Randal Rauser's Blog, page 114

I’m Thankful for Old Friends

This past week I spoke at a conference in Vancouver. While there, I visited two old friends: Corey, and J.P.

Corey and I go back to university. The last time I saw him was six years ago. (For those of you who have read What’s So Confusing About Grace?, he’s the guy who defended serial killer Christians in a marathon debate over grace and law.)

J.P. and I go back to elementary school. The last time I saw J.P. was eighteen years ago. (In What’s So Confusing About Grace? I recall the time that J.P. and I played a Led Zeppelin record backwards looking for messages from the devil.) ‘The last time I saw J.P. was at my wedding. And as I drove home after our evening at the Brassneck Brewery, I mused that this past Thursday night was probably the longest conversation I’ve had with J.P. in twenty-five years.

Corey and J.P. Two friends. One from university. The other from elementary school. And what hit me as I flew home Saturday morning is the special kind of value there is to be found in old friends like these. You may not see them for five or ten or twenty years. But when you finally cross paths again, it’s like you last saw them yesterday. You can pick right up where you left off, talking for hours, laughing, joking, reminiscing, and waxing philosophical. And not a single uncomfortable silence the whole time.

And when you part you know that when you next cross paths, you can once again pick up right where you left off.

On this day, Canadian Thanksgiving, one thing I’m thankful for is old friends.

The post I’m Thankful for Old Friends appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Why is it that folks who call themselves “free thinkers” tend to think alike?

It’s true! The next time you meet an (American) free thinker ask them some questions. Chances are:

They support Democrats, gun control, LGBT rights, elective abortion access, the science on climate change, stem cell research, and single payer healthcare.
They do not support the Republican party, a tax exempt status for organized religion, home schooling, or increased military funding.

Of course, there are always exceptions. But the exceptions don’t disprove the general rule. And the general rule is that calling oneself a “free thinker” is generally indicative of a surprising degree of intellectual conformity.

The post Why is it that folks who call themselves “free thinkers” tend to think alike? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Want to control guns? Change people’s minds

This morning I watched the opening segment of Fareed Zakaria GPS. The topic was guns in America.

Zakaria gave some statistics. The United States, with liberal gun laws, suffers approximately 30,000 gun deaths a year. Japan, with the strictest gun laws in the world, has as few as two gun deaths annually.

In fairness, the United States has a population of 2.5 times that of Japan. So the numbers are really 30,000 to 5. But still, it would seem a reasonable conclusion that gun control will make America safer.

This is where David Frum made an important point by way of an example. In most states it is legal for people to smoke in an enclosed automobile with children in the car. But people rarely do it. The reason? We widely recognize the dangers posed by second hand smoke and so we act accordingly. In short, when people widely recognize the danger posed by the behavior, laws aren’t required to regulate that behavior.

Frum then stated that the perception remains widely held within the United States that guns make people safer. But they don’t. So the place to begin, Frum proposed, is not with gun control legislation but with changing people’s minds about the threats posed.

Of course, the lesson here is about far more than gun control. It’s really about belief, about worldview. If you want to change behaviors, you should start by changing beliefs.

The post Want to control guns? Change people’s minds appeared first on Randal Rauser.

On Fundamentalism: The Best Thing Alvin Plantinga Ever Wrote

I was called a “liberal” this week on Twitter. I don’t have any problem per se with being called a liberal. But in this case it clearly wasn’t intended as a compliment. So I asked my interlocutor about his basis for making the charge. He replied by pointing out that I support public healthcare for all.

Guilty as charged! Of course, by this standard almost every Canadian is a “liberal”. I inquired further and was told that “conservative” entails support for limited government. And support for limited government is inconsistent with expanding government to include public healthcare. Hence, I’m a liberal.

Now one can certainly take issue with this use of the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” But it goes both ways. “You’re a liberal!” “Oh yeah? Well you’re a fundamentalist!”

Ahh, “fundamentalist.” I’ve been called that too. Indeed, I once had a book proposal rejected because one blind reviewer called me a fundamentalist. (By “blind reviewer” I don’t mean he lacked the ability to see. I mean I didn’t know who he — or she — was.)

Say, what’d he (or she) mean by calling me a fundamentalist?

Great question! And that brings me to Alvin Plantinga’s priceless treatment of the use of the term “fundamentalist” as an epithet to marginalize particular individuals for holding theological opinions that are decidedly out of fashion. Here is the delightful section from Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 245. It has all the elements that we love in Plantinga’s writing: concise, reasoned analysis melded with dry wit, and astute social commentary.

And now, without further ado:

On the most contemporary academic use of the term [fundamentalist], it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like ‘son of a bitch’, more exactly ‘sonovabitch’, or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) ‘sumbitch’. When the term is used in this way, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you feel obliged first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of ‘fundamentalist’ (in this widely current use): it isn’t simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like ‘stupid sumbitch’ (or maybe ‘fascist sumbitch’?) than ‘sumbitch’ simpliciter. It isn’t exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation is that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase ‘considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.’ The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use) can be given by something like ‘stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine.’.”

So thanks to Alvin Plantinga, the next time you get called a “fundamentalist” you’ll know what they’re really saying!

The post On Fundamentalism: The Best Thing Alvin Plantinga Ever Wrote appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Pat Robertson identifies lack of respect for Trump as catalyst for Las Vegas Massacre

I’ll say this for Pat Robertson: he’s got good taste in ties (I’ve always liked Burberry). But to begin a monologue on the catalysts for the Las Vegas shooting by flagging a lack of national respect for Donald Trump?

On the contrary, the one bright spot I’ve found in the last several months is the bracing moral authority and conviction with which everybody from Meryl Streep to Carmen Yulín Cruz to Jeff Flake have stood up to that nasty man and his utterly debased character and conduct.

The post Pat Robertson identifies lack of respect for Trump as catalyst for Las Vegas Massacre appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Make America Godly Again?

As others have suggested, #MAGA should stand for "make America godly again." We can only be greet if we are good. #SavingaSickAmerica.

— Dr. Michael L. Brown (@DrMichaelLBrown) October 2, 2017

This is the iconic image of escaped slave Gordon during an 1863 medical examination, his body latticed with scars from severe whippings.

That tweet got my attention. So I asked Dr. Brown (via Twitter), to which point in American history is he referring? That is, which period of godliness from the past is it to which he wishes to return?

He replied: “Let’s start with our godly, colonial foundations, foundations that birthed schools like Harvard and Yale as Christian schools.”

In response, I pointed out that this period of allegedly greater holiness was the same period in which the institution of slavery was widely practiced and women were considered inferior citizens who were denied the right to vote.

Dr. Brown replied as follows: “The colonies were divided over slavery; and yes, women couldn’t vote — but I’d take the godly climate then over today anytime.”

Frankly, I was a bit surprised by that response. In the last two years I’ve watched two powerfully horrendous films depicting the scourge of American slavery (12 Years a Slave and The Birth of a Nation). In light of those harrowing cinematic experiences, I find it nearly unimaginable that somebody could deem that dark period in American history more “godly” than our present age.

I replied to Dr. Brown by asking, if he was a black man, would he prefer to live in colonial America or in America today? Once again, I was (to put it mildly), surprised by his response: “Not sure, honestly. But nothing in what was best in America contributed to slavery. Instead, that’s what led to their freedom.”

I appreciate Dr. Brown answering my questions. But I am astounded that somebody would hedge on whether they would prefer to live as a black man in contemporary society rather than in the hellish period depicted in The Birth of a Nation. Contemporary America is still far from a racially just society, but it is orders better than the antebellum United States. This is not a disputable point!

The same points apply to the status of women.

And also that of the mentally and physically infirm. And other visible minorities. And the elderly. And countless other individuals too.

So what’s going on here?

While the last 150 years represent undeniable improvements in our journey toward the good society, it would seem that this phenomenon of social improvement fits poorly with the pessimism of premillennial Christians according to which the earth should be in a death spiral until Christ returns.

Here’s the solution: if premillennial Christianity cannot handle undeniable moral facts, so much the worse for premillennial Christianity.

The post Make America Godly Again? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

What is the case for citizens being able to access (semi) automatic weaponry?

This morning I posted the following tweet:

I've heard people say that today is not the day to talk about gun control in the US. Okay, but the conversation needs to happen tomorrow.

— Randal Rauser (@RandalRauser) October 2, 2017

Somebody under the moniker “Christian Debate Maps” (henceforth CDM) replied with a defense of guns and we had a brief exchange. I stated that I didn’t believe citizens should have access to semi-automatic and fully automatic weaponry (henceforth (semi) automatic). CDM asked why and I replied it was a simple cost/benefit analysis. The cost was evident spattered in blood on the streets of Las Vegas. And that cost, I claimed, outweighed any benefit to such access.

But of course that was pending CDM’s provision of a list of benefits. So what are the benefits? CDM replied:

The benefit would be the number of lives saved by personal firearm owners. What's your exact moral calculus for the cost/benefit analysis?

— ChristianDebateMaps (@XianDebateMaps) October 2, 2017

Let’s sum up. I said the cost of legal access to (semi) automatic weaponry is mass civilian death. CDM replied that the benefit which allegedly outweighs that cost is the ability of citizens to kill the individual perpetuating that mass civilian death with their own (semi) automatic weaponry.

I think that’s a very bad reason to support citizen access to (semi) automatic weaponry, not least because it secures access to would-be murderers like the Las Vegas shooter as surely as it secures access to the Johnny-Do-Rights who would wield their weapons to take down those would-be murderers.

I can think of a second reason that I’ve heard in defense of access to this weaponry. Some folks believe they need access to (semi) automatic weaponry as backup tools for armed insurrection against the government. But this is even a worse reason than the first.

A third reason? Folks simply like shooting (semi) automatic weapons. I think this reason is about as bad as the second.

So are there good reasons why citizens should have access to (semi) automatic weaponry? If so, what are they?

The post What is the case for citizens being able to access (semi) automatic weaponry? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Would The Message work in an exorcism?

Today I watched the first two episodes of the 2016 television series “The Exorcist” before I lost interest. As a result, I was mulling over the lost opportunity that this series represents. And along the way I started wondering, if you were performing an exorcism and you cited The Message, would it work? And if not, what would that say about The Message?

(Of course, the question is predicated on the assumption that exorcism involves actual spiritual agencies rather than misbegotten attempts to diagnose and treat physiological and psychosomatic conditions. Reader who are not willing to grant that assumption, even for the sake of argument, should probably stop reading now and instead go and check Trump’s latest offensive tweet.)

Is The Message a better Bible than the KJV for the contemporary reader? Maybe.

The King James Version will always be a literary classic. But as a translation it becomes more obsolete every year due to the changing meaning of language, the discovery of new manuscripts, developments in linguistic understanding, translation philosophy, etc.

As for The Message, it famously utilizes a highly dynamic translation philosophy (in contrast to the word-for-word approach of the KJV). As a result, people tend to label it a “paraphrase”. (Technically this is incorrect since Peterson translated from the original languages while paraphrases are reworkings of preexisting translations.) Regardless, the fact that The Message foregoes “Biblish” and “Christianese” phrasing for common language has won it many readers. And in many respects that earthy approach has resulted in a product that, for the modern reader, is closer in tone and meaning to the original texts.

Is the KJV a better Bible for an exorcism than The Message? Probably.

While The Message may be a more effective Bible overall for the contemporary reader than the old KJV, I know which one I’d sooner bring to an exorcism. But I’m not sure why.

Consider a comparison on one verse, 2 Timothy 1:7:

KJV: “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”

The Message: “God doesn’t want us to be shy with his gifts, but bold and loving and sensible.”

Okay, in this case I prefer the KJV. But even so, there is a case to be made for each translation. For example, the Greek word deilia that the KJV renders as “fear” can also be plausibly translated with The Message’s focus on shyness since the word’s lexical range includes timidity.

Nonetheless, when it comes to Regan MacNeil levitating in front of me, I’d much rather cite the KJV. Of course, my preference is probably due to the fact that as a reader I’ve learned to identify the KJV Biblish and Christanese phrasing with inspiration and authority which The Message lacks.

But that doesn’t change my mind. I’d still rather take the KJV, even if it turns out that verse for verse The Message is a better translation for today.

Footnote: As I was writing this article the Eagles song “One of these nights” was playing in the background. And just as I wrote the sentence about Regan MacNeil from The Exorcist levitating, Don Henley sang “you got your demons”.

Coincidence?

Promiscuous Gay People

Back in the mid 1990s my vision of apologetics involved memorizing lists of factoids on countless issues I deemed relevant to the defense of Christianity. When it came to homosexuality, I memorized some facts about the high rates of promiscuity among gays that I learned from the Bible Answer Man. So if the topic of homosexuality ever came up, I could immediately launch into “Did you know the average gay man has _X_ number of sexual partners during his life?” (Not surprisingly, I paid little heed to the low rates of promiscuity among lesbians.)

A couple months ago I was having a conversation with some Christian men about theology, ethics, and LGBT issues when one of them mentioned the high rates of promiscuity among gay men. And it can’t be denied that rates of promiscuity are significantly higher among gay men than heterosexual men. As Robert Gagnon observes,

“a 1997 study of 2,583 homosexually active men in Australia who are 50 years or older, produced by researchers from Macquarie University (discussed on p. 455 of my book). Only 15% of the men reported having fewer than eleven sex partners to date, while on the other end of the spectrum 15% had over 1000 sex partners. A whopping 82% had over 50 partners and nearly 50% had over 100.” (Source)

Needless to say, such highly promiscuous behavior exacts an enormous personal and social cost, not least of which is the proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases.

Having said that, here’s how I replied: “Jesus said, ‘anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’ By that standard, I’m guessing the promiscuity rates among heterosexual men are nothing to be proud of.”

The post Promiscuous Gay People appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Help! Let’s kick cancer’s butt together

Let me be blunt. Cancer sucks. So let’s do something about it.

This is the fourth year my daughter and I are participating in the Run for the Cure (October 2) to make cancer history (aka to kick cancer’s butt). If you appreciate this blog I hope you’ll consider donating at our fundraising site here.

In case you’re on the fence, here’s our inspirational speech:

Many people think superheroes wear capes and spandex and fly through the air.

We think superheroes are those who face that arch-villain cancer with courage and fortitude. Some of them are engaged in the battle by the development of new treatments or the administration of care and healing. Others are truly on the frontlines, battling the villain within their own bodies.

Please support us in our fundraising efforts for this year’s Canadian Breast Cancer FoundationCIBC Run for the Cure. By making a donation, you are joining a national movement in communities across Canada on Sunday, October 2, and helping to fund innovative research and patient support initiatives that help the 1 in 9 women expected to develop breast cancer in their lifetime.

Today we run for the real superheroes.

And once again for good measure, here’s the link to donate!

The website was down but it’s working now.

The post Help! Let’s kick cancer’s butt together appeared first on Randal Rauser.