Randal Rauser's Blog, page 132

Enter to Win a Free Copy of An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar

Rumor has it there are no free lunches. But every once in a while there are free books. In conjunction with Prometheus Press, the website “Strange Notions” is giving away 5 copies of An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar. You can enter here.

The post Enter to Win a Free Copy of An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Congratulations to Jeff Lowder for Posting the 80,000th Comment at My Blog!

Today Jeff Lowder posted a comment at my blog. But it wasn’t just any comment. It was the 80,000th comment that has been posted at my blog (not including, of course, spam and the hundred or so comments I’ve needed to delete over the years).

Wow, 80,000. That’s a lot of comments. And how fine it is that this comment should receive that high honor as Jeff’s comment exemplifies what this blog is all about: rigorous and courteous dialogue and discussion about big and important issues. You can read it here:

Naturalism or Theism? A Review of The Lowder-Turek Debate

“But wait!” you say. “What about Jeff’s award for this great achievement? What does he get?”

I’m glad you asked!

Jeff, here’s your award. Feel free to post this badge on your blog at Secular Outpost! And prepare yourself for the inundation of press attention that is sure to follow.

The post Congratulations to Jeff Lowder for Posting the 80,000th Comment at My Blog! appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Naturalism or Theism? A Review of The Lowder-Turek Debate

I recently had the pleasure of viewing Jeff Lowder’s autumn debate with Frank Turek on the question: naturalism or theism? You can view the debate here. I’ve offered my own reactions below in the form of eight impressions.

However, be sure to watch the debate for yourself rather than just skimming my impressions. As you will see, there is ample content in this debate for further reflection. This debate is not merely a rehash of a million other debates over the cosmological and design arguments and the problem of evil. Rather, these debaters — Lowder in particular — seek to stake out some fresh ground. And that makes for an interesting and worthwhile exchange.

Quick Impressions

Impression 1: Excellent Debate Question

I love the way Lowder and Turek set up the debate. Quite frequently debates of this type focus on a question or debate resolution concerning the existence of God: i.e. “Does God exist?” or “To be resolved: God exists.” This is a perfectly fine approach, and I’ve done public debates of that type. But in my opinion, this approach tends to favor the atheist by creating the impression (sometimes reinforced by the atheist debater) that the theist has to do all the heavy-lifting while the atheist merely needs to express the obligatory degree of incredulity toward the theist’s arguments.

By contrast, the “Naturalism or theism?” approach provides a refreshing parity for our debaters: each one has the task of defending a worldview over-against that of his opponent.

Impression 2: Lowder over-prepared for the debate (and that’s not all bad)

Not only is it not all bad. Some of it is good. Let’s start with that good, beginning with the fact that Lowder clearly researched Turek’s work, particularly his most important book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist coauthored with Norman Geisler. Further, Lowder brought a wealth of material to engage Turek point by point. As a result, Turek pointed out that Lowder is a brilliant fellow and I don’t think there is a person in the room who would doubt that after watching the debate.

The importance of Lowder’s achievement in this regard cannot be overstated. As Lowder pointed out, Turek claims in his above-mentioned book to have established the truth of theism beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t think a person who views this debate could retain that view. Even if they didn’t follow all Lowder’s arguments — and I suspect many folks didn’t — they would nonetheless need to concede that Lowder has evidence and supporting arguments for his naturalistic views. In short, he is a reasonable disbeliever.

What is more, Lowder was pleasant and irenic throughout the debate even to the point of noting evidence he thought supported theism. Consequently, the Christian inclined to attribute all disbelief to sinful rebellion would have a hard time applying that analysis to Lowder.

But there was a downside as well. Lowder had so much material that he was forced to cover some weighty conceptual analysis and important arguments at a rapid pace. As a result, those points did not have the impact they should have. This is a classic case of less is more. Had Lowder pared down his material, included more powerful illustrations, and repeated points for emphasis, he might have said less, but he would have communicated more.

Impression 3: Lowder Majored on Substance 

Early on, it became clear that Lowder and Turek have very different approaches to debate. Lowder focused on substance. He had interesting arguments that deserve to be chewed on … like steel cut oats. But remember, if you’re going to eat and digest steel cut oats, you need to boil them for a long time and then give each mouthful a good thirty chews. Lowder’s arguments likewise require adequate time to set up and chew. (See impression 2 for further explanation!)

This became most obvious with Lowder’s opening statement that begins with definitions of “naturalism,” “supernaturalism,” “theism,” “hypothesis,” and “intrinsic probability.” That’s a lot to chew on right at the beginning. I think Lowder would have been better to focus on two definitions — naturalism vs. theism — and to focus his appeal to evidence by simply invoking — and repeatedly reiterating — the jellybean illustration, while emphasizing along the way how each of his lines of evidence was a red jellybean.

The fact that Lowder passed too quickly through his Bayesian opening was evident in the cross-examination when it became clear that Turek had not quite grasped the jellybean illustration given at the beginning. And if Turek had not grasped it, one can assume that many audience members did not as well.

Speaking of Lowder’s cross-examination, he devoted a significant amount of time to questioning Turek on his writings and it wasn’t entirely clear for much of that time where Lowder was going. This would have been a fascinating exchange outside of a debate. But within this context I would have much preferred Lowder to ask pointed questions about Turek’s opening statement which certainly had ample material to which he might object.

Impression 4: Turek Majored on Style

If Lowder gave the impression of an ivory-tower academic, Turek came across as a skilled preacher and public speaker. Let me hasten to add, I don’t say that as an insult by any means. Indeed, in some key respects it meant that Turek was more effective as a debater. He’s an excellent communicator who knows the importance of image and story.

Let’s start with an example of Turek’s use of metaphor. Turek hammered on the point that naturalism entails an unpalatable reductionism, most perspicuously as regards the nature of the human person. To make the point, he kept referring to the naturalistic account of human persons as “moist robots” (though I prefer Minsky’s reference to computers made of meat). At one point, Turek even observed jokingly that the audience would not be able to shake the moist robot image. And he’s right. I suspect long after the arguments have faded into a blur, many lay people will still recall an association between “naturalism” and “moist robots.” And that may be enough for them to eschew naturalism as having unpalatable implications.

The most effective use of story came when Turek addressed the problem of evil. As y’all know, this is typically presented as a major objection to theism. So Turek sought to block that path in his opening statement by telling the story of man who came to one of Turek’s events. The man then shared that his daughter had been sexually abused for years by a family friend. As a result, the young woman’s two brothers had become atheists. Turek then segued from the powerful story to his argument: without God, there is no moral value, nor is there a guarantee of justice. And so, he concludes that evil in fact presents an argument for God rather than against him.

Along with the moist robots metaphor, I suspect many people who watch the debate will retain that story in their memory.

This is where Christopher Hitchens (one of Turek’s past debate opponents) would have a rhetorical leg up on Lowder. In 2009 I saw Hitchens debate in Dallas, TX. When it came to the problem of evil, he told the horrifying story of Josef Fritzl who kept his daughter a prisoner under his house and raped her for close to thirty years. Hitchens described how Fritzl’s daughter would hear him coming down the stairs to rape her and God never responded to her prayers. Did you notice that I still recall that story eight years later? Hitchens could meet Turek as a storyteller point by point — and then some — and he could draw the exact opposite conclusion.

Lowder could have done the same thing here. He could have asked the audience to consider Turek’s terrible story again, but from the perspective of God standing by impassively while a child was raped for years. He could then pose the rhetorical question: what kind of God is that? Fight fire with fire, I say. If Turek is going to play on emotional reactions to a horrible story, Lowder could do the same.

And after all that, is Turek’s story really an effective rebuttal to the problem of evil? That brings me to my next impression.

Impression 5: Several of Turek’s Arguments are Underdeveloped

The short answer is no, not in its current form. For one thing, Lowder points out that many atheists and naturalists accept the existence of objective moral value. Thus, they can likewise accept the powerful moral intuitions human beings have to the objective evil of this young woman having been sexually abused. And Lowder himself expressed his own openness to an objective morality.

That’s a fair point. Naturalism is a sufficiently vague concept that it could, in principle, be expanded to encompass the ontological demands of objective moral value. (We’ll come back to this below when I consider Lowder’s definition of naturalism.) On the downside, expanding one’s naturalism to encompass objective morality would arguably turn the invisible gardener objection back on naturalism. (From an epistemological point, the naturalist who adopts moral objectivism would also need to explain how adaptive pressures furnish the human species with truth-tracking moral faculties.)

Several of Turek’s claims make for good talking points, but they were not developed with any rigor and consequently I am doubtful that they will survive a closer critical analysis. For example, he repeatedly invokes the law-giver analogy: just as a government must exist to establish civic and state laws, so Turek claims, God must exist to establish natural “laws” (e.g. gravity), moral “laws” (e.g. “Do not murder”) and logical “laws” (e.g. the so-called Law of Non-Contradiction).

Note first that in each case we’re dealing with an analogy, and if we are to assess the analogy we must first identify how it is intended to function. This is a big problem since there is an enormous difference between regularities in nature like the “law of gravity”, absolute moral prohibitions like “Do not murder”, and the conditions of coherent utterance like “No statement and its negation can be true simultaneously.” Suffice it to say it isn’t clear at all whether any (let alone all) of these phenomena requires something like a “law giver.”

Impression 6: Turek’s selective use of scientific consensus

This is one of my pet peeves with many contemporary conservative evangelical apologists: they enthusiastically embrace the broad scientific consensus on Big Bang cosmology while dismissing (or denying) the broad scientific consensus on Neo-Darwinian evolution. To challenge the latter, they will typically point to some ongoing debates among contemporary evolutionary biologists and then extrapolate that the theory is “in crisis”. Turek suggested as much.

The fact is, however, that just as evolutionary biologists debate various aspects of evolution, so cosmologists debate various aspects of the Big Bang model. In neither case does this entail any sort of crisis. Scientific theories are expansive theoretical frameworks for explaining a wide range of disparate data, and as such there are always in-house debates about the theory and its application. Exploiting this fact to try to justify some kind of skepticism about one particular theory that otherwise enjoys a broad consensus (Neo-Darwinian evolution) is unjustified and misleading.

Lowder effectively and succinctly presented several lines of evidence that are supportive of Neo-Darwinian evolution. But I wish he had gone the next step of pointing out the selection bias evident in accepting the consensus in one area of science while rejecting it in another. (Let me add, I’m not assuming that theologians are obliged to follow a particular scientific consensus lockstep. But if one is to reject a consensus, one should have good reason. And appealing to intramural debates among the very theorists who form the consensus is not a good reason.)

Impression 7: Lowder’s definition of naturalism needs work

Lowder is to be commended for providing clear definitions at the very beginning of his talk. But I have some important questions and concerns about his definition of naturalism:

“the physical exists and IF the mental exists the physical explains why anything mental exists.”

First, note that Lowder doesn’t define the physical. You might think this is unnecessary, but I think it’s quite important because the very nature of that which we call physical is up for debate both among scientists and philosophers. Is Lowder affirming the existence of a particular kind of substance? If so, what is it? What are its properties? Or is it a Lockean something-we-know-not-what? Is it essentially spatially extended? Does it come in discrete atomic (i.e. indivisible) units? Or is it expansive like a field? If Lowder wants to claim that everything else that exists comes from this thing he calls “physical” he surely owes us some minimal definition of its properties.

Let me cut to the chase: I suspect Lowder is unable to offer any confident definition as to the essential properties of this metaphysical ground-level of reality that he believes gives rise to the mental. But if it’s true that he can’t even define it, then what gives him the confidence that everything else is explained by it?

Before wrapping up, let’s consider one more problem with Lowder’s naturalism. Here we can turn back to the fact that Lowder claims the existence of objective moral value (and obligation?) is (are?) consistent with his version of naturalism. At first blush this might seem surprising. Remember, Lowder defined naturalism as follows:

“the physical exists and IF the mental exists the physical explains why anything mental exists.”

If we assume that the moral is encompassed by the mental, then Lowder would be committed to saying that the physical explains the moral. Suffice it to say, I don’t see that to be a promising avenue … as the work of Sam Harris unwittingly illustrates.

However, Lowder could avoid this consequence by stating that the moral is wholly different from the physical and the mental. But if he does that then his naturalism is reduced from being an account of what exists to being the mere assertion that the mental supervenes on or reduces to the physical. And if that’s all he’s arguing then he isn’t offering a competing worldview over-against theism.

Impression 8: Reason does not require free will

Turek repeatedly hammered on an argument from reason that depends on libertarian free will. I think there are some fine arguments from reason out there: Plantinga’s argument first presented in Warrant and Proper Function is a good example. But I don’t think Turek’s argument is effective because the premise is false. The ability to reason simply does not require libertarian free will. Think about it, on Turek’s view, my ability to reason requires my ability to exercise my will in believing the reason or disbelieving the reason. Not only is this kind of doxastic voluntarism false (we don’t have that voluntaristic control over our belief), but it is also wholly unnecessary for proper reasoning. Rather, what reason requires is the ability of an individual effectively to track the relationship between propositions, their logical relationships, and supporting evidence. And there is no inconsistency between believing that such abilities can exist in a deterministic universe.

Lowder offered his own interesting response to Turek’s argument which — if I understood him — alluded to the central importance of one’s ability to track the truth effectively. But he didn’t emphasize the more basic point that the entire assumption that reasoning requires voluntaristic control of our beliefs is spurious to begin with.

Who Won? The Final Verdict

So who won this debate? Lowder? Or Turek?

In one sense, that depends on how you score debates. If your focus is the clarity and rigor of argumentation then this was Lowder’s debate, hands down. But if your focus is on effective and winsome communication punctuated by vivid metaphors and engaging stories — and lots of jokes — then Turek hit it out of the park.

As for me, my verdict is that the real winner is the rest of us. I really enjoyed the exchange and when I teach my next seminary apologetics class in May I plan to showcase this debate to the exclusion of all others. (Sorry Bill Craig.) Lowder and Turek have provided us a fascinating exchange of ideas and style which explores a range of issues and topics that often get overlooked or underemphasized in the God debates. In addition, both gentlemen have an irenic, pleasant manner which provides a model of civil exchange in this age of increasing sectarianism and polarization.

The post Naturalism or Theism? A Review of The Lowder-Turek Debate appeared first on Randal Rauser.

How to pick a church: Advice from Eugene Peterson

The great Christian writer Eugene Peterson was recently featured on an episode of of “On Being” with Krista Tippett. It’s a thought-provoking exchange, and I appreciated in particular Peterson’s advice on picking a church. Here’s the exchange excerpted from the website transcript:

MR. PETERSON: That’s true. We go to a small church. When I was a pastor of a congregation, people would leave and say, “How do I pick a church?”

MS. TIPPETT: Yeah.

MR. PETERSON: And my usual question, my usual answer was go to the closest church where you live, and the smallest. And if after six months it’s just not working, go to the next smallest. [laughs]

MS. TIPPETT: [laughs] OK, so what is it about small rather than big?

MR. PETERSON: Because you have to deal with people as they are. And you’ve got to learn how to love them when they’re not loveable.

The post How to pick a church: Advice from Eugene Peterson appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Do imperfect creatures count against God?

I’ve long been a fan of the popular Catholic blogsite “Strange Notions” for its brand of irenic and rigorous dialogue and debate. I’ve also written a few articles for Strange Notions in the past. (See “An Atheist in Church? Why Christians Should Listen to Their Atheist Neighbors” and “Do Atheists Simply Repress Their Knowledge of God?“)

Today Strange Notions posted an exchange between Justin Schieber and myself where we debate Schieber’s claim that if God existed, he would create perfect creatures. Since we aren’t perfect, that counts as evidence against God. You can read the article and join the discussion here.

The post Do imperfect creatures count against God? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

The Best Movies of 2016 You Probably Haven’t Heard Of

One of the many purposes of this blog is to raise awareness about valuable cultural products (books and movies, mostly) which are worthy of your attention. I see more than one hundred movies every year. Most are soon forgotten. Many others are worthwhile but you already know about them since they have big budgets and are playing at the local multiplex. But other films never receive the attention they are due (at least in North America). They may play a smattering of festivals and perhaps they make it to your local art house theatre for a week or two. But blink and you miss them.

It’s those movies to which I feel a special responsibility. I reviewed one of the best from 2016 just last week: Gleason. In this article I’ll briefly mention a few others.

Sing Street

I love Sing Street. Of my four entries here, this is the one you have most likely seen (or at least heard of). It came out last spring but I first encountered it a month ago on Netflix and wow, am I glad I did.

Set in 1980s Ireland, Sing Street will help you relive the joyous 1980s as an awkward teenager founds a rock band with the intention of wooing a girl. Complemented with a great soundtrack of retro-sounding new songs, Sing Street has an excellent sense of humor and a genuine affection for its all-too-human characters. It reminded me of a mashup of Once and The Way, Way Back, and if you loved those films (and you should), you’ll definitely enjoy Sing Street.

The Wailing

Just over twenty years ago the Korean government initiated a program of government subsidies to develop and sustain Korean popular culture in film, television, and music. Since then K-pop and K-cinema have become dominant forces in much of the world. And The Wailing is one of the latest and greatest examples of the latter. This dark tale brings together the best of mystery, thriller, and supernatural horror into an unforgettable and disorienting mix. (And good news, The Wailing was recently added to Netflix … albeit just after I watched it on pay-per-view.)

Under the Shadow

Over the last few years I’ve grown to have a deep appreciation for the brilliance of Iranian cinema. The 2011 film A Separation remains one of my all-time favorites. And like that film, Under the Shadow exemplifies the best of Iranian films: a stripped down narrative driven by situation and powerful acting. Under the Shadow is set at the end of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s and combines the looming existential threat of a military invader with the traditional fears of djinn (demons). The result is a taut, psychological thriller.

Train to Busan

From Romero’s Dawn of the Dead (1978) with its powerful indictment of consumer culture to Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later (2002) which offers a Lord of the Flies indictment of the human species, zombie films have long been a rich repository of thematic content and cultural commentary.

This brings us to another entry from K-cinema. Train to Busan unfolds on a high speed train between Seoul and Busan and in the process it breathes new life into the tired genre of zombie films. As in 28 Days Later, the horror is increased by high-speed zombies while its “zombie tidal waves” call to mind World War Z. You might call it Unstoppable with zombies.

But after all, the most memorable part of the film may be the love of a father and his daughter. And also the zombie Bambi.

The post The Best Movies of 2016 You Probably Haven’t Heard Of appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Secular Intolerance: Evaluating the Principles of the Oasis Network Part 1

What are you doing New Year’s Eve? When it comes to New Year’s Eve morn (i.e. right now) I’m taking a few minutes to earn a Kiva donation. In the comment section to my article “Finding her Oasis: Gretta Vosper and secular intolerance,” The Atheist Missionary extended the following offer:

“I will gladly make a Kiva donation for each (and any) post that Randal would like to write in which he explains why he disagrees with any (or all) of the core beliefs of the Oasis Network.”

Sure. I’m always keen to raise money for Kiva.

In the original article I already explained why I disagreed with the first principle: “People are more important than beliefs.” In response to this principle I raised two objections. First, the principle is vague. As I said, “I’m not sure what that even means.” More on that in a moment.

Second, insofar as the principle is accepted, it is held as a belief. Thus, one’s belief about persons provides the rational grounds for valuing persons. This, in turn, shows that the principle presents a false dichotomy. One does not choose to value persons over beliefs since one values persons because of their beliefs in the value of persons.

And with that I return to the first objection of vagueness. Is there some way to interpret this principle which can hope to redeem it? Certainly. For example, one could hypothesize that when the principle references “belief” it is envisioning an overly restrictive imposition of doxastic (belief) conformity within a belief community, one that restricts the development of meaningful relationships with others to doctrinal agreement on an overly narrow spectrum.

In other words, “If you want to hang out with us, you gotta believe like us.” On this interpretation, the principle eschews that demand, and invites everyone interested to join their community. Thus, the principle would be saying that this belief community welcomes people of diverse convictions to participate within the community because it values those individual persons and their willingness to join the community more than their adherence to the confessed principles of the community.

But two problems remain. The first problem is that proposed interpretations of the principle do not change the fact that the principle itself remains vague. And since it is vague it remains open to a number of mutually incompatible interpretations. This makes it wholly unfit to serve as a centering principle for a belief community.

That first objection targets the still unaddressed problem of vagueness. But the second problem is specific to the particular interpretation I’ve proposed. The problem here is that Vosper’s behavior flatly contradicts my proposed interpretation since she doesn’t welcome people of diverse convictions to participate within the community given that adherence to the five principles is, in her view, a prerequisite for joining that community. Thus, Vosper values belief agreement more than individual persons and their willingness to join the Oasis Network.

To conclude, I can’t help but underscore the fact that I have never known a single Christian church which required agreement in belief as a prerequisite to attend its services and potlucks and Bible studies. (To be sure, churches like that probably exist somewhere, but they are most definitely not the norm.) And this means that the Oasis Network is far more intolerant and exclusive in terms of demanding adherence to its principles than the typical Christian church.

The post Secular Intolerance: Evaluating the Principles of the Oasis Network Part 1 appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Finding her Oasis: Gretta Vosper and secular intolerance

A few months ago I wrote a short series of articles critiquing avowedly atheist United Church minister Gretta Vosper. In the articles I critiqued Vosper for being offended that the United Church was subjecting her outspoken atheism to a church inquiry and possible censure. (Here are the first two articles in the series: “Is the Christian minister Gretta Vosper being persecuted just because she’s an atheist?“; “Are Christian denominations permitted to expect theism of their ministers?“.)

Background to the Vosper Debate

My critical response to Vosper can be summarized as follows: expecting Christian ministers to tow the line on theism is no different than expecting a vegetarian activist to tow the line on not eating animals. Consequently, the chapter leader of PETA who makes a point of eating Foie gras at the monthly meeting will be turfed, and rightly so. Organizations have a right to expect among their leadership common support and agreement on the core identifying marks of their belief community. And news flash: when it comes to Christianity that includes theism.

Two qualifications are in order. First, Christians disagree on the definition of God, and not everyone is going to be satisfied with everyone else’s definition. Second, Christians hold belief in God with varying degrees of conviction. Some never waver in their belief while others find their journey vacillating between belief and doubt. I am not talking here about either of these points. That is, I’m not addressing the issue of whether active leadership are obliged to hold a specific definition of God or that they are required to retain a degree of conviction in their belief. Here I’m only saying this: they cannot be actively and avowedly denying the existence of God. This is a very minimal and eminently reasonable condition for leadership in the Christian church.

Vosper and the Oasis of Secular Intolerance

That is all introduction to an update on Vosper. First, she is still a United Church minister. And it won’t be until late 2017 that the United Church renders a judgment on whether she can remain so. (The wheels of ecclesiastical polity turn slowly.)

But in the interim, and even as she continues her ministerial duties, come February  Vosper will be starting a Toronto chapter for the Oasis Network. The Oasis Network is, for all intents and purposes, a secular church. On its homepage it declares “People are more important than beliefs.” Apparently this is, ahem, its core belief.

The homepage then goes on to list several other core beliefs:

Reality is known through reason.

Meaning comes from making a

difference.

Human hands solve human problems.

Be accepting and be accepted.

So while the Oasis Network purports to value people over beliefs (even though I’m not sure what that even means), they definitely wear their beliefs on their sleeve (i.e. their homepage). So their beliefs still are very important.

On the page About Oasis the Network acknowledges the tension. On this page they unpack their five core beliefs. Here is what they say on the first, i.e. the valuation of people over beliefs:

Throughout history beliefs, dogmas, and ideologies have divided people and have been the source of wars, persecution, and other conflicts.  The Oasis movement values the well-being of people over any abstract belief, dogma, theology, or philosophy.  Our common humanity is enough to bind us together in meaningful community.  (And, yes, we are fully aware that this is also a belief—but we’re just fine with a little irony in our lives!)

It’s more than “a little irony” though. Much like any church, the Oasis Network has a set of core beliefs which define the community. You can say you value people all you like: that doesn’t change the fact that your community is defined by a particular set of core beliefs. And those who explicitly and vocally deny those beliefs thereby exclude themselves from that community.

And so, just as Gretta Vosper ultimately excluded herself from orthodox Christianity through her vocal denunciation of theism, so any leader in the Oasis Network who vocally denounced one or more of their core beliefs would do the same.

But in fact, the Oasis Network, or at least Vosper’s conception of it, is far more intolerant than your local church. At the end of the Globe and Mail article from which I first learned of Vosper’s new church, we read this: “Vosper said the group is open to anyone who shares the five core principles of Oasis.”

Let’s put that into perspective. Vosper has vocally criticized the United Church as intolerant for expecting mere theism of its leadership. At the same time, she founds a secular community that requires adherence to five specific principles. and not just of its leaders, but of any participants. So Vosper’s new secular community is far more intolerant than the church whose alleged intolerance she now protests.

This is way more than “a little irony.” It’s outright hypocrisy.

The post Finding her Oasis: Gretta Vosper and secular intolerance appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Randal and Justin Debate on Line of Fire with Michael Brown

On December 28th, Michael Brown, host of the nationally syndicated radio show Line of Fire, invited Justin Schieber and myself onto the show for an informal debate on God’s existence. The conversation ranged widely and included both topics that were addressed in our book and others that were not. All in all it was a very good exchange (so I say, anyways) with a full forty-seven minutes of back and forth. I’m very grateful for the ample time given that the typical radio interview gives perhaps 10 or 12 minutes.

So check it out below. And yes, I edited out the commercials.

The post Randal and Justin Debate on Line of Fire with Michael Brown appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Gender and Sexuality Any Damn Way You Please?

It looks like I’m back using tweets as a catalyst for discussion. This tweet appeared as a retweet in my feed the other day:

Raise a glass to presenting gender and sexuality any damn way you please pic.twitter.com/114xx72j0w

— ann (@anyharder) December 26, 2016

Wow, this single tweet has more retweets and likes than I’ve received in my whole twitter career (by a factor of 100). Clearly this is a popular idea, the idea that we should toast folks presenting their gender and sexuality any damn way they please.

But surely not any damn way?

Let’s consider some examples:

Alex is a 30 year old male who is minor-attracted like the character Walter in The Woodsman. Surely all these likes wouldn’t extend to Alex acting on his sexual attraction to young children, would they?

Lucy is a necrophiliac like Sandra in the 1996 film Kissed. And like Sandra, she would like to act on her sexual attraction to corpses. These likes wouldn’t all extend to Lucy, would they?

And what about Scott? He is sexually attracted to horses, just like Kenneth Pinyan, a man who died after having sex with a horse. Would those 50,000+ likes extend to Scott (or Kenneth) acting on his sexual attractions?

And then there is Debbie. She is into sadomasochism. The way she’d like to present her gender and sexuality is by wearing her dominatrix costume to the PTA meeting at her children’s school, just ’cause. Whaddaya say? 50,000+ likes?

When it comes to these specific dispositions and behaviors, I’m guessing that Alex, Lucy, Scott and Debbie would see a significant drop-off in likes.

You see, almost nobody raises their glass to folks presenting sexuality and gender any damn way they please. We all retain a range of convictions regarding what is laudatory, what is permissible, what should be socially censured, and what should be outright illegal. Virtually all people identify particular expressions of sexuality and/or gender as deviant, as unhealthy either for the individual or the collective social good. And it does no good to mask these convictions with a facile invocation of libertine maxims.

And that brings us to the next question: to which expressions of sexuality and gender do we raise our glass, and why?

The post Gender and Sexuality Any Damn Way You Please? appeared first on Randal Rauser.