the first century B.C. and one of the most famous of all Romans. He writes:

A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

I hope Cicero was right that a nation can survive fools and the ambitious. I'm quite certain he's right, unfortunately, that a nation cannot survive corruption that starts and spreads from within. When the "pillars of the city," the institutions that bind us together and strengthen us as a people, are undermined we become like a massive tree that's hollowed out by years of internal decay and crashes to the ground in the next strong wind.

When people are conditioned by those who want to see us fall, people who want us to lose trust in our government, our courts, and our traditional freedoms, when our citizens, especially our young, are alienated, isolated and atomized by their obsession with impersonal technology, when the citizenry is encouraged to no longer value or respect family, religion, school and the Constitution, when everyone is propagandized to believe that a large majority of citizens is ineradicably corrupted by racism and every manner of phobia, and when what matters most is our own personal happiness best achieved through entertainment, hedonism and the accumulation of consumer goods, then we, like that tree, like ancient Rome, will be too corrupt to withstand stresses imposed either from within or without.

One way to avoid that fate, perhaps, is to recognize the many voices in our culture whose rhetoric is designed to erode our confidence and faith in the institutions and principles that made America great (I don't mean that to sound Trumpian).

The second thing is to stand up to those voices, to refute them, repudiate them or ignore them altogether.

The third thing is to get about the business of repairing the damage that has already been done to the "pillars of the city."

If enough people commit themselves to this project then perhaps we can avoid the fate that Rome suffered. If not, if, as Cicero puts it, we lose the will to resist the ideological toxins in our culture then how will we keep the human wolves at bay?

Six Perplexing Problems in the Philosophy of Science

Mathematician Granville Sewell has a piece at Evolution News in which he lists six evidences of purposeful agency in the structure of the universe and the emergence of life. Not only are these strong evidences for what philosophers call intelligent design, but they also constitute six very difficult problems in the philosophy of science.

Sewell introduces his six with this:

The ACLU speaks for much of the media and of academia when it says the theory of intelligent design “simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity. This is not science.”

Oh really? Is that all there is to it? Not exactly. Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist.

The six lines of evidence he lists and discusses are these:

1. The Fine-Tuning of Conditions on Earth
2. The Fine-Tuning of the Physical Laws of the Universe
3. The Origin of Life
4. The Evolution of Humans
5. The Origin of Human Consciousness
6. The Beginning of Time

He gives an explanation of each of these at the link, which the reader is encouraged to check out, and each of them is very difficult to explain on any naturalistic understanding of things.

Another example he could have mentioned (although perhaps he subsumes it under #1 and #2) is the extraordinary fitness for life of many of the atoms on the periodic table.

In his recent book The Miracle of the Cell geneticist Michael Denton explains how the chemistry of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorous as well as several heavier elements is precisely what it must be in order for there to be living things of even minimal complexity and that this chemistry must've been baked into the universe at the very outset of its existence, long before any life appeared.

It is, Denton says, a "primal blueprint" for life.

Similarly to the other books in his series of which it is a part (Firemaker, Wonder of Water, and Children of Light) Denton takes us in The Miracle of the Cell on an excursus into the cell to show us that had not these elements had precisely the properties they do, living cells would be quite impossible.

He concludes his fascinating book (fascinating, but perhaps not for readers with scant background in chemistry or biology) with these words,

I believe that when the path [from chemistry to life] is finally elucidated, it will turn out to be extraordinary, one of the greatest scientific wonders, revealing a far deeper teleology [purpose] in nature than all the elements of natural fitness for the cell and for life documented so far.

Even more, I believe that the elucidation of that fateful route [to living cells] will be of far greater intellectual consequence than any other discovery in science since the birth of science in the sixteenth century. Indeed, I believe that the path, when discovered, will prove to be so obviously indicative of a profound teleology in the very ground of being that it will prove a watershed in the history of thought.

Conversely, if instead it is eventually established that there is no purely natural path across the great gulf from non-life to life, and that only the additional exertion of an intelligent agent could have assembled the first cell on Earth, that will be equally a watershed in human thought.

For readers with the equivalent of a high school education in chemistry or an undergraduate level education in biology almost every page of Denton's book contains captivating descriptions of the exquisite fine-tuning of the atoms and molecules necessary for the construction of a functioning biological cell.

I highly recommend it to readers with the appropriate background.

Why We Need the Electoral College

One of the many issues at stake in tomorrow's election is the fate of the electoral college. Democrats want to do away with it and Republicans want to keep it, but many voters, unfortunately, have no idea what the electoral college is and why it matters.

To help us understand this institution here's a short five minute video that explains how the electoral college works and why it's important. The video was originally made about five years ago so some of the references to political figures may seem a little anachronistic, but that doesn't detract from its message.

It's disturbing that there's so much support on the left for abolishing the electoral college. One gets the feeling that those who wish its demise do so because it's an impediment to their electoral success. If they can't win playing by the traditional rules then they want to change the rules.

That same sentiment is also at the root, it seems, of the desire among many Democratic leaders to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices and to grant statehood to Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico.

If a Democratic president appointed two or four more progressive justices they'd have a permanent majority on the court which would allow them to circumvent Republican legislatures.

If both D.C. and Puerto Rico became states the overwhelming likelihood is that they would elect Democratic senators which would give Democrats an almost invincible majority in the Senate for at least a generation.

As I said, there's a lot at stake in tomorrow's election.

Three Things to Think about Before You Vote

We've all heard, probably more than once, that Tuesday's election may be the most consequential election of our lifetimes. I don't think that that's an exaggeration, but whether it is or isn't, I doubt that there are many who will vote on Tuesday who are still undecided as to whom they'll cast their ballot for.

Indeed, almost 70 million voters have already decided and have taken advantage of early voting to express their support for their favored candidates.

Nevertheless, for those who haven't yet voted here's a short (less than 3 minutes) video from Dennis Prager that might be helpful. It's titled Three Things to Think about Before You Vote:

Also, I'd like to take the liberty to recommend a couple of previous VP posts that might be helpful. This one explains the differences between the various political ideologies such as conservatives and progressives, a matter which many find confusing and which, hopefully, this post will clarify.

This post, on the other hand, explains why I'm voting the way I am.

What's Wrong with Socialism?

Conservative politicians and talk show hosts frequently level the accusation that Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and pretty much the rest of the elites in the Democratic Party are socialists. The charge is either true or not far from the truth concerning many of the people it's directed at, but unfortunately not just a few people, especially younger voters, have only a vague idea what socialism actually is and why Americans should reject it.

In an attempt to help correct this gap in the public's understanding I offer this allegory to which everyone should be able to relate:

Imagine that you're in a college class and the class is scheduled to take a test soon. You and your friends study hard. You form a study group. You review the Zoom recordings of the class lectures. You read and reread the textbook assignments. You stay up all night the night before making sure that you've crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's.

Meanwhile, others in the class blow it off. They don't study, they play video games instead and spend their time texting their friends and sleeping.

Test day arrives. When you get your papers back you and your friends have all scored A's and B's and the sluggards have scored D's and F's. It's a familiar story to many students, and here's where the socialism metaphor comes in.

Your professor thinks it's unfair that you and your friends did so much better than your classmates. After all, the professor intones, you went to better high schools, you had the advantage of having better study habits, your upbringing made you more disciplined and instilled in you a strong desire for success. The students who didn't do so well may have had none of these advantages. It's not fair that your privileged background should cause you to do better than those who are less privileged.

Therefore, the professor concludes, he's going to take points from your scores and give them to the students who got the D's and F's so that everybody winds up with a C.

When the next test comes around you and your friends decide that working hard doesn't matter, so you don't put nearly as much effort into your preparation as you did the last time. Meanwhile, your less motivated classmates certainly have no incentive to work harder since they do well enough to suit them by just goofing off. The scores come back and they still have D's and F's, but although you and your friends have the highest scores in the class, they're only C's.

When the professor redistributes the points everyone, including you, now has a D.

By the time the third test is administered nobody is motivated to work hard to prepare. The redistribution of "wealth" has sapped you and your friends of all incentive to put forth any serious effort. After all, why work hard when you can't achieve any more than those who don't?

Translate this into economics and you have socialism.

This short video makes the same point differently:

Does Evil Exist?

The Bosnian war of 1992-1995 produced horrors that defy description. Serb soldiers raped Bosnian women and girls and butchered their men and even their babies by the tens of thousands. The record of their barbaric inhumanity is as hard to believe as it is to read, and is a sickening testament to the depravity that lies within the human psyche.

That so many men were capable of such cruelty is surely compelling evidence of human fallenness and the ugliness and evil which hold so many human hearts in their grip.

Kenneth Francis, in a fine piece at the New English Review, a couple of years back offered some insight into the terrifying iniquity that plagues our world.

Francis reminds us that,

The German atheist Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) spoke of the ramifications of ‘murdering’ God. In his Parable of the Madman, he wrote:

. . . All of us are his [God's] murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

Nietzsche would have been aware that without God, humans are prone to the worst cruelty imaginable, even to our animal ‘friends’. It is alleged that after seeing a horse being whipped in the streets of Turin, Italy, he had a mental breakdown that put him in an asylum for the rest of his life.

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment highlights the barbarity humans are capable of. The protagonist in the novel, Raskolnikov, has a glass of vodka, but he’s not used to drinking alcohol. He then staggers to a park and immediately goes to sleep. He dreams that he is back in his childhood, aged seven, and as he is walking with his father, he sees a drunk trying to make his old horse pull a wagon full of people.

When the crowd laugh at him struggling, the drunk peasant becomes furious and begins beating the horse so brutally that the others begin to do likewise by using crowbars and iron shafts. The old horse at first tries to resist, but soon it falls down dead. The boy in the dream, devastated and in great sorrow, throws his arms around the horse and kisses it.

All through the dream the owner of the horse is shouting that he can do what he wants with the mare because he owns her.

One would have to have a heart of freezing steel to not be deeply saddened by this poignant passage of human savagery, despite it being fiction. Anyone who hurts a human or animal for fun or pleasure is a degenerate psychopath. But wait a minute: there is no psychopathy or degeneracy if the universe is made entirely of determined matter.

All we are left with are chunks of atoms bumping into one another. And, on Naturalism, some of these chunks end up shattering other molecules in motion in the chaotic maelstrom of the material universe spinning ultimately into oblivion: the final heat death of the cosmos.

In such a hellhole, there is no creator to save us—and no objective morals or values!

Nietzsche’s death of God also leaves us with no absolute truth, meaning, ... right or wrong. We are left rudderless trying to keep afloat in a sea of moral relativism with all its dire ramifications. Can any sane person really act as if atheism were true?

The late atheist scholar at Yale University, Arthur Leff, realising the ramifications of atheism and trying to justify morality, said:

. . . As things stand now, everything is up for grabs. Nevertheless: Napalming babies is bad. Starving the poor is wicked. Buying and selling each other is depraved . . . There is in the world such a thing as evil.

Indeed there is, but only if there are objective moral values, and those can only exist if there is a transcendent moral authority which establishes them and holds human beings accountable to them. An atheist like Leff has no grounds for believing that there is evil in the world. The most he can say is that there are behaviors he doesn't like.

The word "evil" has no meaning in a godless world other than as an expression of personal, subjective revulsion. Those who share Leff's unbelief have a choice. They can acknowledge that evil exists or they can continue in their atheism, but they can't do both.

Amusing Ourselves to Death

This post is a rerun of one I originally wrote in 2016:

In the mid-1980s a sociologist by the name of Neil Postman wrote a book that was destined to become a classic in cultural criticism. The book was titled Amusing Ourselves to Death, and it was Postman's thesis that television dumbed down everything and that our politics would eventually be transmogrified by that medium from a serious exercise in selecting the people who would guide our national destiny into little more than a frivolous spectacle.

Journalist Paul Brian has a column at The Federalist which amplifies Postman's prescient prognostication and in which he argues that television is corrupting not just our politics but our very ability to think:

Postman saw today’s click-craving, faux-outrage 24/7 news cycle slouching over the field of satellite dishes to be born from decades away. Even though the Internet Age was not yet upon him, he saw where the path of everything-as-entertainment was leading: to people having shorter average attention spans than goldfish, to a continuous present where contradictions and context are just minor details of no great interest.

“With television we vault ourselves into a continuous, incoherent present,” Postman writes. “In a world of discontinuities, contradiction is useless as a test of truth or merit.”

In foreseeing the climate that would pave the way for pure-celebrity candidates like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, and Donald Trump, not to mention the elevation of politicians like President Barack Obama to celebrity status, Postman surely deserves his reputation as the Nostradamus of the digital age.

The game show sets upon which our candidates stage their debates, the sporting event atmosphere that the media creates, the melodramatic "countdowns" to the debates and elections, the fascination with sexual scandal, the focus on whether some trivial development will help or hurt a candidate rather than on whether it's really even relevant to the issues that should concern us, all conspire to stifle thought.

Campaigns are no longer vehicles for helping voters understand issues and discern truth so much as extravaganzas exploited by the media to attract viewers who wish merely to be entertained.

Serious discussion of issues requires thinking and the strenuous exercise of reason, but that's not a promising way to garner ratings among the unthinking masses of television viewers. Better to package campaigns and candidates in a political version of Survivor:

We now live in a political climate where politicians embrace fame. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau makes national news for being photographed shirtless. Trump hires a media provocateur as his campaign CEO, prompting speculation his plan is to form a media empire if his presidential run doesn’t pan out. Hillary Clinton’s supporters fret that her appearance on Kimmel received lower ratings than reuns of Teen Moms and Friends (but she’s trying to increase star power by hanging out with Justin Timberlake).

Amusing Ourselves to Death essentially champions Aldous Huxley’s vision of the future in Brave New World over George Orwell’s vision in 1984.

“Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no 'Big Brother' is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacity to think,” Postman writes.

“In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours,” Postman prophesies with dark humor. Orwell saw a future where books were banned, Huxley one in which there was no need to ban books because nobody wanted to read them in the first place.

The media beguiles us into focusing on which candidate has made the most serious gaffe or committed the greatest outrage against social orthodoxy or articulated the cleverest put-down. We receive constant reminders as to who looks old, who looks tired, who looks frumpy. What the candidate would actually do if elected is barely given a thought by a media determined to seduce us with breathless reports of a candidate's eloquence, style, charm, and afflatus, but rarely analyzing in any serious way the quality of a candidate's ideas.

They seem determined to amuse us to death.

Postman endeavors to prove that ... when books and print newspapers were the sole source of information, discourse was “generally coherent, serious and rational.” But in the Age of Television (elsewhere he calls it the Age of Show Business), political discourse in particular has become “shriveled and absurd,” reliant on context-free snippets of information and entertaining spectacles and gaffes.

And it's not just our politics which suffers from this infatuation with the trivial, frivolous and mindless. Sporting events are turned into multimedia assaults on the senses and intellect with halftime rock bands and fireworks and meaningless side-line interviews involving vacuous questions posed by witless "reporters." Many church services feature epilepsy-inducing strobe lights, artificial stage fog, deafness-inducing high decibel "worship" music, and flamboyant preachers whose message, even if it's occasionally worth hearing, is often obscured by the medium in which it's presented.

One example of mind-dulling news reportage, albeit one of minor importance, is the radio news report that features a snippet of often unintelligible background noise from some foreign trouble site. Sometimes it's screaming sirens, or machinery noise, or people yelling in a foreign tongue. Listeners aren't supposed to ask what the actual purpose of playing that particular sound bite could possibly be, they're just supposed to allow it to anesthetize them into an acquiescence to the pointlessness of it.

Postman and Brian, I think, are right. We're not a people who want to think. We're a people who want to be able to avoid thinking, especially about politics and religion. We really want only to be distracted and entertained. Brian quotes Postman:

“Our politics, religion, news, athletics, education and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, largely without protest or even much popular notice,” he writes. “The result is that we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death.”