The Tyrannosaurus Across the Street

There’s a Tyrannosaurus Rex outside our window across the street.  I know I know.  You’ve heard that a million times.  But I’m serious—he’s there.  I was staring out of the picture window of our house on 178^th St. and I noticed it one day.  There’s a small, woodsy area set down, below the ditch-level of the road on the corner of my street and Merrywood Lane.  It borders the Deitrich’s and the Miller’s and across from the Draeger’s.  (The Draeger’s have a pond!  No one in our neighborhood has those.  There’s toads and frogs and pollywogs…and goldfish.  Sometimes we climb over the fence and sneak to the edge and try to catch them with our tinker toy fishing poles, but that’s another story).  I think there might be a Brontosaurus in the woodsy area, too, but I haven’t made him out yet.  Tyrannosaurus though—he grew up before my eyes, and has lived there a long time, always looking north, though I only just now noticed him, staring out my window on a gray, rainy day.  

I’m ten, and I don’t know too many of the boys in my neighborhood—only the Miller boys and Jake and Luke next door.  There’s the Popma boy and the Dewitt boy, but they’re big kids, so we’re not friends.  My friends live far away, and my mom has to drive me if I am going to hang out with them.  In fact, I only really have one friend: Jeff and he lives a long way away, over the Grand River and in a place called Spring Lake on Cross Lane.  It’s funny that he lives on Cross Lane, because his phone number is in the shape of the cross when you punch the numbers.  Well, it’s almost a cross.  I guess you’d need a 5 and a 0 to make it a real cross, but it’s good enough for me to remember, just by the shape.  I dial that number all the time.  Maybe it’s more of a diamond than a cross.  No matter, because Jeff and I like to imagine what Tyrannosaurus is like as a person.  He’s big.  Real big.  As big as a house!  Even bigger.  I mean he’s taller than a house, but not wider.  That would be a really fat dinosaur.  But Tyrannosaurus isn’t fat.  He lives in this small woodsy area, and yet only Jeff and I can see him, and he’s always looking north, with his great eye and open mouth, ready to eat whatever gets in its way.  

I ventured out one morning after my mother told me to “go play.”  My dad and brother were at the farm, and had left without me because I slept in.  I got so mad that I broke my ceramic puppy on the front porch step.  My mom said, “Hey!” but she sang it really long, like she was disappointed.  I remember looking up at Tyrannosaurus and he was looking at me out of the corner of his eye.  Was he smiling at my bad behavior or was he disappointed too?  I couldn’t tell.  His mouth is always open, you see, and his great eye is always in search for food—or something.  He’s always looking forward.

I wonder where he came from?  Why is he here and not somewhere else?  He never moves.  Or does he?  Every time I look at him, he’s in the same position: always poised with his forward-looking motion, his little claw-arm raised up and his mouth—that big teeth-filled mouth, always agape and facing the same direction: north.  I asked my brother about it once and he said “Nonsense.  That’s just a bunch of bushes, trees and weeds.  There aren’t even any trails in there.  That’s not even a real woodsy area anyways.  No one plays in there.  And there aren’t any dinosaurs.  Dinosaurs are extinct, doughy!”  (He calls me doughy.  I’m not sure what that means, but I think it might mean that I’m dopey, or dupey, or dumb.  When I think of something that is doughy, I think of what you think of: gooey dough.  Maybe it’ll be something tasty). 

“But you do believe in dinosaurs,” I say, sounding desperate.  “You and Russell found those bones in the dunes by the beach that one time, and you said they were dinosaur bones.  I saw ‘em.  I remember.” 

“That doesn’t mean dinosaurs are still alive, doofus.  Besides, Dad told us those were cow bones.  And Dad’s right.” 

I look down and shuffle my feet; my hands are stuffed into the pockets of my “farm pants” (overalls).  How does Dad know?  How does Kurt know?  I’ve seen Tyrannosaurus with my own eyes.  How come nobody else can, except Jeff and I?  

“But can’t you see him?  Look!  I point out his body, his little claw-arm, the great eye, and the huge gaping mouth.  “See, he’s facing north.  That way,” I saying pointing.  The hills in the background beyond the neighborhood houses at the end of Merrywood Lane stand silent as the trees covering them stare into a void.  My own brother looks at me in the same way.   

“That’s just a tree, doofus,” he says.  Do you want to play baseball?  Let’s get the Millers and see what’s going on.”  

 Kurt tramples inside to look for his glove and a baseball.  I stand there in the garage, looking at Tyrannosaurus.  I want to believe in him.  But is he real?  Now it’s not true that only I can see him.  Kurt can see him, but he doesn’t believe.  I just want something to be real.  Beyond real.  Is it real?  With a deep sigh, I walk inside and find my glove on my dresser.  “Baseballs are real,” I think to myself.  But I can’t stop thinking about Tyrannosaurus and his great eye, and his big mouth, and his facing north, as if he’s going somewhere.  We careen down the driveway and head north up the street. They guys are getting together.  Time for some baseball at Mary White.  That’s the school about a mile away.  You know?  There’s a funny tree there with a hole at the base, and all the roots are exposed.  I wonder what’s in the hole?  Wouldn’t it be great if a whole different world were in there?  I wonder.  I look back at Tyrannosaurus as we head up 178^th and he moves up and down.  His big head nods up and down.  He seems to be smiling at me.  And a gust of wind blows straight at us just as he smiles.  Where did that come from?  Today’s not a windy day. 

Homosexual Sex

Introduction

Two boys and their dog were walking along the shore of Lake Michigan in the Spring.  The clear waters, crisp and calm lap with a kind hand, grasping the singing sands under the bare feet.  (The sands along this shore really do sing--it's one of seven areas of the world where this is so).  The dog, a golden retriever, dances on the bank to discover a rotten carp.  The fish's large scales give way to decaying flesh underneath.  The dog sniffs it, takes a bite, and begins to feast upon the carcass.  "Don't do that!" says the younger boy, his nose crinkled and mouth furled at the smell.  "Why not? says the older.  "He can eat what he wants.  Besides, it's part of the natural process of the dog to get rid of nature's trash."  "No," says the younger boy.  "Dogs like ours shouldn't eat this garbage.  This is fit only for racoons, and foul birds."  "Foul," says the other boy and laughs.  "Did you mean that as a pun?"  "What?" says the other, not understanding.  "Never mind," replies the older.  "Why not include the dog as part of nature to clean up nature?  Why only racoons and nasty birds for this rotten fish?"  He too, held his nose over the stench.  By this time, the dog had had enough, and left the fish to rot on the shore.  "Because, you see?  The dog doesn't want it.  And besides, he's a better animal than racoons and gross birds.  He knows better than to eat this...stuff."  "Well, he didn't seem to know that much," laughs the older.  "He's eaten some of it, all right."  "Yeah, well--now he's learned: he needs fresh fish.  Rotten fish is nasty and good for only nasty animals whose job it is to clean up.  Then the flies, and then nothing."  The younger boy calls the dog, and the three keep traipsing through the singing sand, picking up pieces of driftwood, and leaving the dead fish and its odor behind them. 

Is there a purpose to sex, beyond one's personal taste and pleasure?  Should humans consume whatever they see along the shore of life and partake of what is has to offer?  Are their guidelines for us to follow?  Must we resort to sacred writings to build an edifice of sexual ethics and norms, or can we walk along the shore of the natural world and learn how things should be?

 

Purpose

Not wanting to be hoisted upon my own petard, venturing into the waters of sexual ethics and offering any  kind of advice or imprimatur whatever is risky business these days: "let me have my sex the way I want it, and don't you dare tell me what to do with my body."  This is the quintessential axiom and sentiment in Western culture, if not worldwide (think: the sex slave trade and other forms of prostitution).  Nevertheless, reason demands that we charter out and cast our nets for a catch. Will there be a message in a bottle along these shores, giving us in our feeble, depraved, and yet noble condition something in which to imbibe, to live by?  Can we do so and still be fulfilled as humans, eking out a meager existence, obtaining pleasure before life is over?  In short: are there laws regarding sex, and do these laws preclude happiness and joy?  

In this post, the discussion will center upon one particular sexual act, and that is homosexual sex.  A better term for homosexual sex is rather "bi-andro-sex," because homosexual sex is sex between two people of the same gender.  (Homosexual should probably be called homogender sex as well, as gender denotes maleness or femaleness and sex denotes the act of intercourse).  So, biandrosex.  Most people reading this will know that the author is a Christian, but no recourse to holy writ will be presented, as such a source is dismissed out of hand by its own nature.  Rather, an appeal to the natural world will be made.  It is the contention here that a study of the natural world excludes biandrosex from an activity that should be deemed natural or normative.  On the contrary, the attempt is made here to show that such activity is out of accord with nature, purely from a natural perspective. 

Evolution and Naturalism

A Darwinian perspective on biological evolution teaches us that natural selection acts upon random mutations producing genetic sequencing for the survival of the fittest among a species.  Homo sapiens must reproduce or die out as a species, and therefore must produce.  But if biandrosex is genetically predetermined in the human genome, then the homo sapien animal engaging in this behavior will not pass along his genes, and will die out.  A biandrosexual gene would be a "non-mating" gene, and would predetermine that animal from reproducing. Heterosexual sex would not even enter into the natural instinct (or mind, if you will) of the animal, and hence his "species within the species" would die out, leaving only the heterosexually active animals available in the gene pool.  Now, one might argue that the biandrosexual gene is a recessive gene, and exists en masse in the heterosexually active animals.  But where is such a gene?  This argument is ad hoc, and serves only as a weak recourse to justify biandrosex.  If Darwinism is true, biandrosex is counter to the selective process.  Even if a biandrosexual gene were recessive, it would only be active in the animal when dominant.  And if it becomes dominant, then the animal will die off, not passing along his biandrosexual gene--whether recessive or otherwise.  And over millions and millions of years of biological evolution, surely such a gene would be cast out of the pool.  Therefore, those who espouse biandrosex as viable for human activity must either deny the Darwinist concept of biological evolution, or they must come to terms that they are living in direct contradiction to it. 

Nature 

A second argument consists in a close look at the human body.  This section may sound a bit crude to some with sensitive eyes, yet it is necessary to discuss parts of the body in their nomenclature in order to think about the issue at hand.  Anal tissue is specifically designed for eliminating waste.  This waste is primarily made of bacteria.  Feces, as the waste product of the body, is carried along the colon and rectum and issued out via the anus as part of nature's perfect design for getting rid of this riddance, riddled with microbes harmful to the human body if ingested though the mouth or the blood stream or though the opening of the penis.  

We also note that the anus is simply not designed for sexual intercourse, as the vagina is.  The penis and the vagina compliment each other perfectly and the production is typically life: a human being.  There is no life in biandrosex.  There is disease, however.  From Wiki:

"Unprotected receptive anal sex is considered the sex act most likely to result in HIV transmission. Other infections that can be transmitted by unprotected anal sex are human papilloma virus (HPV) (which can increase risk for anal cancer and typhoid fever), amoebiasis; chlamydia; cryptosporidiosis; E. coli infections; giardiasis; gonorrhea; hepatitis A; hepatitis B; hepatitis C; herpes simplex; Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (HHV-8); lymphogranuloma venereum; Mycoplasma hominis; Mycoplasma genitalium; pubic lice; salmonellosis; shigella; syphilis; tuberculosis; and Ureaplasma urealyticum."

That is a lot of different diseases.  Any wonder, as feces is 80% bacteria.  

Now, one might argue that vaginal sex and oral sex may also offer disease.  This is true, but according to the Center for Disease Control, unprotected receptive anal sex is 50 times more probable in the acquisition of HIV than among those who engage in oral sex, or vaginal sex (receptive).  The science does not lie.  Anal sex is just not the design of nature, and medicine shows it.  

It is abundantly clear, then that the way the body is made, as anal tissue is subject to tearing, and designed for eliminating waste, and also from the science of medicine, that anal sex is not nature's way.  

Lastly, let us take an elementary look at the other animals in the world around us.  We see natural course of things in male/female reproduction.  That's the way it works.  Are there asexual animals that reproduce?  Yes.  But that is asexuallity.  Not biandrosexuality.  

Conclusion: Will This Argument be Believed?  

Perhaps.  But people are not mere animals.  People have emotional ties.  And homosexual couples who love each other are not going to be deterred by a short blog post about biological evolution, disease and an appeal to the simple observation of nature.  Why?  Is it because good arguments do not work?  No.  It is because humans have passions, desires, relationships, hopes, longings, and a whole host of other mental and emotional states tied into their wills, consciences, belief systems, and worldviews.  If anything, this post might nudge someone in a direction they are already in: that biandrosex is contrary to the natural order, and that if Darwinism is true, then biandrosex should not exist, and only as an aberration if it does.  Biandrosexual proponents will no doubt try to make an appeal to a theistic framework that the Creator has made them as such.   Or, they might hold fast to the "recessive gene" argument.  Or, they may bypass the facts of medicine and biology and make an emotional appeal to carrying out their desires of biandrosex based solely upon personal passion.  The attempt here has been to approach the subject at hand with as much objectivity as possible, and I hope that has been done.  The only way forward in this discussion is to be ready and available to accept one's views and respect them, something missing on both sides of the controversy.  One final remark should be noted: biandrosexual proponents often chide those who relegate said sexual activity to the shoreline of a rotting fish, decrying such demarcation as judgmental and out of line.  However, we do well to remember John Lennox's question to Richard Dawkins in reply to Dawkins' injunction to Lennox that people stay out of the others' business when it comes to sex.  Lennox: "Tell that, Richard, to all the children who've been abused."  We do well to construct a sexual ethic.  The protection of the human race depends upon it. 

 

 

Reason Rally 2012 Washington DC: "Show me the Evidence!"

Daniel is a home-schooled high school senior who attends Ratio Christi meetings from time to time and came with us to the Reason Rally in order to engage in rational dialogue with the many atheists present on the mall between the Capitol Building and the Washington Monument. The mist and rain bathed us intermittently beneath the canopy of a gray, solemn sky that hung overhead like a lid on a jar. No real hope of the sun breaking through today to warm our weary bones from an all-night bus trip from Greensboro to Washington.

With a bold flavor, this young man clad in braces and Carolina Tar Heel blue walks up to a number of pin-wearing, sing bearing atheists and begins a conversation. The men he is speaking with are middle to retirement age: they've heard all the arguments and have come ready for the battle of the mind. In terms of age and experience, this is a real David and Goliath moment!

I'm the chapter director of Ratio Christi at Lenoir-Rhyne University in Hickory, North Carolina, and a few of us joined a host of students and leaders of UNC Greensboro's Ratio Christi group. I watched Daniel engage these men out of the corner of my eye, allowing him the freedom to interact on his own for a while. Most of the conversation surrounded the idea of evidence. "Show us the evidence for God!" they repeat. Through his apologetic training, Daniel knew to ask these men what their definition of evidence was and why evidence was so important for forming belief-structures.

After a while, I quietly stepped into the foray, listening as the men told Daniel that empiricism (knowledge obtained by means of the 5 senses) is the only acceptable means by which someone should appropriate belief in God. Jeff was one of them, holding his fingers and thumb aft and discussing, with each appendage, the five senses in question: seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling. With long, straggly hair, Jeff is adamant in his demands for empirical data. I asked him questions about the nature of empiricism.

What I got from Jeff was that we should engage in empirical inquiry is because it works. We know things from scientific inquiry because scientific inquiry gets results. That's true--it does. But such a justification for empiricism is merely pragmatic: could I give the same reason for my belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah? "I believe Jesus is the Messiah, because it works (makes me more compassionate, satisfies me intellectually, and so on)." Such an argument given from my perspective would be dismissed out of hand. So, why is it that empiricism has this unapproachable, untouchable upper hand when it comes to a pragmatic justification?

As I've noted before on this blog, empiricism cannot give an account for other things like the nature of justice, mercy, love, truth and beauty. When I mention this, the reply I usually get is, "Well, sure it can! Because we know that it's right to help rescue little girls who are suffering genital mutilation in Africa." (Oddly, a number of atheists mentioned this malady and wanted to shift blame on Christian missionaries in African countries for its activity there. But, I'll save that for another post).

Rebuttal: No. You have given me what is, but not what ought, to be. You have said it is good to help a small, vulnerable child, but you haven't shown my why we should do it. Further, what does this have to do with empiricism? Empiricism will show us what happens when A causes B (Hume's problem of induction notwithstanding).

A: Person X rescues little girl
B: little girl is rescued.

That's not saying much, folks.

Of course, this says nothing at all about why we should rescue the little girl. So, it's strange to me that these atheists haven't really thought deeply about the nature of empirical inquiry and its limitations. Scientific inquiry can tell us about the world, but it cannot tell us why we should do things. Scientific inquiry indeed does have its limits. It cannot tell us what beauty is, or what justice is, because these entail moral judgments. Philosopher Montague Brown in his book, The Restoration of Reason, shows us that indeed, reason should not be limited to the empirical enterprise, but should be applied to ethics (morality) and aesthetics (beauty), but what Jeff and his kin are thrusting into the fore is a strict, crude empiricism that is the only means by which knowledge is obtained. Well, with regard to God anyway. Brown reports that it's only because of Francis Bacon (mmm...bacon) and his "Baconian scientific model" that we in the West hold to this all-encompassing view of the omnipotent paradigm of epistemology known as empiricism. And it just ain't so. Reason is the wheel to which empiricism is one of many spokes.

Now this leads me to my final thoughts.

I asked Jeff if he believed that "If something cannot be proven in a lab, it should not be believed." Surprisingly, he said no. He said no! (If he'd said yes, it would be time for "Self-referential incoherentism 101," but I was saved from having to give that lecture). But he insisted that the question of God's existence be stratified into that category of subject to empirical inquiry. Now I do wonder: if it is true that empiricism cannot give an account for some things, like justice, mercy, love, etc., why is the existence of God included in the "empirical only" category, and not in the other?

So we have two categories of knowledge, according to Jeff. There is category A, where things are subject to empirical inquiry and where hence, truth and knowledge can be obtained. Category A includes things from the natural world. Category B includes things that are non-empirical: justice, love, mercy, etc. Structures in category B are rightly understood as conceptual in their ontological status (ontology is the study of the nature of things and their "being"). While trees have an ontology subject to the five senses, justice is not. Justice, in its application is seen, heard, felt, experienced, but the concept of justice is what? Is it seen? Remember, we're talking about the concept, not the application. No, justice, as an ontological reality, is not seen. Justice is seen when it is applied. Further, justice is judged to be so, when it is actualized in reality. So, Justice is 1) a concept, and 2) subject to moral inquiry as to whether said action is actually just.

Now, the Christian idea of God is not that he is merely a concept, so there is not line-by-line, direct analogy to conceptual scheme of justice per se, because in Christianity, God is a personal being (three persons, one God). Nevertheless, the idea of the conceptual holds: not all things are subject to empirical inquiry and empiricism has its limits. Now, if the existence of God is a question that empiricism, with all its limits, fits into category B (and it does), why then are Christians told over and over again that we must provide empirical evidence for his existence? If empirical inquiry cannot be used to validate a warranted, justified belief in the conceptual world of category B, and if God fits into category B, then we are we held as irrational for rightly appropriating the limits of empiricism, just as Jeff the atheist admits is the right thing to do?

Lastly, because this post has run its course, there are indeed good, scientific evidences for the existence of God: the cosmological and teleological (design) arguments are replete with scientific evidences from the fine-tuning of the universe, the information and intelligence in DNA and at the bio-molecular level, the irreducible complexity of the cell, the privileged place of our own planet earth in the solar system, and so on. I suggest to the reader to research these topics in their own right.

I suggest to the reader also to remember that Empiricism, as an epistemological paradigm, has its limits, and cannot tell us what ought to be, but only what is. Further it cannot tell us about the conceptual world and the ontology of things, but only how things work. Science has its limits!

Reason Rally DC 2012

Well, the atheists are really pissed now. They've found out that a bunch of us (fill in the blank for yourself) Christians are coming to the show to upset the apple cart. "Leave us alone!" they cry. "You wouldn't want us coming to your church or Christmas plays and handing out literature or challenging your beliefs, would you? That would be rude."

Well, yes, it would be rude for atheists to do that--if done so disrespectfully. But if done in respect--not disrupting the service, waiting outside to talk and ask questions in a decent manner and passing out literature--this I would welcome! Why? Because it would force Christians to turn off their televisions and get some books out and really study and know what they believe and why they believe it. And, uh...don't target the children. Leave our children to us, and we'll leave yours to you.

So then, the Reason Rally. What's it about? Oh, Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers and number of others are going to promote secular humanism and talk about...who knows? Will Richard go off on YHWH and how evil He is, like he has with such profusion in the past? And Christians are not supposed to respond? We're just supposed to "sit back and take it?" Well, all we want to do is reason with you. We'll even give you free books which you can read while using your reason, and think things through in a logical, non-emotional manner.

Before I go on, there are atheist philosophers who do a really good job at arguing for the case of atheism. I don't want to dismiss that. However, what I want to say, it that the New Atheism is a brand of folks who really aren't interested in rational dialogue. They rather like to take potshots at Christianity. Keep reading.

But here's the thing: I'm a chapter director for a Christian organization called Ratio Christi (Latin for "Reason for Christ"), a college campus ministry which focuses on apologetic issues like atheism. Now, I get to hash things out with atheists on line on the Ratio Christi facebook page, and so far, I've not met an atheist who wants to actually reason with me. My arguments are ignored (the Trinity as non-contradictory as it affirms statements about two categories: being and person hood, as opposed to one category), false analogies are set forth (Christ saving your from your sins is like me rescuing you at the last second from a train track that I tied you to), glaring, unsupported statements are asserted (there's no evidence for the Exodus! and God is evil!) as if they stand on their own without argumentation. There are straw-man arguments (You believe in three gods!) and the emotions and tempers flare sky high (leave us alone!). But all I want to do is have a rational discussion.

For example: atheists complain about the Christian story of Adam's sin being imputed to all mankind and how unfair that is because it's all part of God's plan. They say that this proves that God is evil, because evil was part of His plan in order to prove that He's good.

This is just patently false, and it's a cheap, weak way to argue. Let me show you why....

First, to bring the charge of evil against God is to assume that evil exists. If evil exists, then good exists also. If evil and good exist, then there is a moral law by which we differentiate between good and evil. If there is a moral law by which we differentiate between good and evil, then there is a moral law giver. Ethics demands person hood, and in Christian theism, it is a Person who tells us that murder is wrong.

Secondly, saying that the doctrine of original sin (that all humankind inherited Adam's sin and guiltiness) is tantamount to God playing a game whereby He could prove He's good is just plain false. Nowhere in the Bible is that statement made. The Bible expressly states that yes, God's plan was to allow the fall into sin, and out of His own love to send His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to die for our sins in order to display His glory (See John 17, Romans 5 & 9, and Ephesians 1). But it never says that God "planned evil in order to show that He's good."

Now of course, the problem of divine foreknowledge and human responsibility is a philosophical quagmire that has been written about enough to tear down the Redwood Forest. And indeed, there is mystery in divine providence and human free will. So? That proves Christianity is false? Hardly. So God knew the world would fall into sin. And He hasn't done something about it? He didn't become a man and live a life full of sorrows, cast out demons, heal people, teach us how to live, and die a torturous death in order to save us? He saves those who repent and believe and destroys those who don't--those who have offended Him with their blasphemy, idolatry and sin. They deserve to live in the presence of a holy God? Who are we to argue with God? God chooses to save some, but others He leaves in their sin. Those who reject God do so because they love their sin. And God is to blame for not saving them? He is under obligation to save all? We are finite creatures and cannot fully explain divine sovereignty and human responsibility. So? That makes Christianity false? That's not a defeater for our worldview.

If you don't like it, then turn and repent and be saved! And know the love of God through Jesus.

I say the objections are primarily emotional from this crowd, as many have readily admitted that they are ex-patriots of the Christian community. I think reason has nothing to do with it.

Atheists cannot explain the origin of the universe, no can they explain why people do evil things. That cannot even explain the origin of evil. They cannot even explain what evil is. I'll focus on the latter and finish with a closing thought.

What is evil? Let's pretend there is no god. There is NO god, okay? Now, a man rapes and murders a little child in the name of his religion and his god in order to get rid of his disease and to have a good harvest. Someone in San Francisco sipping on a decaf skinny late with two lumps of raw sugar reads the story in the paper and says, "Stupid religious guy! I'm so sick of religious people doing evil!" (Truth be told, probably the guy says, "Oh well. That's their culture. Who am I to judge?" But let's pretend he's a p-o'd atheist, and not some wishy washy postmodern relativist, for the sake of argument).

Now, the atheist says the rape and murder of the child for religious benefits is "evil." Why is it evil? After all, where do we come from? Answer: the primordial slime. We came from non-living matter (I know, right?), and the non-living matter became 'living' (no, it gets even better. Dude, I'm serious). Then the living matter became a cell, which became a bigger cell. After that, it split. Then it became a little more complex. Then a little more. A little..."umph!" more. Then it was....voila! An animal (of some kind). Then it became something that swims. Then it grew legs and came on land. Then...blah blah blah...and eventually...h-u-m-a-n. (And you thought theists were cuh-rayzee).

And there happened to be another human. And human A decided to take a part of his body and penetrate human B with it. Then human A extinguished the life of human B. Human B returns to dust, and that's that.

Now, I ask you: on this scheme, which is the neo-Darwinian synthesis, why is what human A did to human B evil? Richard Dawkins admits very well and consistently throughout his debates and interviews that morals are completely relative, and non-existent in the neo-Darwinian paradigm. We ain't the result of nothin' but blind, pitiless chance (look it up, bro). He then castigates YHWH for all sorts of maladies however: genocide, death penalties for homosexuals, sorcerers, witches, & children who call down the curse their parents (a religious, ceremonial curse, not a glib telling-off). Don't forget breaking the Sabbath. Dude, I told you not to pick up sticks on the Sabbath, man! But why are Richard and his ilk filled with such ire?


Maybe they have a sense of justice inside them that comes from somewhere. Or Someone.

Maybe they aren't driven by reason, but they have an emotional set of bags suspended from the wires of their heads, and it hurts like you drank beer before liquor. Never sicker, dude.

Here's what Jesus says, "¹⁹ And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.²⁰ For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.

Jesus says people have a moral problem with coming to God. They don't want to be exposed by His pointed finger saying "Uh...don't do that. Instead, do this."

Now, as I've said above, I want to reaffirm that many atheist philosophers brandish sophisticated arguments against the existence of God, but the stuff we're dealing with here with the New Atheism is not that. But here is philosopher Thomas Nagel, a well-respected philosopher and atheist (who says Intelligent Design is, in fact, a scientific theory by the way) who proves our point:

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

See you at the Reason Rally. Let the reasoning begin.

Christian Logical Fallacies

Fallacy of the Complex Question. This fallacy puts people "in a bind" so that whether they answer "yes" or "no" to this question--and indeed these two answers are the only ones available--they indict themselves as guilty perpetrators.

Prime examples:

1. Have you stopped beating your wife?
2. Have you stopped cheating on your tests?
3. Have you stopped being overly analytical and critical of others?

I ran across this one recently:

"If you were standing before God, could you describe your relationship to Him by saying, "I love You with all my heart, and all my soul and all my mind and all my strength"?

Now, I've been informed that this question is really meant to serve as an encouragement for Christians to love God with their whole being, as indeed should be the case. Nevertheless, this question commits the fallacy of the complex question because if one answers with a "Yes," then the guilt of pride lies close at hand. How would God respond to an affirmative answer to this question? Would the Lord reveal a particular sin, or sinful habit we have not noticed that sneaks around in our lives?

On the other hand, if someone says, "No, I don't love God with my whole being," then the indictment is one of unbelief. We wonder, "Why? Why don't you love God with your whole being? What's wrong with you?"

The proper response would be "Yes, in my spirit, which is renewed by Christ, I love God with my whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, but I still struggle with indwelling sin and this indwelling sin is at war with the Holy Spirit within me, causing me to fail daily in my love for Him, and yet, by the grace of God, I'm growing in my love for Him." Paul says this clearly in Galatians 5 about life in the Spirit.

The proper way to form the question would be: In what ways do you strive to keep the greatest commandment, to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength? This leaves the question open-ended. We may detect the fallacy of the complex question by its very nature, which is close-ended, and requires either a "yes" or "no" answer.