Friday, May 2
But Is Racism As Bad As It Use To Be?
Thomas omitted the “s” from “nutcase”.
So should he mockingly be asked if he went to public school as he does to others that fumble their words or make grammatical flubs?
Granted. I often make similar typos.
However, all I am or ever will likely ever be is a blogger, a wordsmith in a class Thomas has repeatedly expressed contempt for for taking attention (and thus revenue from his pocket) of establishmentarian media outlets.
Thomas' advice does ring with validity. However, what is defined as a racist or a nutcase is continually being redefined by the liberal elite.
No longer are the racists we are to separate ourselves from those burning crosses on their victims lawns. Now, according to Slate.com, condemnation should be heaped upon you if you limit your ethnic preferences on a dating website.
In another incident, one likely Obama voter and Trayvonite sympathizer went proverbial ape excrement on a White restaurant owner demanding free service as compensation for slavery.
As to a concern about associating with nutcases, should Christians distance themselves from religious doctrines that seem perfectly acceptable to that particular profession of faith such as monogamous heterosexual marriage or the divinity of Christ that both baffle and infuriate the world?
For daring to enunciate a run of the mill analysis of atheism that could have been endorsed by nearly any monotheistic religion, I was in essence told by one Tea Party group that I would be kicked out the door if I ever again verbalized such theological bigotry.
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, May 1
Fascinating. Factions in Hollywood create the impression that you are some kind of weirdo if you aren’t out fornicating with anything that moves and, when a sufficient number embrace the philosophy that the baser instincts must be fulfilled at all costs, they paint you as an ever bigger weirdo if you question the propriety of addressing from the federal level the rotten fruits resulting from this warped outlook.
Lessons In Apologetics #2: Rationalism & Fideism
In a rationalist methodology, there exists in the mind a number of innate ideas or principles that allow the individual to arrive at an understanding of the universe. These include principles of logic such as the law of noncontradiction. It is from contemplation upon ideas generated through reflection upon such foundational principles that the thinker is able to postulate systems of truth in a manner reminiscent of mathematics and geometry.
For example, in his system, Descartes started from his "cogito, ergo, sum (I think, therefore I am)" as his ability to doubt was the one thing he could not doubt. From here, Descartes built a theistic proof.
Descartes begins this with the admission that, since he lacks knowledge, he is imperfect. However, to realize one is imperfect, one must have knowledge that perfection exists. Yet perfection cannot arise from within the imperfect. Therefore, there must be a perfect mind from which perfection originates and this is God (31).
An apologetic utilizing the rationalist approach possesses a number of strengths as well as drawbacks. As to its strengths, the rationalist method stresses a consistency of reality.
It follows that a rational God would create a universe that regularly operates in accord with verifiable laws that we as His creations would be able to arrive at through deliberative contemplation. As rationalists posit, the mind to an extent must possess some kind of mental architecture to process the jumble of sense experiences the individual is bombarded with almost constantly. Even Scripture indicates that part of man's knowledge regarding God and His character is innate as Romans says that even the Gentiles, who were not formally given the Law in the same direct manner as their Hebrew counterparts, still had many aspects of the Law written upon their hearts.
Despite the strengths of the rationalist approach to apologetics, the methodology is not without drawbacks. The foremost is the acknowledgement that it can be argued that the rationally consistent does not always translate into the realm of necessarily actual and does not provide the bedrock certainty its advocates claim. For example, regarding the ontological argument, Geisler notes, "But it is not logically necessary for a necessary Being to exist anymore than it is for a triangle to exist...But the point here is that there is no purely logical way to eliminate the 'if' (43)."
Of the next religious epistemology, fideism, Geisler writes, "In view of the fact that empiricism led to skepticism...and that rationalism cannot rationally demonstrate its first principles, fideism becomes a more reliable option in religious epistemology. Perhaps there is no rational or evidential way to establish Christianity (47)." Thus fideism holds that truth in religious matters rests on an accepting faith rather than a critical scrutiny.
As with the other methodologies, fideism comes in a variety shades. On its more moderate side, one finds Blaise Pascal. At the more extreme end of the spectrum, one would find the likes of Karl Barth.
As a fideist, one might find Pascal a bit subdued. Though one would assume reason had no place in fideism, Pascal did not dismiss rational appeals outright. He just did not build his foundation or case upon them. Of Pascal's position, Geisler writes, "A proof at best may be the instrument by which God places faith in one's heart (49)."
Thus, the real difference between Pascal and the rationalist was basically a differing estimation in what each thought reason could achieve. To the rationalist, the thinker is able to deduce their way to a logically irrefutable foundation for a belief in God. To Pascal, such proofs were not absolutely conclusive and the chasm separating doubt and certainty had to be crossed by a bridge of faith.
Since at best, in the mind of Pascal, the individual is left with a fifty/fifty chance regarding the existence of God, the matter did not come down to a dispassionate calculation but rather to a matter of personal existential destiny best summarized by his famous wager (49). According to this wager, if the odds as to whether or not God exists are about even, one is better off believing God exists and then be proven wrong since upon death you would merely pass out of existence than to say God does not exist and then be proven wrong upon death as then one would end up in Hell.
At the other end of fideism's spectrum stands the Neo-Orthodox such as Karl Barth. According to Barth, God is "wholly other" in that God can only be known through faith in revelation. Geisler summarizes Barth's position as such: "We do not know the Bible is God's Word by any objective evidence. It is a self-attesting truth (54)." Thus to the Barthian, the accounts contained in the Bible transpired on a plane beyond the parameters of objective, investigative history. One either accepts them by faith or one does not. Therefore, the believer does not have to answer and is immune from those such as the Higher Critics claiming to apply the rigors of scholarship to the scriptural texts in the hopes of either authenticating or discrediting these documents.
As with rationalism, fideism has both strengths and drawbacks. Fideists are to be commended for holding that the God of the Bible is much more than the God of mathematics. Though there is merit in the attempt to prove that belief in God does not violate reason and logic, there is a great danger in reducing God to the level of a distant first cause not all that interested in how human beings live their daily lives. Fidesits are also correct that ultimately, no matter how much evidence one might collect or how many syllogisms one might be able to deduce, one has to make a leap of faith over those gaps of doubt that remain no matter how small they might be.
Yet despite the strength of their methodology, it has shortcomings as well. Foremostly, fideism makes it very difficult to engage in a debate or discussion with someone holding to another worldview if one must accept a comprehensive system of faith solely by faith without evaluating between them with some agreed upon criteria. Geisler writes, "...either a fideist offers a justification for his belief or else he does not. If he does not, then as unjustified belief it has no rightful claim to knowledge (63)."
Source:
Geisler, Norman. "Christian Apologetics". Baker Academic, 1988.
by Frederick Meekins
In a story about a church that meets in a strip club, a number of broadcast commentators go out of their way to make a point of their reluctance to call such a hellhole a “gentlemen’s club”. It is pointed out that a gentleman would not pay money to watch women remove their clothes. Interesting how remarks are never made that the women engaged in such acts are lewdness are not ladies. Many of them want to participate in such lewdness and would refuse to work in more respectable trades, crafts, or professions.
Wednesday, April 30
Tuesday, April 29
Lessons In Apologetics, Part 1: Introduction & Agnosticism
Basic to any academic discipline is the approach or methodology which scholars and researchers apply to the subject matter. The field of Apologetics is no different. Geisler lists the methodologies to knowledge in general and about God in particular as agnosticism, rationalism, fideism, experientialism, evidentialism, pragmatism, and combinationalism. In the course of his analysis, Geisler evaluates each in terms of their epistemology regarding religious matters and how these approaches stack up under the weight of being scrutinized by their own criteria.
The first approach to knowledge of God is agnosticism. Coined by T.H. Huxley, the term agnosticism means "no knowledge" and thus contends one is unable to know anything about God (13).
Agnosticism is itself divided into two branches. The one holds that not yet enough conclusive evidence pointing in one direction or the other regarding the existence of God has been gathered. The other holds that God is not knowable.
Of the agnostics that claim God is not knowable, this claim is based upon their understanding of the nature of knowledge. Drawing upon David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and A.J. Ayers' Language, Truth, & Logic, these agnostics have divided the tree of actual knowledge into two branches.
The first variety of valid statements are analytic statements meaning they are valid by the terms of their definitions. For example, all bachelors are unmarried. The second type of valid statements are known as synthetic and are what we would refer to as matters of fact as they are about empirically gathered data (17).
Geisler writes of the agnostic views regarding talk about God, "For the term 'God' is neither analytic nor synthetic; that is, it is neither offered by the theist as an empty contentless definition corresponding to nothing in reality nor is it filled with empirical content since 'God' is allegedly a supraempirical being. Hence, it is literally nonsense to talk about God (18)."
To the aspiring apologist hoping to present an objective case for the Christian faith beyond how warm and fuzzy Jesus makes their innards, it may seem that the agnostic methodology has struck an early and potentially crippling blow to this noble effort. However, a bit of careful reflection may even the scales once more between the agnostic and the Christian.
The lofty sounding name given to this epistemology of language is the Verification Principle. If the Christian turns the Verification Principle back on itself, one sees it is self-referentially incoherent as the concept cannot live up to its own criteria as the Verification Principle is neither purely definitional or merely a statement of fact.
Thus to remain consistent, the agnostic must admit that, since our knowledge of the empirical and metaphysical realms is limited, by definition of man's own finitude, this understanding cannot be totally comprehensive. Of those unwilling to admit God may exist in those reaches man cannot fully fathom, Geisler writes, "And there is simply no way short of omniscience that one can make such sweeping and categorical statements about reality...Hence total agnosticism is only self-defeating. Only an omniscient mind could be totally agnostic and finite men do not possess omniscience (27)."
By Frederick Meekins
Army Celebrates Secular Humanism
Click On The Headline
Southern Baptist Faction Categorizes Opposition To Homosexuality As "Redneck Theology"
Click On The Headline
Celtic Cross Foundation For Ministry Announces Major Changes
Monday, April 28
Secularists Once Again Call For The Suppression Of Knowledge
Most following the news are no doubt aware of the ongoing angst on the part of unbelievers and Modernists regarding the propriety of introducing Intelligent Design into the Biology classroom since in their eyes suggesting anything but the materialist hypothesis (itself a faith-based assumption) diminishes the rigor of so-called scientific education. Instead, they suggest such ideas should be considered as part of the Social Studies or Humanities curriculum.
Yet such gestures of enlightened magnanimous compromise are little more than a canard. For when it becomes time to examine the metaphysical issues within what liberals previously promoted as the appropriate venue for such a discussion, they then cry Separation of Church and State. Thus, what they really want is a monopoly on the perspective taught across all of public education.
As could be expected, Americans United For The Separation Of Church And State has demanded that the State of Florida alter an essay contest that encourages students to submit their reaction to The Lion, The Witch, & The Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis. The Humanist front group contends some students might be offended by a work that has often been interpreted as a Christian allegory. The agitators suggest alternative titles should be made available for students to select from.
One wonders if the Lynnites would be as prompt about coming to the defense of students that did not want to read Harry Potter or other works of literature even more salacious in their content. Interesting when it comes to the boy wizard the important thing is that Miss Rowling gets the kids to read; shouldn’t this be the same attitude towards Professor Lewis among those that insist we have nothing to fear from books?
No doubt had the White Witch been the hero of the story rather than the villain, those sympathetic to Wicca and the Dark Arts would have no problem with the novel. The thing about contemporary liberals is not so much that they oppose spirituality in the classroom but rather merely traditional forms of it.
Neither do these liberals support the principles of individual mental autonomy to the extent that they claim. Where were they when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals essentially ruled parents have no constitutional right to protect their elementary-age children from perverts masquerading as educators asking these little ones all kinds of questions even an adult would be embarrassed to answer and to which no agent of the government has a right to know their answers.
These sensitive liberals whine students not wanting to read the book do not have an alternative to choose from if they still want to participate in the contest. Any other time these advocates of radical tolerance and inclusion insist that in a pluralistic society the upstanding member of the community has an obligation to subject oneself to ideas one might otherwise find objectionable.
So if students have to be subjected to putting condoms on cucumbers for their own good, then how are they going to be harmed by a novel about a talking lion? Makes you wonder what they are so afraid of.
All the fuss causes the critically minded to speculate if it’s for the sake of the children or rather about something else the hypertolerant malcontents themselves do not want to confront. A child not belonging to the Christian faith is not going to necessarily pick up on any Christian motifs Lewis might have incorporated into the text.
To pick up on any parallels, one would already have to be familiar with Christian doctrine. Thus to be offended by Aslan as a perceived Christ-figure is to have a problem with an intellect more formidable than even that of C.S. Lewis, namely God Himself.
Adherents of absolutist relativism will contend it is not the place of educators to convert students to any particular set of religious ideas. Funny, public educators don’t mind using the persuasive powers of the classroom as to influence the choices pupils make regarding viewpoints on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and the origins of the universe. If no set of ideas is better than any other and parents are usually seen as being too stupid to decide what is in the best interests of their children, what’s the big deal if a child switches to Christianity if all paths to God or whatever else you happen to see as the supreme universal truth or lack there of really are equal?
In Lewis’ novel, it is revealed that the White Witch has placed a curse on the Land Of Narnia so it is always winter but never Christmas. With the lust of liberals to remove all vestiges of Christianity from Western culture, my guess is that they hate this book because Lewis just hit too close to home.
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, December 17
Monday, December 16
Monday, September 30
Wednesday, April 16
The Drug Culture
An interesting analysis of the drug culture.
Good in how it exposes the dangers of certain perscription drugs, but a little too judgemental of those that may need to turn to these compounds in search of healing.
However, is a good counterbalance to many prevalent perspectives.
Wednesday, January 24
Wednesday, November 1
The Battle For The Mind
Monday, October 9
Thursday, August 31
Wednesday, August 30
Wednesday, July 26
Monday, July 24
Friday, July 14
Thursday, July 13
Thursday, May 25
Tuesday, May 23
Tuesday, May 16
Thursday, April 27
Wednesday, April 26
Tuesday, April 25
Wednesday, April 19
Monday, April 17
James Sunquist On The Purpose Driven Life
Especially interesting are comments that one thinker admired by Rick Warren advocates astral projection, the occultic practice where the spirit travels beyond body.
Friday, April 14
Wednesday, April 5
The New Spirituality
Dr. Kennedy examines the spiritual legacies of the 1960's with an old classmate of John Lennon.
Tuesday, March 7
Thursday, February 23
Wednesday, February 22
Tuesday, February 21
Thursday, February 16
The European Union & The Rise Of The Anti-Christ
Thursday, February 9
Apologetics.com Examines The Decline Of Western Civilization
Overall an interesting edition as the cast is humorously upbeat despite the gloomy nature of the topic.
However, they go a bit far in placing the blame on the decline of the West on those that have not had children (the Albert Mohler you are a sinner if you have not procreated doctrine). Yet I don't remember them bashing C.S. Lewis for not having any of his own. I guess there are to be two standards: one for the ruling elite and another for the breeding masses that need to produce soldiers for the fatherland since another complaint was fewer people were enlisting in the armed forces.
Maybe motivation to die for one’s country must be sparked by the perception that one’s interests are actually at stake or more importantly that the leaders of the nation actually want to win the war. Furthermore, I don’t remember any of the Bush children volunteering for duty.
To the hosts, one is selfish if one does not keep pumping out offspring beyond the average one or two kids. While there is nothing wrong with large families, isn't it just as selfish to keep having babies without considering whether one can afford to with the expectation of everyone else picking up the bill?
I don't think it is "selfishness" to desire a reasonably comfortable standard of living that isn’t even necessarily luxurious in nature. How many children is one going to be able to afford in the current real estate environment in many regions such as the Washington Metropolitan Area where cramped houses in less than desirable neighborhoods are beginning to push past $350,000?
I don't know what these radio personalities make in terms of salary, but with these mortgages alone coupled with a tax burden in some counties I know of around here topping nearly $3000 a year, how is one then going to afford private school (as many of these Christian leaders insist upon) if one is making a lower than average salary if one is not part of the benighted leadership class, especially if one is going to adhere to the additional stricture that children are better off with the mother at home instead of being neglected or mistreated by daycare personnel?
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, January 26
Friday, January 20
Harry Potter & The Lord Of The Rings
A message straight from Pennsylvania Dutch Country regarding these pop culture franchises.
Wednesday, January 18
Thursday, January 12
C.S. Lewis On Education
Wednesday, January 11
The Lord Of The RIngs: A Spiritual Journey
A Canadian religion news show examines the ideas underlying the Lord of the Rings.