Randal Rauser's Blog, page 147

The Republican Road to Hell

Yesterday CNN posted a chilling article surveying “Hillary Clinton hate for sale on the streets of Cleveland.” Apparently gone are the days when conservative campaign swag focused on uplifting, positive (and inoffensive) slogan messages. This week on the streets of Cleveland you could buy T-shirts and buttons with “HilLIARy for Prison,” “KFC Hillary Special: 2 Fat Thighs, Two Small Breasts, Left Wing,” “Life is a Bitch, Don’t Vote for One,” and “Hillary sucks, but not like Monica.”

The thing we must appreciate is that this obscene incivility is directly correlated to the brute that the voters selected to lead the Republican Party into the fall election. There is a direct relationship between the demagogue behind the microphone and the obscene paraphernalia for sale on the streets.  Trump has set the tone and the people have followed. Case in point: major Trump supporter Al Baldasaro has attracted the attention of the FBI for calling for Hillary’s execution by firing squad.

Yesterday Trump received accolades for not playing to the spontaneous “Lock her up” chant that broke out during his acceptance speech. Some folks even called that restraint “presidential.” Give me a break. That’s like praising a brat for not shooting spitballs during his sister’s piano recital. The fact that we think a minimal temporary demonstration of civility and decorum is praiseworthy is only because of the general debased behavior of the enfant terrible.

Today it’s a vulgar campaign button or T-shirt. Tomorrow it’s a pack of roving brown shirts breaking windows, threatening minorities, instilling hatred and fear.

Atheist Fundamentalism Lives

Over the last year or more I have scrupulously avoided any interaction with the work of John Loftus. But I can’t help myself. When I saw the following blurb for his forthcoming book Unapologetic which comes from Peter Boghossian, I was unable to restrain myself from writing a brief rejoinder. First off, here’s the blurb:

Unapologetic offers the Philosophy of Religion the swift, ugly end it has long deserved. This single book will cause the death of a discipline.

I’m not going to invest much effort in responding to this blurb. Instead, I’ll restrain myself to explaining how patently silly it is, and how that silliness reflects on the dogmatic irrationality of Boghossian and Loftus.

Imagine some fool writing a book calling for the end of ethics or the philosophy of language. If you look long enough, you could find somebody willing to write that his manifesto had ensured the death of ethics or the philosophy of language. As a result, the author would be gratified by the blurb, and the blurber would be gratified by the opportunity to blurb.

Meanwhile, ethics or philosophy of language would continue as it always has and always will.

So in defiance of Boghossian’s earthshaking blurb, I’m betting that philosophy of religion will manage to survive the publication of Loftus’ latest volume.

Ted Cruz Behaving Badly? Ms. Manners vs. Moral Obligations

Ted Cruz has been lambasted for refusing to nominate Donald Trump at the GOP Convention yesterday. The most persistent criticism I heard is that Cruz violated a rule of etiquette. As one pundit on MSNBC put it, “Ms. Manners would not be happy.” But what is the problem, exactly? In short, Donald Trump extended hospitality by inviting Cruz to speak at Trump’s convention, and Cruz responded by trying to undermine Trump. And that, as another pundit put it, is akin to “eating the meal and then pissing on the rug.”

Before I offer a modest defense (and accompanying critique) of Ted Cruz, let me acknowledge that the man has a smugness about him that many people find deeply alienating. Also, let’s acknowledge that his decision to deliver the speech he in fact gave is likely part of a broader calculated strategy to further his political career, including laying the foundation for a 2020 campaign.

The smugness is what it is, and as for Machiavellian calculation, let me pose the obvious question: who among us has wholly pure, disinterested motives? And which politician, in particular, doesn’t have skin in the game? In short, smugness and self-interest merely distract from the fundamental question: did Ted Cruz violate some dictum of hospitality?

Yes, he did. But that merely forces us to ask the next question: did he have morally sufficient reasons to do so? You see, one essential aspect of the moral life is the proper navigation of those moments in which we find our moral obligations in conflict. In this case, Cruz had a couple obligations coming to the convention: (1) honor his pledge to support the nominee; (2) barring a full endorsement, at least deliver a speech that is minimally not attempting to undermine Trump.

Cruz failed to meet both those obligations. Indeed, he flouted them in rather grand style. But he did so while professing the conviction that Trump is not a true conservative and that he presents a threat to the United States. I agree with him. I believe Trump is a huckster, a showman, and a psychopath. On that third charge Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter for Trump’s 1987 bestseller Art of the Deal, agrees with me. In an explosive interview with the New Yorker just this week, Schwartz stated he believes Trump is a “sociopath” who presents an existential threat to the United States, and indeed to the world. He states: “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.” (Not surprisingly, Trump is now threatening to sue Schwartz.)

I don’t know if Cruz shares Schwartz’s dire projections about a Trump presidency, but I am persuaded that the concerns he does have are sufficient to trump (no pun intended) his obligations to honor his pledge and not undermine the candidate.

This leaves me with one remaining question: was the speech yesterday the most effective way for Cruz to oppose this psychopathic showman? Given the trite quibbling over etiquette and Ms. Manners, I fear it was not.

Ted Cruz’s Five Most Beautiful and Powerful (but very UnChristian) Words

So I’m watching Ted Cruz’s speech at the GOP Convention tonight when he says the following:

“Our nation is exceptional because it was built on the five most beautiful and powerful words in the English language, ‘I want to be free.'”

Really? Those are the five most beautiful and powerful words?

Wait, I thought Ted Cruz was a Christian. He certainly plays the Christian card when it suits him. And yet here he is lighting upon what he thinks are the five most beautiful and powerful words in English, by which I assume he means to say the one most beautiful and powerful sentence in English. (After all, I think we can all agree that there is nothing especially beautiful or powerful about those particular words. “To”, for example, is marvelously useful, but it is known neither for beauty nor for power. So it must be that Cruz really meant these words express the most beautiful and powerful sentence in English.)

Again, I thought Ted Cruz was a Christian. And yet, his most beautiful sentence, his most powerful thought, begins with ‘I’. It contains no mention of God or love or any other virtue.

That’s the most beautiful and powerful sentence in Ted Cruz’s mind. Really?

But at least he ends with “free”. Freedom is important, right?

Well, yes, sort of. But here’s the problem. Cruz set up his sentence by describing how in the United States the people limit governmental power. Within that context, he clearly understands freedom to mean lack of constraint. And any Christian should appreciate that defining freedom merely in terms of lack of constraint is, to say the least, grossly limited.

Indeed, grossly limited doesn’t quite cut it. Defining freedom simply in terms of lack of constraint is a theological error so egregious that it recalls to mind that primal rebellion in the Garden.

He is Not Your Guru: A Review of I am Not Your Guru

Last week Netflix debuted a new documentary on self-help guru Tony Robbins titled I am Not Your Guru. I have never paid much attention to Tony Robbins. But he’s nonetheless been a ubiquitous presence in the pop culture backdrop, so I was intrigued to take a closer look at the man.

The setting is an annual conference in which folks from around the world gather in Florida for a few days of Dr. Phil 2.0. The documentary follows Robbins through this hugely popular seminar which attracts 2500 eager participants, each paying a $5000 fee.

Robbins has been doing the life coach thing since he was 18, all without any formal post-high school education. But what he lacks in degrees he makes up in charisma, an undeniable emotional intelligence, and a booming voice and presence that command attention.

That charisma, EQ, and presence demand a steady and penetrating scrutiny in a film like this, so it was very disappointing to realize that director Joe Berlinger had already drunk the Kool-Aid. It’s not that I was looking for an exposé (but if the shoe fits…). However, this documentary felt like an extended promotional video with Berlinger reduced to the lowly role of fanboy.

But while I am Not Your Guru lacks a critical eye toward its subject matter, it nonetheless does present a riveting portrait of a complex personality. I had always written Tony Robbins off as something just this side of a bloviating snake oil salesman. I can no longer do so. I am now persuaded that he really does want to help people and he is gratified when he makes a difference.

At the same time, there is something about the whole shtick that triggers my Spidey senses. In a crowd of 2500 people, Robbins seems to have a particular burden for helping youngish, attractive women with some Dr. Phil insights and culminating in a long hug complemented by rapturous applause from the devotees. The whole show reeks of a cult of personality.

Admittedly, folks seem to have an amazing time as the retreat setting replicates the intoxicating experience of camaraderie that comes with summer camp. But alas, summer camp included Smores and canoes … and it never cost 5k.

Robbins’ first interaction in the film is with a young lady whom, we soon discover, is estranged from her drug addict father. Robbins argues that she should be thankful for her drug addict dad and his manifest failings because he unwittingly made her the strong young woman that she is. The message, in short, is that we experience trials so that we may become better people, a claim familiar to all those who know the Greater Goods Theodicy.

Later Robbins meets another young lady that was psychologically destroyed as a child being raised in a sex cult in which all members 6 years and older were obliged to provide sex to other members. It’s interesting to see that he doesn’t invoke the same message he used before: its a tacit admission that there is something unseemly with attempting to explain years of child rape as the forge for one’s present character.

Throughout the film it is fascinating to see how much a Tony Robbins seminar echoes a charismatic church service. The frenetic music, lights and smoke, the charismatic leader who steps into the crowd to bring healing to afflicted audience members, and the promise of a Damascus Road conversion or healing by the end of the night.

The most glaring differences between Tony and the charismatic preacher is that Tony dresses down (no white suits) and he swears, wow does he ever! F-bombs galore: Tony says it is part of his technique.

I have no doubt that Tony Robbins does help people, especially those that are young, attractive, and can afford the $5000 entry fee. But if you can’t afford Tony Robbins, church is free, summer camp is relatively cheap, and Dr. Phil is on every weekday afternoon.

The Ethical Problem of Vegetarian Cannibal Burgers

Today I purchased some vegetarian burgers. Do they taste like meat? Eh, not so much. But consider Vic the Vegetarian. Vic is convinced that it is ethically wrong to eat meat, yet he loves the taste. And so he regularly eats vegetarian sausages and hamburgers. Is that wrong? More specifically, if Vic believes it is ethically wrong to eat meat, is it also wrong for him to eat food that is made to resemble the flavor and texture of the meat that he believes is ethically wrong to eat?

You might be inclined to answer, “No”. But now consider Tse Tsu, a former cannibal who is persuaded on ethical grounds to adopt the narrow path and eat human beings no longer. While Tse Tsu has renounced eating humans, he nonetheless misses the taste of Christian missionaries (which, rumor has it, taste somewhat like pork). And so, Tse Tsu eats human veggie burgers.

Is it wrong for Tse Tsu to eat human veggie burgers? And if so, is it thereby wrong for Vic to eat pork and beef veggie burgers?

Have a question about God? Ask the scientist!

Yesterday morning a reader posted the following comment on my article “Why I don’t take young earth creationism seriously (even though I do take young earth creationists seriously)“:

“Most, if not all scientists will tell you that a virgin conveiving, [sic] a man being fully man and fully god, and a resurrection are impossible too.”

Since we’ve been discussing themes pertaining to science and scientism, I thought this post was worth highlighting given the commenter’s interesting views on scientists.

Note first that the commenter finds it worthwhile to point out that (most, if not all!) scientists will tell you that virginal conceptions and resurrections are “impossible”. This observation reminds me of the following passage from C.S. Lewis’ book Miracles:

“The idea that the progress of science has somehow altered this question [concerning the historicity of gospel miracle accounts] is closely bound up with the idea that people ‘in olden times’ believer in them [miracles] ‘because they didn’t know the laws of Nature’. Thus you will hear people say, ‘The early Christians believed that Christ was the son of a virgin, but we know that this is a scientific impossibility’. Such people seem to have an idea that belief in miracles arose at a period when men were so ignorant of the course of nature that they did not perceive a miracle to be contrary to it. A moment’s thought shows this to be nonsense: and the story of the Virgin Birth is a particularly striking example. When St Joseph discovered that his fiancée was going to have a baby, he not unnaturally decided to repudiate her. Why? Because he knew just as well as any modern gynaecologist that in the ordinary course of nature women do not have babies unless they have lain with men. No doubt the modern gynaecologist knows several other things about birth and begetting which St Joseph did not know. But those things do not concern the main point—that a virgin birth is contrary to the course of nature. And St Joseph obviously knew that.”

To sum up, you don’t need a scientist to tell you that virginal conceptions and resurrections do not happen in the normal course of events.

However, any scientist who tells you that virginal conceptions and resurrections are beyond the power of an omnipotent being is clearly working beyond her professional capacities. If God exists then miracles are not a problem and that includes even virginal conceptions and resurrections! So then the next question would be whether there is evidence in the present or past for such miraculous actions. And that is a matter for the investigator and historian.

You’ll note that in the discussion thus far I’ve held off commenting on the third point, i.e. “a man being fully man and fully god.” I’ve held off commenting on this point until now because this is a matter of pure conceptual reflection. Do the concepts of humanity and divinity have incompossible properties such that no being could simultaneously exemplify human and divine natures? That’s the question at issue. And the thought that a person would be capable to opine on that matter simply because she happens to be a scientist is so patently absurd that it needs special emphasis.

Think about it. Dr. Jones has a PhD in marine biology and is currently doing research on coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. So of course if you want to get an informed opinion on whether it is possible for a being simultaneously to exemplify human and divine natures, you should go to Dr. Jones.

(Gee, I hope that wasn’t too sarcastic!)

You might think all this critical analysis of one poorly thought out comment is rather unseemly. Except that the comment in question illustrates so effectively the otherwise inexplicable willingness of so-called skeptics to defer to the opinion of scientists like Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, and the late Victor Stenger on matters of which they are so clearly ignorant.

We’re not laying pipe! We’re talking about poetry.

Mr. Keating striking his iconic Seize the Day Pose.

There is a famous scene in “Dead Poet’s Society” where the teacher, Mr. Keating, deconstructs the introduction to his students’ poetry textbook. That introduction advises how to examine the worth of every poem mathematically by charting each poem on a graph relative to a set of objective, measurable properties.

Mr. Keating balks at the very idea: “Excrement! That’s what I think of Mr. J. Evans Pritchard! We’re not laying pipe! We’re talking about poetry. How can you describe poetry like American Bandstand? ‘I like Byron, I give him a 42 but I can’t dance to it!'”

Keating’s protest is a shot across the bow of a flatfooted reductionism that presumes every field of inquiry is subject to the same objective mathematical model.

Could there be a “science” of literary criticism and aesthetic appreciation? Never mind, “could be”. There certainly is a science in this field in the sense that we can have scientia (knowledge) of the thematic and literary quality of poetic works. But if you want to become a “scientist” in this field, you go to the English department. Understanding of the emergent complexity that exists with a literary work requires a distinct field of inquiry from that one finds in STEM disciplines.

The same goes when the subject matter shifts to other spheres, such as the nature and causes of human history, the structure of knowledge, or the meaning of meaning. Just as you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight, so you don’t bring a calculator to a Byron seminar, and you definitely don’t bring a telescope to a conference on medieval scholastic philosophy.

One of the challenges for the practitioners of every discipline is to discern the boundaries of their discipline (and their expertise within it) and then beyond that to follow the wisdom of Wittgenstein:

“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

On Stoning the Children

I am currently writing a book which includes a short section where I talk about the practice of stoning insubordinate sons to death with rocks as described in Deuteronomy 21:

18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him,19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

By any contemporary measure, this is a horrifying and morally indefensible practice. So it is perversely humorous to watch the deadpan way that some Bible scholars attempt to provide moral justifications for practices that would horrify them if they read about it in the newspaper.

This morning I was reading the relevant section by Eugene Merrill in his commentary Deuteronomy: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (B&H, 1994). After coolly describing the steps under which the execution would take place, Merrill explains why it was necessary to pelt insubordinate boys to death with rocks:

“The severity of the punishment appears to outweigh the crime, but we must recognize that parental sovereignty was at stake. Were insubordination of children toward their parents to have been tolerated, there would have been but a short step toward the insubordination of all of the Lord’s servant people to him, the King of kings.”

“I know it looks bad, but good gosh man, the boy was challenging parental sovereignty so he just had to be killed.”

Forgive me, but I’ll be darned if that doesn’t sound like the kind of thing blood-spattered murderers would say as they are led away in handcuffs.

Godless of the Gaps

In “God of the Gaps and Mind of the Gaps” I quoted Dan Barker writing the following in Godless:

“Many of these [theistic] arguments are reduced to a ‘god of the gaps’ strategy. At most, the theists might prove the existence of a current gap in human knowledge, but this does not justify filling the gap with their god. After all, what happens when the gap closes someday? The gaps are actually what drive science–if we had all the answers there would be no more science.” (Godless, 104-5)

In the discussion thread for the argument I posted a response to Jeff Lowder in which I explained my concerns with Barker’s comment more fully. (Admittedly, the original post was a bit cryptic, and intentionally so.)

So here is my follow-up:

First off, I’m going to replace Barker’s misbegotten reference to “their god” with the concept of a personal metaphysical explanation because very few arguments of this type appeal directly to a being like “The Trinity” or “Allah”. Rather, they point to a being that has certain properties consistent with what Christians (or Muslims) say about God.

With that in mind, Barker writes: “At most, the theists might prove the existence of a current gap in human knowledge, but this does not justify filling the gap with their [personal metaphysical explanation]. After all, what happens when the gap closes someday?”

As I read Barker here, he is saying that the theist is not rationally justified in appealing to a personal metaphysical explanation because that explanation might be shown to be false in the future.

And that claim presumably depends on the principle that for any philosophical explanation, if that explanation could be disproved in the future then that explanation cannot presently be rationally justified.

To be sure, I don’t know that Barker has a general principle in mind which under-girds his “God of the gaps” critique. But I am assuming he does to keep him from running afoul of the Golden Rule.

The obvious problem for Dan Barker is that he is hoist by his own petard. Atheistic accounts of reality help themselves to their own share of philosophical explanations that could be disproved in the future from which it follows that atheistic accounts of reality are equally unjustified and liable to the similarly opprobrious “Godless of the gaps” charge.

Since this analysis puts Barker in a very bad light, I’m open to other interpretations…