Restating our opponent's perspective

Social media has been abuzz about an interview of Jordan Peterson by Channel 4 News in the UK. This kind of thing would usually frustrate me but the interviewer so often misrepresented and mischaracterised Peterson it made the whole think farcical and therefore amusing. Perhaps the funniest comment was by John C. Wright,

Please count the number of times in this video the female interviewer says the words “so what you are saying is” and then count the number of times the male interviewee agrees and says, “Yes you have understood me exactly.”

By my count, the first number is infinite, and the second is zero.

Though I agree with some things that Peterson says and disagree with others, it seems that Cathy Newman was not even interested in understanding his position, whether that be because of ignorance or intentional distortion. There are things to be learned from this episode such as claims of subsequent threats against Newman were generally false and therefore we need to be suspicious of many claims by the media. Or that requesting your allies to refrain from bad behaviour will be used by your enemies as justification that such behaviour is occurring. But there was a comment made in the Atlantic which is worth highlighting. Conor Friedersdorf writes about an interview technique that he sees used increasingly frequently: where the interviewer restates the interviewee's response in his own words,

Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.

After going through several examples Friedersdorf comes to this conclusion,

Newman repeatedly poses as if she is holding a controversialist accountable, when in fact, for the duration of the interview, it is she that is “stirring things up” and “whipping people into a state of anger.” 

Exactly. The divisive person paints his opponent as divisive. This is the problem many have with the left. It is not just that we disagree with their position, it is the dishonesty combined with the fact that they are being divisive at the same time claiming that their opponents are the divisive ones. It is rank hypocrisy.

Creating dissension for the sake of it is a tactic of the evil one. It is to be avoided. Paul pleads with Euodia and Syntyche to get along (Phi 4:2). Elsewhere he says to warn a divisive person twice before having nothing further to do with them (Tit 3:10).

Now I have left leaning friends that are very honest, and I grant that many people on the left and right genuinely believe things that happen to be false. Further, this tactic is wrong when those on the right (or purported to be so) use it. But the use of this technique is evidence that the media (predominantly the left learning) are biased against righteousness: they use tools of the Devil. I am not saying here that the left are against truth because they are often wrong (though I think they are), I am saying that they are the most guilty of deliberately mischaracterising their opponents to justify their own narrative.

Friedersdorf concludes that he  wrote his article as,

an argument that the effects of the approach used in this interview are pernicious.

Exactly. We restate our opponent's perspective so that they may clarify whether or not we understand them. Not so that we can put lies in their mouths, lies that they do not even believe.

One may argue, what of rhetoric? Is not rhetoric the same kind of method we use in debates to win arguments?

In short, no. The point of rhetoric done well is to appeal to emotion in making an argument. But the man of God is only to use rhetoric in pursuit of the truth. Showing the consequences of an opponent's argument is not the same as saying he holds to premises that he most certainly does not.

Worldview thinking

Peter Leithart wrote a critique on worldview thinking back in 2003. Some of this may be in reaction to how he was seeing this played out at the time. Nevertheless, I don't find the complaints generally valid.

God has an opinion about everything. As God is truth, his opinion is correct. In as much as we think correctly we are thinking God's thoughts after him. At its simplest: the Christian worldview is the worldview of God; of Christ.

All people have a worldview. All worldviews are at least somewhat incorrect and usually inconsistent in places. One may therefore complain that we cannot know God's thoughts for certain, which is true. Because we are not outside ourselves how can we, with an imperfect worldview, know the true worldview. The errant man is chasing an inerrant truth external to himself but is only judging with his own errant perspective.

These complaints are true enough. But they are not insurmountable. And they neglect how we know and approximate truth.

Leithart's complaints are: 1) how do we get external to ourselves to judge (as my above paragraph); 2) worldview thinking is intellectual, specifically how do we know whether our worldview forms our externals compared to whether our externals shape our worldview; 3) worldview presupposes a birds eye view; and 4) worldview philosophy overrides theology.

The 4th complaint is merely a problem to avoid. And it is not a problem confined to worldview thinking. It is a problem all men take to the Bible, at least men who see the Bible giving a somewhat consistent testimony. We all systematise to some extent and we all categorise our ideas; thus our prior ideas may frame our theology at the expense of Scripture. Fine as a warning, but a warning all men need. And at least worldview thinking reminds us that theology is philosophy, or rather our philosophy is our theology.

The first 3 complaints are very much related. It is a confusion that appears to come from a more binary perspective: truth is not falsehood. Which is entirely correct. But falsehood is not entirely untrue and incompletely understanding is not necessarily false understanding.

We gain knowledge by degrees and we modify our thinking incrementally. This is a design feature. We learn from our elders, and our reason. And our ability to reason leads us into increasing amounts of truth. So complaint 2 is in fact not a problem, but why worldview thinking works. Our thinking comes from our surroundings and shapes our surroundings. That is how we grow in knowledge. God gives all men nature from which we gain knowledge. He gives us all the ability to reason. These externals (nature and reason) lead us to more truth. And the truth allows us to modify our environment based on that truth. It is a spiral of gaining more and more truth. Worldview thinking does not know everything that is true, rather it gains knowledge of the truth. Thus complaints 1 and 3 are also dealt with. We don't get external to ourselves, but we judge from what true knowledge we do have, using that knowledge to weed out wrong ideas and gain new right ideas. And we do end up getting a bird's eye view or sorts, only incomplete, out of focus and a few misinterpreted pictures. But as our view gets better the gaps are slowly filled in, items come into focus, and we come to realise that some of the things we thought we were seeing are in fact something else.

Or to change the analogy. We struggle with advanced calculus but we can count. We learn our times tables. We are taught what primes are. Then the trigonometry we were getting wrong we now get right; and not only do we get it right, we can see why it is right.

Further to natural knowledge we have Scriptural knowledge. This gives us greater understanding than natural knowledge and curbs the extent our reasoning can mislead us. When we submit ourselves to Scripture we allow God to guide us into truth increasingly. The spiral goes inward to truth.

This also explains why those who consciously reject God have a tendency away from the truth; how overtime their worldview becomes increasingly incorrect. Worldviews are not just an intellectual exercise. We need faith that God has given us reason. We need faith in our fundamental presuppositions, and faith that God will guide our divine-originating (but broken) reason into truth. Those who reject trust in God grow in foolishness as God does not protect them from their faulty presumptions and faulty reasoning.

Were Nazi's left wing?

Nazi and fascist are just insults implying that your politics are evil. It is predominantly used by the left against the right. This is not a modern phenomenon, it was done by the communists decades ago.

The problem is that insults often carry meaning. When a man calls another stupid, or a fool, it is an insult that his opponent lacks intelligence. If man calls another a hater it means his opponent lacks love, or kindness. Now there is plenty of inconsistency such that idiots call others idiots, and that "hater" is predominantly used by those sold out to vitriol. Even so, "stupid" and "hate" carry their meaning. But Nazi implies that you have a bad ideology that will lead to murder and genocide. This is concerning because if ideology leads to genocide, which it can, then it matters what that ideology is.

I have read that the Nazi's were not socialist, that there was nothing left-wing about Nazism at all, that fascism is right-wing and right-wing ideologues use this term self referentially.

False rhetoric benefits from lack of clarity and misuse of terms. But if fascism was left-wing and we convince right leaning people to abandon right leaning ideas because they are fascist, then they may adopt ideas that are more fascist than those which they already hold. It seems counter productive to hate a position while increasingly adopting it.

There seems to be several concepts that are traditionally left and right though various groups have adopted them over time. Eugenics was taken up by the left decades ago but has since been rejected by them in the main. To broadly categorise, concepts could be divided into left and right economics, left and right social policy, and nationalism versus globalism. Whereas economics and social policy has more definitively divided along the left and the right, nationalism and globalism are  not clearly divided along those lines.

Fascists were clearly nationalists compared with the communists of yore. But being expansionist does not seem to be particularly a nationalist or globalist position as can be seen by the Soviets and the Nazis.

The categorisation of a party can be seen by both their policies and (especially) their behaviour. In as much as what they enforce, or attempt to enforce, their policies are reliable. In as much as their policies are not enforced, or the party acts contrary to such policy, the positions are a sham (or propaganda).

Below are the 25 policies of the Nazi Party from 1920 until the end of World War 2. I will categorise the positions and the reader can see how fascism (at least the Nazi variant) is best described.

***

The Party Program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party summarised in 25 points.

1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.

Nationalist. Expansionist.

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

Not clearly left or right.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.

Economic left. Possibly expansionist.

4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

Nationalist. Specifically anti-Semitic.

5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.

Nationalist.

6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.

Nationalist.

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

Social left. Nationalist.

8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.

Nationalist.

9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

Not clearly left or right. Depends what is meant by this statement.

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

Social left.

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

Economic left.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Not clearly left or right.

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

Economic left.

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

Economic left.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

Social left.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

Economic left.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

Economic left excepting taxes.

Abolition of land tax economic right.

18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

Possibly social left

19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

Possibly nationalist.

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

Social left.

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

Social left.

22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

Nationalist.

23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

Social left.

24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.

Social right. Anti-Semitic.

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

Social left.

***

So of 25 statements, with some overlap, we have

• Not clearly left or right: 2
• Economic left: 6
• Social left: 8
• Economic right: 1
• Social right: 1
• Nationalist: 8
• Expansionist: 2
• Anti-Semitic: 2

Unless one considers nationalism specifically a right-wing phenomenon, the policies of the Nazi party cannot be considered right-wing, let alone extreme right-wing.

This is a little more complicated in that item #17 was subsequently explained as allowing private ownership with the provision of expropriation if necessary, and also preventing speculation by Jews. This would increase the number of anti-Semitic points and make the sole economic right point unlikely. Further, item #24 is likely to be predominantly anti-Semitic and the subsequent opposition of the Nazis to churches who spoke against them makes the sole social right item also unlikely.

Diversity in truth

Christians often say that differences are good, and diversity is to be celebrated. This is all very good when it comes to evangelising all the nations, and recognising that we have different personalities, and God gives various gifts. Not everyone in the church needs to have the same favourite meal, or drive the same car.

But there is a problem with applauding differences in our post modern age. Not all differences are good. Some differences are bad. They may be useful, but still best avoided.

An obvious example: it is not good that some Christians oppose murder and others think it a good idea. It is not good that some Christians think that Jesus literally rose from the dead and other read this figuratively. Or try: it is not good that some Christians oppose fornication and others don't have a problem with it.

God is a God of truth. And in as much as a value has a truth component then all men are better off believing this truth; especially in the church.

Now this is not going to be the case. God takes us where we are are makes us like Christ. It can be difficult to jettison cultural values we have accrued but are in opposition to kingdom values. This is okay, and we grow in Christ and the strong are gracious with the weak. Nevertheless, this is not saying that it is good that Christians have different views on truth. We may have different perspectives on complicated issues. But in as much as we resolve these perspectives, our beliefs will increasingly align with Jesus. Paul says

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom 12:2)

There are a range of things we need to do as Christians, not the least works of obedience. Paul says that we are also to renew our minds. We are to modify our thinking to conform it to God's. By this we understand God's will. By this we know what is good, what is acceptable, what is perfect.

Likewise to the Philippians he writes

And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, (Phi 1:9-10)

then,

Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, (Phi 1:27)

It is the case that we will (initially) differ in our thoughts about some things. But this is not a good thing, it merely is. We are to strive for like-mindedness. This suggests—at least in part—a common cause. But extends to knowledge and discernment.

Elsewhere Paul notes disagreement among the Corinthians.

I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. (1Co 11:18-19)

Does this suggest that at times disagreements over truth and doctrine are good? Not at all. Such disagreements may be useful, but it is certainly problematic if you are the example of error by which others are commended. Just before this Paul writes,

But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. (1Co 11:17)

Disagreements are not to be commended. It is the case the Paul was rebuking behaviour that led to people being left out. Even so, he rebukes their behaviour saying this is how they are to act. This is the truth of the matter and your behaviour is to align with this. Their factions may have been useful in demonstrating those who were in the right; still, best not be in the errant faction.

Now it is possible to be correct and be churlish about it. No one should want to be that guy. We are to speak the truth in love. But be wary of those who celebrate diversity of opinion in matters of truth. They may happen to be right on a particular point. But they may also wish to hold false views while refusing to accept correction. And let not a cheerful disposition deceive you. Falsehood with a veneer of niceness is diabolical all the way down.

Hypocrisy: false virtue signalling or injustice

The New York times references a study on why we dislike hypocrites.

We contend that the reason people dislike hypocrites is that their outspoken moralizing falsely signals their own virtue. People object, in other words, to the misleading implication — not to a failure of will or a weakness of character.

The authors blame the issue of honesty: hypocrites signal virtue that they do not have

I don't think this rightly identifies the reason we dislike hypocrisy, though in part this may be due to the definition of hypocrisy. From the abstract

We propose that hypocrites are disliked because their condemnation sends a false signal about their personal conduct, deceptively suggesting that they behave morally. We show that verbal condemnation signals moral goodness (Study 1) and does so even more convincingly than directly stating that one behaves morally (Study 2). We then demonstrate that people judge hypocrites negatively — even more negatively than people who directly make false statements about their morality (Study 3). Finally, we show that “honest” hypocrites — who avoid false signaling by admitting to committing the condemned transgression — are not perceived negatively even though their actions contradict their stated values (Study 4). Critically, the same is not true of hypocrites who engage in false signaling but admit to unrelated transgressions (Study 5).

Hypocrisy is more than not practising what you preach. Paul noted that some preach the gospel out of envy and that, motives wrong, at least Christ is preached (Phi 1:15). Their false virtue signalling, while rejected by him, did not put him him out of sorts (though perhaps Paul was able to identify a benefit that most cannot?). I am not so sure that we dislike hypocrisy because we encounter people fail to live up to what they claim.

The issue of hypocrisy is more in the condemnation aspect of it. Hypocrites do more than just fail to live their morals. Rather that they exempt themselves from the rules for specious reasons while asking others to abide by them. It is as if you and they are being judged in the same court for the same thing and they are the judge. Then they condemn you and acquit themselves.

It is an attack on justice. Not so much an issue of honesty, that they falsely claim their virtue; but an issue of injustice, where a hypocrite demonstrates that he is, in fact, an unjust person and yet he takes on the role of judge and jury.

Reading atheist literature

I have heard it said at least once that if Christianity is true it should be able to stand against its critics. It should have good answers to those who find problems with it.

Some also suggest that believers can and should read books antagonistic to the faith because if Christianity is true then our beliefs will stand.

I happen to think that the basic concept behind these thoughts is valid. Truth refutes falsehood. Let God be true and every man a liar (Rom 3:4). If Christianity is the true worldview then all facts and experiences will be consistent with it.

The problem with this position is that we are finite. So while a robust faith can take it on the nose, how robust is our faith? How well equipped is the average Christian to receive challenges to his beliefs?

Faith is more than well-grounded correct knowledge. And I have no problem with those of a less intellectual disposition who are content to follow Christ as best they can without concern with to cognitive challenges. Nevertheless, there are challenges to one's faith in reading authors antagonistic to God. Falsehood can be very persuasive. Many struggle to distinguish dialectic from rhetoric; many lack adequate foundation and confidence in truth; and many struggle to identify the false presuppositions or interpretations clothed as facts.

Therefore, spending significant time reading material inconsistent with Christianity is not helpful. This is not a matter of whether Christianity can weather the storms, it is whether you can. Don't assume you know more than you do or that you are stronger than you are.

It is a battle. The war for your soul is real. Jesus said he sends us out as lambs amongst wolves (Luk 10:3). Wolves seek to destroy lambs and are successful in doing so. Sheep have no defense against predators and lambs are even more vulnerable.

Consider this decision. Now I don't know where this guy was at prior to reading so many books on atheism but I think this sort of thinking is incredibly foolish.

I was raised in a Christian Fundamentalist home my whole life. From one through 12th grade I was home schooled, and was taught everything through the Christian fundamentalist lense. After High school I attended a hyper fundamentalist place called Honor Academy. At Honor Academy I gained interest in philosophy and Christian apologetics and decided to dedicate my life to Christian apologetics. I am 23 now and since then I have read hundreds of Christian Apologetics books. I have read all of Lewis, all of Schaeffer, all of Peter Kreeft, all of Dr. Geisler's books, including his encyclopedia A-Z twice, and his Systematic Theology twice, I have read Plantinga, McDowell, Craig, Ravi, Moreland, Holding, Swinburne, N.T Wright, Paul Copan Etc. I was until recently enrolled at Dr. Geisler's school to study apologetics and philosophy.

This year I decided in order to be fair and honest to read all the top skeptical books on religion. So I did some research and made a list of over 100 books. I am now at book 76 and consider myself a confident Atheist.

The author of one of these books, John Loftus, argues that Christians should read the top sceptical books against Christianity,

If your faith can withstand our arguments then you will be a better informed Christian with a much stronger faith. If your faith cannot withstand our arguments then your faith wasn’t worth having in the first place. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE!

But you have everything to lose. Should I intentionally surround myself with as many ravenous wolves as I can find; if I survive I am stronger for it, and if I get torn to pieces...?

Men are fallen so they reason fallibly: both Christians and non-Christians. But Paul warns us concerning men who reject the truth. He writes to the Thessalonians,

Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12) 

Like all men their reasoning is fallen, but they are also susceptible to lies. They have a disposition towards believing falsehood in preference truth. If the Bible is true then those who write against the Bible are likely to be writing rhetoric for nonsense. What benefit is it for those who know the truth to spend so much time listening to error?

Now I am not saying that we can isolate ourselves from the world's agenda. I read a lot of literature (books, journals, internet) and much of it has many subtle assumptions that are hostile to the Bible—though I should be cautious. Nor am I saying that it is wrong to ever read atheist material. I have read the odd atheist book. And I think intellectually solid Christians should read and refute atheist claims. Rather I am arguing that while the Bible may be an anvil that has worn out many a hammer, your understanding of the Bible may not be so sturdy. And we are not involved in merely a dispassionate discussion about various ideas, this is a war with your soul at stake. Do not think you are stronger than you are. Paul warns the Corinthians against evil and participating in sin although his warning seems apropos here,

Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12)

The name of God

Some men worship the sun god. Some worship the moon god. Others worship the god of the harvest, the gods of the weather, the god of fertility; gods of love and gods of power, gods of life and gods of death, gods of justice and gods of war.

I worship the Creator God: the Most High God. He made the sun, the moon, the plants. He made all the gods.

Who is this God?

The Creator God? Yes. But he existed before the sun shone, or the moon ruled the night. Before there was lightning and thunder, and water to make the plants grow. Before the earth and sky were made. Even before there was light and darkness.

The Most High God? Yes. Though he made all the gods. Before there were any angels he was God. He existed before the principalities and powers; before the cherubim and seraphim; before any creature to whom men bow.

He is Creator God but he was God before he made creation. He is the Most High God but he was God before he made the gods. Before anything was he was God. Who is this God? What do we call this God? What is his name?

Before anything God existed. He has always existed; he exists now; he will always exist. His name is

I AM

Michael Gungor and what Christians believe

I have seen a couple of comments about Michael Gungor recently. I have never heard of the guy or his music. He made a comment in his blog earlier this year that is apparently controversial,

I have no more ability to believe, for example, that the first people on earth were a couple named Adam and Eve that lived 6,000 years ago. I have no ability to believe that there was a flood that covered all the highest mountains of the world only 4,000 years ago and that all of the animal species that exist today are here because they were carried on an ark and then somehow walked or flew all around the world from a mountain in the middle east after the water dried up. I have no more ability to believe these things than I do to believe in Santa Clause or to not believe in gravity. But I have a choice on what to do with these unbeliefs. I could either throw out those stories as lies, or I could try to find some value in them as stories.

Now the context is that he doesn't think he can choose his beliefs, which I disagree with, but is important to understand this paragraph.

In places he sounds like someone leaving a hyper-literalist background,

So if up and down aren’t real, then what do we mean by God being “up” in Heaven? And why do so many worship leaders stare at the lights of the sanctuary and reach their hands into the sky as though trying to reach somebody “up” there? Up where? Towards which planet? Which galaxy? Because if it’s in some direction that we are supposed to think about God, that direction would be constantly changing. Sometimes the congregation should be gazing down and to the right or reaching their hands straight out behind them.

Though elsewhere he makes some reasonable comments,

Give me the samaritan. The heretic. The outsider who may have the ‘wrong’ ‘beliefs’ in words and concepts but actually lives out the right beliefs by stopping and helping me. That’s the kind of belief I’m interested in at this point.

There is much that one could comment on in this post, I'll address one: moving away from orthodox belief is often a dangerous sign.

In the orthodoxy-orthopraxy debate the upper-hand probably goes to orthopraxy. God calls us to obedience. As much as I desire and enjoy defending the truth, our faith needs boots. We need to do the things Jesus did and love like he did which means love in action.

And even though his comments are being labelled controversial, many Christians think the world is billions of years older than 6000 years, some of these people even subscribe to the general theory of evolution. Such beliefs (while incorrect) do not keep them outside the kingdom. I know many Christians that hold to one or both of those beliefs and who are more godly than me.

Now that I have defended orthopraxy and acknowledged godly Christians with heterodox beliefs, let me say that any move away from orthodoxy needs to be watched closely. This is partly because Christianity is a centred set: over time we should become more like Christ in our beliefs and behaviour.

It is the case that some abandon true beliefs without abandoning Christianity: some Christian evolutionists become creationists and some creationists become evolutionists yet only one of those positions is correct. Similar could be said about other doctrines such as paedobaptism and credobaptism. But in general, if we are truly following Jesus we should become more and more like him. Thus abandonment of true beliefs may be the beginning of one leaving the kingdom.

Right beliefs over time often lead to right actions. We may not desire such actions, we may do them out of duty and only come to love them with the practice of obedience; nevertheless, believing the truth is more likely to lead to right behaviour than believing falsehood. If we want to do what is right then we tend to do what we think is right. On balance, heterodox belief is more likely to lead to heteropraxy than orthopraxy. So while orthopraxy may be preferable to orthodoxy if one is to choose, when one abandons orthodoxy how long is it before one's behaviour is no longer the orthopraxy that is being lauded? And how long before one is justifying heterodoxy?

Progressive Christians are fond of reminding conservatives to love sinners outside the church. This is indeed true and they are right to do so—though they often are slow to offer such love to those that they disagree with within the church. Note also that addressing heathen sin is not intrinsically hateful. But I often observe that such a pathway that starts with denying orthodoxy and approving heterodoxy—because what matters is right behaviour—ends up approving wrong behaviour.

Gungor finishes with an appeal to James 2,

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

What we are seeing here is not the man with works addressing the man with faith—orthopraxy versus orthodoxy—rather the man with faith and works addressing the man claiming to have faith. Jesus, after all, did show the Samaritans the living water and Rahab abandoned idolatry to worship the Lord.

But what actually piqued my interest; the statement that I wished to address, was a comment Gungor made in response to all this controversy,

But now that I am a songwriter, I see this whole thing as absolutely absurd. Genesis is a poem if I’ve ever seen one.

Which I will write about anon.

Responses to Austin Fischer's book

Austin Fischer has written a book about how he left Calvinism. It is not a treatise on Calvinist and non-Calvinist theology, rather his story and focus an a few Calvinist beliefs he wishes to push home and get a response to. Kevin DeYoung wrote a review; Austin responded to the review; and Steve of Triablogue responded to his response. There may be posts elsewhere, these are just what I have come across (Hat tip: Arminian Perspectives).

I wished to comment on a few things that were mentioned in these posts.

Kevin: Fischer suggests that Calvinists believe that when people are raped, maimed, murdered, and tortured that God ultimately did those things to them (21). What’s missing here is an awareness of the distinction between remote and primary causes. No Calvinists I know would say God rapes people. God is never the doer of evil. Arminians may not find the distinction compelling, but Reformed theologians have always made clear there is a difference between God ordaining what comes to pass and the role of human agency in actually and voluntarily performing the ordained action.

The point is that while Arminians acknowledge that Calvinists point to remote causes and deny the distinction is meaningful, Austin was a Calvinist. He was aware of such distinctions (he acknowledges in his response) as a Calvinist but eventually found the position lacking.

Kevin: Fischer makes much of the fact that in Jesus we see a desire to love at all costs, not a desire to glorify himself at all costs (58), as if the high priestly prayer in John 17 was not chiefly concerned with the glory of the Father and the Son.  

The key term is "at all costs." John 17 emphasises glory, but it not glory at all costs; and how is that glory manifested? Thru love. Which is the point: that love is a higher focus than glory. Jesus left glory for the sake of love, not to maximise glory.

Kevin: No doubt, Paul is trying to explain in Romans 9 how the promises to Israel have not failed. But to make his point, he argues that not everyone descended from Israel belongs to Israel (9:6), which leads him into an explanation of election and reprobation. And Paul’s thinking must include the idea of individual predestination, for he uses the example of twins who were set apart for different purposes by the plan of God (9:9-13). The point in “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” is that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy and hardens whomever he wills (9:14-18). Fischer’s comments on Romans 9, like his comments on most passages, are true enough in broad strokes, but fail to engage the particularities of the text. To settle for the exploration of big themes at the expense of verse-by-verse exegetical work is to enjoy the wonders of the forest and ignore all the trees.

Except that quoting "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" from Malachi Paul is referencing nations and not individuals. The Calvinist insistence on words and verses taking precedence over paragraphs and books means that they have constructed a tree out of Romans 9:20 that does appear to have any place in the forest of the Bible.

Austin: I do think God causes suffering. I think the Bible teaches me that God does, often for purposes such as discipline (Hebrews 12:4-11). But I find it very difficult to look at the way Jesus interacts with suffering in the Gospels and then sit comfortably with the doctrines of Calvinism where God ordains the most terrible suffering imaginable on the majority of humanity.

A helpful comment here would have been to note the difference between suffering and evil. There is no problem in God ordaining suffering; if may be in the context of needed consequences, or punishment. The problem is when God is described as an author of evil.

Austin: I don’t think that if salvation is by grace, through faith, and faith itself is a gift from God, and yet I have to respond to this gift in some way, this means I was the decisive factor in my salvation (of course lots of this hinges on what is meant by “decisive”). That math will never add up for me. So if the math of salvation has to equal 1, with no room for human boasting, then I’m just fine saying the equation I see in the Bible is 1 (God) + 0 (Me) = 1, and that while my 0 contributes nothing, it is still necessary. I think this tends to be the way the Bible handles this, admittedly, mysterious issue of divine grace and human repentance/discipleship/faith.

I am not certain that faith is a gift. Faith is what we have. As to the boasting complaint, this is a non-starter. Calvinists are simply wrong. Nor is it usually helpful to appeal to mystery. This was a complaint by Kevin: that Austin replaces Calvinist mysteries with Ariminian mysteries. Mysteries reflect a lack of knowledge (due to incomplete revelation by God) and to limitations of our reasoning. But that we reason incompletely does not mean we reason incorrectly. We can know what we know.

Steve: Then there's his simplistic claim that God wanted "evil and sin and hell to exist." But, of course, that doesn't mean God wanted them to exist for their own sake, as if that's good in itself. Rather, they serve a purpose. Keep in mind that the Arminian God wanted "evil and sin and hell to exist" more than he wanted them not to exist, for it was within his power to prevent it. God "permitted" them because that's offset by the compensatory goods. So the Arminian must also resort to a greater good defense.

It depends on what the greater "good" is. For God to create hell and men to be placed in that hell to maximise his eternal glory may not be so "good." God doesn't want evil and sin to exist at all. He permits them if that is a risk in love. And he does not permit hell, he created it.

Steve: He doesn't say what "euphemisms" he has in mind. But while we're on the subject of euphemisms, about about the Arminian's euphemistic appeal to divine "permission"

Permission is not a euphemism. Parents understand the concept. It may seem a euphemism if one is trying to understand Arminianism on Calvinist terms, but not on its own terms.

Steve: The Bible in general has many "hard edges" and "hard doctrines." There's something in Scripture to offend everyone. Since Fischer thinks people ought to be consistent, why doesn't he become an atheist? 

This is a problem that Austin identifies with Calvinism. It does not disprove Calvinism, nor is it universal, but the arrogance among the young Calvinists is frequent enough that they form a distinct category even alarmingly noted by other Calvinists. Really, should a Christ follower tell a fellow traveller to become an atheist? Even if we ignore the fact that atheism is not consistent. Perhaps this is some sort of Galatian-type response to Judaisers: Austin is a false teacher. Consistency is hardly a false gospel. It does not cause men to abandon Christ. Or does Steve see Calvinism synonymous with salvation excluding Catholics, Orthodox, and large portions of Protestantism including Pentecostals? One is always going to be in relationship with Christians that have different beliefs than oneself. This is not a good thing, but it is and will remain. One should be saddened if someone who once held to orthodoxy becomes heterodox yet,

Steve: The moral of the story is that intellectually lightweight ex-Calvinists like Fischer make the best Arminians. 

And in the comments we read,

Steve: Since I don't think Fischer is a loss to Calvinism, I don't feel "bitter" about his defection from Calvinism.

I want all people to believe the truth, intellectual lightweights included. I am pleased when anyone renews his mind and thinks more like Christ, and saddened when he abandons the truths of the Bible. Moreover, the kingdom is full on people who the world considers nobodies. It is this arrogance which I think is dangerous in Calvinism. We don't read: Speak the truth to God's glory whoever may be damned; rather we are to speak the truth in love. Words of rebuke are appropriate for false teachers to protect the sheep, especially if the person is a wolf (which means that they are not a sheep and not in God's kingdom). Nevertheless, we should desire that all join the kingdom and be saddened if any leave.

The authority of Scripture

Augustine writes

On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, “Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning! (Letter 82:3)

His approach to Scripture is that it is always true, though there may be problems at the level of

• Manuscript quality
• Translation accuracy
• Personal interpretation

If there are no issues identified in these 3 components then what Scripture teaches is true and completely free from error. He yields to Scripture by virtue of it being Scripture, but only to other literature in as far as it convinces him by reason.

This is my approach and as such makes Scripture completely formative. Where I disagree with Scripture I am incorrect and I must modify and correct my worldview to accommodate Scriptural teaching on the issue. It is a little more subtle in that there are passages that are quite tricky to understand and I do not need to come down definitively on a conclusion. Further, I think all Scripture is inerrant thus I need to consider what I have learnt elsewhere in the Bible. Even so, as much as I am aware and am honest with myself, my beliefs are subservient to the word.

Now other books can be formative as well, I have learnt a lot from literature over the years. Yet I still pass judgment on the truthfulness of books. I fell free to agree with anything from 0 to 100% of what a book claims. Again, I may defer a conclusion awaiting more information on a topic. The difference is that I place myself (and Scripture) over what I read, not because I am an expert on everything I read, but because I am (somewhat) responsible for what I choose to believe. Conversely I place myself under what Scripture teaches. God is its ultimate author and therefore the Bible is God's authority over my mind.

As Geisler writes in Christian Apologetics,

Jesus is God incarnate. As God, whatever He teaches is true. Jesus taught that the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament are the authoritative, written Word of God. Likewise, Jesus, who is God’s full and final revelation, promised that the Holy Spirit would guide His twelve apostles into “all truth.” The only authentic and confirmed record of apostolic teaching extant is the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Hence, the canon of God’s revelation is closed. With these sixty-six books we have the complete and final revelation of God for the faith and practice of believers. Every spirit or prophet who claims to give a new or different revelation is not from God.

This does not mean that there is no truth in other religious writings or holy books. There is truth in Greek poetry (Acts 17:28), in the Apocrypha (Heb. 11:35), and even some truth in pseudoepigraphical writings (Jude 14), as is manifest from the New Testament of these books. The point is that the Bible and the Bible alone contains all doctrinal and ethical truth God has revealed to mankind. And the Bible alone is the canon or norm for all truth. All other alleged truth must be brought to the bar of the Holy Scriptures to be tested. The Bible and the Bible alone, all sixty-six books, has been confirmed by God through Christ to be His infallible Word

Hat tip: Calvinist International

Fiction fabrication

The Guardian reports a survey on lying about reading books.

A recent survey of 2,000 people suggests that the majority of people pretend to have read classic books in order to appear more intelligent, with more than half of those polled displaying unread books on their shelves and 3% slipping a highbrow cover on books they'd rather not be seen reading in public.

The list (percentage of respondents lying)

1. 1984 by George Orwell (26%)
2. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy (19%)
3. Great Expectations by Charles Dickens (18%)
4. The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger (15%)
5. A Passage to India by EM Forster (12%)
6. Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien (11%)
7. To Kill A Mocking Bird by Harper Lee (10%)
8. Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky (8%)
9. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen (8%)
10. Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte (5%)

Though one would ask, "Why lie?" You may end up in a conversation with someone who had read the book and show yourself ignorant of the contents. And who did they survey? Guardian readers? One quarter of all people lying about reading the book 1984 seems a little high? Further, I never assume that a book on a shelf in a house means the owner has read it. I haven't read all the books on my shelves.

Of the above I have read

1. 1984
2. Great Expectations
3. Lord of the Rings
4. To Kill A Mocking Bird

No plans on reading the others at this stage though it may be prudent to reread 1984.

Hat tip: Scribble Pad

Politicians are still failing to make the grade.

British survey of 1018 adults (pdf).

Question from Ipsos MORI Trust Poll in February

I am going to read out some different types of people. For each, please tell me if you would generally trust them to tell the truth or not.

	Trust to tell the truth	Do not trust to tell the truth	Don't know
	%	%	%
Doctors	89	9	2
Teachers	86	11	3
Scientists	83	11	7
Judges	82	13	5
Television news readers	69	24	7
Clergymen/ priests	66	27	7
Police	65	28	7
Man in the street	64	26	10
Civil servants	53	38	9
Pollsters	50	34	16
Trade union officials	41	47	13
Business leaders	34	57	9
Estate agents	24	70	6
Bankers	21	75	4
Journalists	21	72	7
Politicians	20	74	6

Dawkins on history

Australia's Q&A broadcast a discussion between Richard Dawkins and George Pell, Catholic Archbishop of Sydney a couple of weeks ago. I have read thru the transcript though I did not see the broadcast.

Dawkin's made a several claims that were incorrect. I wish to address a couple of them. A minor one was in response to Pell's comment that Darwin called himself a theist.

PELL: Well, science and religion are two different activities and in the Catholic Church you can believe, to some extent, what you like about evolution. I think Darwin made a great contribution. I remember talking with Julius Kornberg, a very distinguished biologist, and he's worked with ants for years and he said, you know, he's managed to change them by changing the conditions but there are a number of things that evolution doesn't explain. Darwin realised that. Darwin was a theist because he said he couldn’t believe that the immense cosmos and all the beautiful things in the world came about either by chance or out of necessity. He said, “I have to be ranked as a theist.”

DAWKINS: That just not true.

PELL: Excuse me it’s...

DAWKINS: It’s just plain not true.

PELL: It’s on page 92 of his autobiography. Go and have a look.

Incorrect reference aside it is partly true, though not quite how Pell put it. In The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, and Selected Letters, Darwin writes about reasons for his belief in God in the context of his belief gradually diminishing

When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species, and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt—can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.

An admission to theism at the writing of Origin that had subsequently become agnosticism. So while various arguments suggested theism to Darwin at some times in his life, this gradually gave way to unbelief. Pell is correct in his statement about Darwin convictions at the time he wrote his theory, though not later in life. This development is not clear from Pell's comment. However Dawkins refusal to acknowledge this is unwarranted, especially as he seems ignorant of these comments of Darwin.

However what is particularly astounding in this discussion is an earlier comment by Dawkins on slavery.

DAWKINS: When you say that Christianity has been responsible for a lot of good, including science by the way, which is somewhat ironic, I think that most of the great benefits in humanity, such as the abolition of slavery, such as the emancipation of women, which the Cardinal both—mentioned both of, these have been rung out of our Christian history without much support from Christianity. I, as an atheist, my friends as atheists, lead thoroughly worthwhile lives, in our opinion, because we stand up, look the world in the face, face up to the fact that we are not going to last forever, we have to make the most of the short time that we have on this planet, we have to make this planet as good as we possibly can and try to leave it a better place than we found it.

Leaving aside the massive improvement in the conditions for women within Christendom compared to pagan society, where does Dawkins get his ideas about abolition?

without much support from Christianity.

Christians were at the forefront of abolition, especially in Britain. John Newton eventually quit then repudiated his previous occupation because of his faith. William Wilberforce brought bills before parliament for years to put a ban on the slave trade.

Slavery is a complicated issue, but as far as abolition of the trading of slaves and the end of slavery as an institution, Christians were very much at the forefront.

---

I have not discussed Pell's comments here. In general I thought he did a poor job and I disagree with him significantly on several issues. It would take some time to address all of them.

Truth versus sincerity

Often times it is claimed that error in the name of a greater good is acceptable. A variant on the end justifies the means I suppose. This is argued in many of the larger paradigms that compete for our allegiance: evolution, climate change, socialism.

Biologist Coturnix argues deceit is acceptable in the battle over evolution,

You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives.

A more subtle comment by climate researcher David Viner about factual inaccuracies in a movie,

The film got a lot of the detail wrong, and the direction of change as well - cooling of this sort is very unlikely with global warming. But the fact that The Day After Tomorrow raises awareness about climate change must be a good thing.

And Tony Juniper said about the same movie,

Although the depiction of the science is exaggerated and at times misleading, the scale of the threat and the underlying politics are all too true.

In defence of this, people argue the issue is so important—and the issue is manifestly true—that deceit is justifiable. Some may even raise the lying-to-save-life dilemma; though forced information is a different category.

Such beliefs may also be held by Christians. Scriptural defence of the same is appealed to in Paul

Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. (Philippians 1)

However this verse does not speak of the truth or falsity of the message, it speaks of the "truth" of motivation.

The claim that is suspect is

• Lies are acceptable if we are sincere about our beliefs

Paul in Philippians is saying

• Truth is acceptable, even if the proclaimer is insincere about his beliefs.

It is not sincerity that matters, it is truth. And Proverbs directly contradicts the claim that sincerity is more important than truth, in fact without truth it is potentially dangerous,

It is not good to have zeal without knowledge,/
nor to be hasty and miss the way. (Proverbs 19:2 NIV)

BBC anti-Christian?

A survey on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) showed that viewers consider the BBC biased:

Many people believe the corporation retains a politically Left-wing or “liberal bias” and that religions other than Christianity were sometimes better represented, according to they survey.

And specifically anti-Christian:

In terms of religion, there were many who perceived the BBC to be anti-Christian and as such misrepresenting Christianity.

A spokesman for the BBC denied the charges:

We have strict editorial guidelines on impartiality, including religious perspectives, and Christian programming forms the majority and the cornerstone of our religion and ethical output.

Yet a leaked report in 2006 revealed that the BBC was intentionally anti-Christian:

An internal memo, recently discovered by the British media, revealed what the BBC has been trying to hide. Senior figures admitted in a recent 'impartiality' summit that the BBC was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.

At the time the a BBC executive acknowledged there were some concerns:

There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.

Why would the BBC think that the public will believe their reassurances they are treating Christians fairly when previous documentation shows otherwise, as per the executives' own comments? Public acknowledgement of this by the BBC after the fact hardly suggests that there is significant change since. And when the public see their ongoing anti-Christian programming with their own eyes….

Such bias is mildly concerning, though to be expected by those who reject Christianity; and most news sources are somewhat antagonistic to Christianity. However it is also concerning that that portray themselves as objective when they are not. This is doubly evil given they (the BBC at least) are themselves aware of their lack of objectivity and try to suppress it.

Moral perspectives on lying

There are a range of Christian theories on the moral acceptability of lying.

The issues around lying seem difficult to fully categorise in English. The problem is a lack of simple words to express subtle differences in meaning. To illustrate this note that the concept of lying can be considered analogous to killing. With killing we have sub-terms such as murder, manslaughter, and capital punishment. We also recognise killing in a variety of situations such as warfare and self-defence. The debate about the morality of types of killing is more transparent because we agree on meaning, even if we disagree or the moral acceptability of them.

Whereas "lying" merely means distorting the truth irrespective of the circumstances. There are terms such as deception, falsification, untruthfulness, but these are basically synonymous. There are situational terms though, such as perjury.

So is falsehood a single conceptual category? I have long thought it meaningful that the 9th commandment is not, "You shall not lie," but rather, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour." I have previously distinguished between reality and what one perceives as reality stating that affirming a false belief is not lying. I have also made the distinction between voluntary and forced disclosure of information which I wish to expand on here.

The moral debate is that either:

• lying (or specific types or lying) is objectively wrong, that is, various forms of absolutism; or
• lying is not intrinsically wrong (for all people), (though it may be preferable to avoid in certain situations for other reasons), that is, forms of subjectivism.

Christianity claims that morality has its source in the moral law giver, thus it views the morality of truth telling as objective: the same rules for all people at all times. Here are particular forms of such absolutism.

1. Unqualified Absolutism

Lying is always wrong. People should never lie ever. No matter what the situation or consequences.

Doug Beaumont explains such unqualified absolutism.

Unqualified Absolutism is based on the idea that most moral actions are intrinsically right or wrong, and because sin is always avoidable there can be no actual moral conflict. Given a choice between telling the truth or lying to avoid a murder, for example, one must choose telling the truth for in that instance it is not the one speaking, but the murderer who is sinning. In that case it is better to permit sin than to commit it. This view states that moral "oughts" are viable regardless of their consequences, for any moral philosophy that has exceptions results in relativism. Moral law is based on God's unchanging nature, therefore moral law itself is unchanging. Logically, if an act is intrinsically evil, it cannot become good because of a changing situation. Finally, God can always provide a third alternative to sinful actions.

This is how many people view lying. It is a somewhat reasonable but it lacks depth. Exceptions to rules don't intrinsically mean relativism. True, exceptions can be special pleading or hypocrisy, but they may be legitimate (eg. age based rules). And as I note below, unqualified absolutism may conflate intrinsically different actions.

2. Conflicting absolutism

Lying is wrong, but it needs to be considered within the situation. If lying conflicts with another moral commandment then one must do obey the higher moral. But lying, while required, is still sinful.

Such a position acknowledges that we have moral conflict (at least in this age). I think this is an improvement as it notes that as bad as lying may be, it may not be the greatest evil (though lying is a bigger evil than many acknowledge). This position encourages people to do good and love their neighbour.

It fails in that it suggests at times all options a man may have involve sin. However if we wish to do right, Scripture suggests we are able to do so (thru God). Further, how much less are we to blame when others have placed us in a dilemma, rather than our own prior choices.

3. Graded absolutism

Lying is wrong unless it conflicts with a higher moral commandment. Obeying the higher moral by lying is not wrong or sinful.

This resolves the dilemma of not being able to make a right choice. It affirms moral conflict, but it claims that the choice to do the better is good. And not sinful if a greater good is being done. There may be some support from Jesus' words to the Pharisees. It discussing tithing garden herbs Jesus states

But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

While one could claim that tithing herbs and doing justice are morally equal—Jesus does say not to neglect the former—the context would suggest that doing justice is a higher moral command. Apologists for unqualified absolutism could argue Jesus commands they do both, but there is no conflict between moral obligations set up here, so unqualified absolutism cannot be proven from the passage. I am merely illustrating that moral commands are graded.

It is important to note that this is not arguing that the end justifies the means. Yes, the end is considered, but for the sake of doing good, not for preferred result. Doing good may have unpleasant consequences.

4. Libertarian absolutism

Lying is wrong if one is voluntarily giving information. One need not tell the truth if one is being compelled to divulge information. I am responsible for my actions, not yours.

This has the advantage over graded absolutism in that it recognises that voluntary information and compelled information are categorically different. It is somewhat analogous to saying that predatory killing is sinful but self-defensive killing is not.

Interestingly Jesus' words may shed some light on our understanding here.

After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him. Now the Jews’ Feast of Booths was at hand. So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." For not even his brothers believed in him. Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." After saying this, he remained in Galilee.

But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private. The Jews were looking for him at the feast, and saying, "Where is he?" And there was much muttering about him among the people. While some said, "He is a good man," others said, "No, he is leading the people astray." Yet for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him.

About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching. (John 7, emphasis added)

Jesus said he wasn't going but then he did. This implies that Jesus' answer was not true. In fact some manuscripts say, "I am not yet going up to this feast." Which would seem to make Jesus' answer more honest. Looking at the passage it is clear Jesus wished to go without others initially knowing he was there. He is asked if he is going, however Jesus does not wish to tell this person. Being evasive may be construed as a yes. Jesus says that he is not going to this feast. Within the libertarian absolutism view a request is made of Jesus to divulge information he does not wish to give and he is at liberty to answer in a way that does not divulge same information.

This position is distinct from graded absolutism in that one is not weighing up morality in conflict. The distinction is in will for informing.

Although one could think nothing one hears in conversation is reliable, the solution is listen to what people wish to tell you.

5. Authoritative absolutism

Non aggressive version

• Lying is wrong in non-aggressive situations. Self-defence against an aggressor allows for lying. Authorities are owed the truth.

Libertarian version

• One need not tell the truth if one is being compelled to divulge information unless being compelled by a legitimate authority.

Authoritative absolutism states the voluntary information must be true as per libertarian absolutism, or that all information must be true unless facing an aggressor. It states that, in general, compelled information does not need to be true though there can be variation on what is meant by compulsion.

But this position does allow an appropriate authority to force information (whereas strict libertarian absolutism would not). A person following libertarian absolutism would allow one to lie in court if he did not wish to divulge the truth. Non-aggressive absolutism would mean that it is eumoral (morally good) to tell the truth in legitimate courts and immoral to withhold it. Note the caveat: obeying a lesser authority is not required if that means disobeying a higher one. Obeying a policeman, a ruler, or a court is necessary even unjust ones, or in unpleasant circumstances; unless doing so compromises a higher earthly ruler or God.

Conclusion

People may argue for the legitimacy of any of these options within Christian theology. Unless one recognises that the concept of lying may include more than one category, graded absolutism is as far as one can advance and this seems to be the best approach. However the knowledge of a permissible sub-categorisation based on the distinction between voluntary and involuntary knowledge sharing allows for more nuanced views.

Ministry of standards

Governments involve themselves in much of public life. It is reasonable to think that at least some involvement is excessive. Many would argue that most involvement is excessive. Of all the portfolios that governments have, there is one that I think should exist of its own accord.

We should have a Ministry of Standards.

Now we do have laws related to these issues, but I think the issue is important enough to warrant its own department with various divisions.

By standards I mean

• defining various standards;
• ensuring they are appropriate;
• enforcing their use; and
• prescribing punishments for breaches

Given that I prefer minimal government this may appear intrusive, but I see it as an issue of justice, and justice is an important role of government.

Defining standards

It is important to understand that I mean standards which are defined not prescribed. I do not think the government should enforce what manufactures should do, rather describe accurately what they in fact do. Granted there may be safety issues that mean minimum standards must be met in some areas, but by and large I think people should be able to exchange what they wish to do so. People should be able to buy products of varying quality.

Quality often relates to price. For any given object, desired price and quality vary among consumers. Some want high quality, others want low price. Most want high quality and low cost, but decisions are made at the margins. Government does not have a role in specifying a minimum standard (usually). Such a policy limits people, especially the poor who may not be able to afford such high quality items.

I do however think the government can have a role in ensuring that such items are of the claimed quality, and further, the government can have a role in specifying what must be shown on items for sale.

Examples include weights and volumes for foodstuffs, measurement dials in vehicles, breaking force and insulation property of glass, and electricity meters. Much of which is already covered by law.

Ensuring appropriateness

Consumers have the benefit of taking their custom where they will. Manufactures have the benefit in knowing exactly the quality of their product. Few consumers have the knowledge or ability to assess quality to this degree. Manufacturers may advertise various benefits of their product which is fine, but this should not be used to remove focus from more important quality issues that may not be mentioned.

Consider digital cameras. The quality of a photo is determined by several things including resolution. For people who print photos 6 megapixels is probably adequate. Now manufacturers can produce cameras of higher density such as 9 megapixels and they should be free to do so. This is good for larger photos, for cropping photos, and for digital zoom. The problem is that people may assume that the number of pixels reflects the quality of the photo because of the way cameras are marketed; but other factors are important such as the depth per pixel, speed of shot, stability of image capture, and software manipulation. So one may spend the extra money gaining extra pixels with no gain in printed product, and possibly worse if the pictures are blurred. He would be better spending the extra money on a camera that shoots more stable pictures at a lower resolution.

Defining standards of measures that affect photo quality that must be displayed on the product makes people aware of the issues, it lets them choose what they think best, and makes it harder for manufacturers to make cheap improvements and market the product as significantly superior.

Enforcing use

This is legislation that makes certain labelling compulsory and allows for the government to fund random testing to ensure compliance. Not compliance to some artificial mandate, rather accuracy of labelling. I am not concerned whether a product contains 1% or 20% sugar, just that one can trust the label.

Dealing with non-compliance

I think there is a role for this ministry to define the level of fines for breaches. The relationship between consumer and manufacturer is asymmetrical. Fortunately manufacturers are quite responsive to consumers for the sake of their brand name. However they may not be, especially in areas that may not have significant repeat service such as car and house sales. When organisations are blatantly and knowingly passing off a false product it is unduly onerous to expect a duped consumer to take up this cause. It costs them time, time that may be intentionally delayed by a company; money they may not have; and even if they were to win in court they may still be out of pocket and time and the company may be inadequately fined nor forced to significantly change their practice. Government enforcement is probably preferable.

I do not see this as applying to legitimate disputes, nor should it remove the ability for a consumer to act if they deem it necessary.

Nor am I anti-industry. I think some people make frivolous claims. Frivolity should be dealt with by claim dismissal and fining if necessary (paying the appropriate costs of all sides at minimum). Further, many companies care about both their employees and their customer base; they are what keep them in business.

Some caveats

• As mentioned above, I don't see the governments role as setting what standards a product should have, just what standards it should measured by and making those easily accessible, preferably displayed on the product. Of course the company can include any other benefits it wishes to, so long those claims are accurate.
• If the government wishes to set minimum standards, e.g. seatbelt positioning and engagement, then this is the role of a different department. It is very important the roles are not confused and that excessive red tape is not created.
• I do not think the compliance costs should be high. It is reasonable to measure the macro- and micro-constituents of foodstuffs as this is a one-off cost. Incorporating the data into a label is not that costly either. But requiring a car company to carry out extensive crash testing would be an excessive cost. Car companies remain free to do this of their own volition and many large car companies do this anyway. And the government is free to carry out this testing (though at whose cost?).
• I am not certain whether the government should enforce standards that are measured by a group not of the manufacturer's choosing. It is their product, they should have some say. Though if it is a sensible and well defined standard then the result should be the same whoever tests.
• Protecting vulnerable people from predators and the public from scams are important issues, but may come under a slightly different aegis. Possibly a division within the "standards" umbrella, probably within a policing portfolio.
• I think monetary policy and inflation comes under the definition of standards, but the issue of monetary standards is large enough to have a separate division within a Ministry of Standards.

Current law

I am aware that much of this is already in legislation. I do not mean to imply that this is not done. I just think it important enough for citizens that it is reasonable for the state to involve itself. It is after all an issue of justice, and justice is one of the few mandates of the state.

More to follow.

The only test of any analysis is its truth

I am currently reading America's Great Depression by Murray N. Rothbard. He makes an interesting comment concerning critiques of Austrian economic theory. If it was included in the first edition, this comment was made in 1963:

Hayek believes that Mises's theory is somehow deficient because it is exogenous—because it holds that the generation of business cycles stems from interventionary acts rather than from acts of the market itself. This argument is difficult to fathom. Processes are either analyzed correctly or incorrectly; the only test of any analysis is its truth, not whether it is exogenous or endogenous. If the process is really exogenous, then the analysis should reveal this fact; the same holds true for endogenous processes. No particular virtue attaches to a theory because it is one or the other.

I found this reminiscent of the intelligent design debate. My substitutions bolded.

Evolutionists believe that intelligent design theory is somehow deficient because it is non-naturalistic—because it holds that the generation of genetic information stems from interventionary acts rather than from acts of the organism itself. This argument is difficult to fathom. Processes are either analyzed correctly or incorrectly; the only test of any analysis is its truth, not whether it is naturalistic or non-naturalistic. If the process is really non-naturalistic, then the analysis should reveal this fact; the same holds true for naturalistic processes. No particular virtue attaches to a theory because it is one or the other.

Cannibalism and historical revisionism

Paul Moon is a professor of history whose interests include the history of the Maori people in New Zealand. His recent research is about cannibalism within previous Maori culture which he documents in his book This Horrid Practice. Unfortunately this has not passed the politically correct test. A complaint went to the (New Zealand) Human Rights Commission, the Commission suggested mediation!

An academic warned him he was putting his career in jeopardy and another professor labelled Moon as "brave" for publishing this research, going on to condemn his work without reviewing it. Moon's response:

...why should an historian have to be “brave” when choosing to write about a topic, and what does this comment say about the state of academic freedom in this country?

The fact is cannibalism has been well documented in many cultures around the world including the South Pacific. Both Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya; Solomon Islands, which was known as the Cannibal Isles; Marquesas Islands; and Fiji.

Scripture is not afraid to mention these matters though it does not condone them. During a siege 2 Israelite women made a murderous and cannibalistic pact (2 Kings 6).

Ideology drives research to an extent, it determines the types of questions that are asked. But unfortunately some people appear to let their ideology drive their conclusions. While it is reasonable to be suspicious of questionable conclusions and request further proof, to predetermine the conclusions that match your philosophy by manipulating data or forbidding (amoral) research which may oppose your worldview means that one will never come to an understand of the truth. One may even defend lying for the greater agenda.

Conclusions will often be understood within the underlying paradigm. Logically valid reasoning will not override bad premises. But it may call into question one's premises. The desire should be for truth; if the truth contradicts your belief it means that your belief does not correspond to reality. Worldviews should be both internally consistent and correspond to reality.

What did Jesus know? Part 2

In my previous post I posited 4 categories which we can reasonably split the concept of knowledge into (there are others such as mathematical/ logical but this is unnecessary for our purposes here):

• History
• Future events
  
• General facts
  
• Personal thoughts
  

Of these, men usually only have access to 2 categories: history, if it has been documented; and general facts, if they have been discovered.

Men in general do not know the other 2 categories. Future events can only be known by God and those whom he chooses to reveal them to. Personal thoughts are only known to the man who has them and those to whom he reveals his thoughts; as well as God and those whom God chooses to reveal them.

Therefore discussion about whether Jesus knows facts concerning Joe Future is irrelevant to whether he knows historical events and whether he believes them. Now I happen to think that Jesus did not know every future event during his sojourn on earth. He knew a lot because the Father revealed it to him. Further, he could easily have known about Michael, Chris and James in the same way he knew about the way Peter was to die—revelation. But being human limited his ability to know everything in the universe at that time. And even if he did not give thought to every person he redeemed as he died on the cross, he certainly did in heaven before the incarnation and does so now.

Jesus' opinion about Genesis is not so much a question of knowledge in general but the knowledge of historical events and general facts (though predominantly history). Did Jesus concede to the worldview of the day and the documents of the past? If he was taught false belief the Father was able to correct him, whether the Father did so a further question. We need to deal with history versus myth and fact versus pseudofacts.

Dealing with factual knowledge first: I am not certain that many of the beliefs of the ancients were incorrect. What needs to be remembered is incomplete knowledge is not false knowledge. Further, an alternative classification scheme is neither incomplete nor false, it is just different. Examples of these:

• Thinking we need to breathe air to survive is incomplete knowledge, thinking that oxygen is the component of air required for respiration is more complete knowledge.
• Categorising animals based on locomotion or habitat is correct knowledge even though moderns prefer to use a more complete body plan for classification. (This is type of knowledge is always true because it involves making definitions).
  
• Thinking maggots spontaneously generate from the essence of rotten food is incorrect knowledge.

Not knowing something and deferring an opinion till more information is available is not incorrect knowledge.

It is my suspicion that much of the ancients' factual knowledge was correct, even if, at times, it was incomplete. One could find several ancient ideas that were incorrect, however I suspect they would predominantly be amongst the speculations of the philosophers of the age. The reason for this is that most factual knowledge is merely observation, and the ancients were perfectly able to do as such. Errors are more likely to creep in where the gaps in knowledge were unobservable and speculation was made. Of course men are free to refrain from speculation and acknowledge ignorance. I do not see evidence in Scripture that Jesus held to false views of the world.

When considering history it matters if the history recorded is indeed accurate; and if not, is it inappropriately accepted, or dismissed for suspicion of error. That Jesus held to the truth of Scripture is easily provable. Whenever Jesus references Scriptures that record historical events he clearly believes they accurately describe reality.

Evidence that Jesus thought the biblical narrative reflected reality is seen in 2 ways in which Jesus interacted with it.

Firstly, Jesus' claims are based on the truth of the historical record. That Jesus' contemporaries will be judged harshly is based on the fact that Jonah was a real prophet and the Ninevites really repented. Examples could be extended to other historical personages such as Abel, Abraham and Zechariah. The form of Jesus' argument is based on the activities of these people really happening.

Secondly, Jesus affirms the truth of Scripture. Claims like,

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,... (Joh 5)

presuppose that Scripture is a reliable witness. More striking is how Jesus states that Scripture itself can prove men are in error:

Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? (Mar 12)

When we suggest that Jesus falsely believed the historical nature of the Bible because of cultural considerations we both invalidate the premises on which Jesus corrects error, and deny his claim that Scripture is the arbiter of truth. If we destroy the premises our options become:

• Jesus' comments were based on the incorrect views of the day therefore we can disregard them, or
• we believe Jesus conclusions even though they were based on faulty logic

That the Father revealed the heart of Nathanael to Jesus yet did not inform him that parts of the Bible were untrue, or that passages that Jesus assumed were literal for his argument were in fact metaphorical, seems to stretch credibility.