Monthly Archives: August 2013

Frank Turek’s Criminally Bad C.R.I.M.E.S. Argument: Evil and Science

Posted on by

This is the conclusion of a critique of Frank Turek’s arguments in favor of Christianity made at a recent debate. See the beginning of the discussion here.
The E in CRIMES is Evil
Turek wants to turn around the Problem of Evil (“Why would a good god allow so much bad in the world?”) to make it work for him.

Objective evil presupposes objective good, and objective good requires God.

That is, from evil we get objective morality, and from there, God. As C.S. Lewis said, “A man does not call a straight line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.” God’s morality is that straight line.
Once again, Turek makes a bold assertion of objective morality with zero evidence that it actually exists (more in the critique of his morality argument). Drop this assumption, and his argument deflates like a flabby balloon.
The S in CRIMES is Science
Turek asks why the laws of nature are predictable.
Why does he ask? Would it be more likely to have the laws of nature to be unpredictable? That’s an interesting claim—I invite Turek to show that in a godless universe, we’d expect the laws of nature to be unpredictable. Only with that will his question be provocative.
Turek says that God is holding the universe together right now. Again, that’s an interesting claim with no evidence to back it up.
Next, he quotes Einstein, “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible” and concludes,

Science can’t be done if atheism is true.

Turek turns Einstein’s provocative observation into a supernatural conclusion. He says, “Ooh! Ooh! I know! It’s because God did it.” No, you need evidence.
Turek thinks that the success of science proves God, though the scientists who actually understand the science disagree. If the fact that we can do science disproved atheism, wouldn’t we learn that first from science? In fact, the higher up the science ladder you go, the less the Christian belief. Only one third of U.S. scientists believe in God, far less than the fraction in the general population.

Science is built on a foundation of immaterial realities that theism, not atheism, can explain.

Sure, you can explain the foundation of science. You can explain anything. But is your explanation worth listening to?
Think of the map of world religions—Protestants in the green area and Roman Catholics in the blue and Hindus in the yellow. Consensus extends to the boundaries of a particular religion or religious sect and not beyond. Simply understanding another religion better doesn’t mean that the boundary will break down, because religion isn’t built on a foundation of evidence.
Contrast this with science. Why is there a map of world religions but not world science? Understanding and evidence do break down barriers within science. Incompatible theories demand resolution, and further experiments determine which theory explains reality better. There is no map of world science (say, with the Geocentrists in green and the Heliocentrists over there in blue).
Axioms of science
He moves on to a long list of fundamentals that science can only assume but his theology can explain.
Science does have axioms that we take as givens and are not built on still-more-primitive axioms. Turek seems to imagine that they’re taken on faith, but axioms are continually tested.
Let’s imagine that 1 + 1 = 2 were such an axiom. If that were an axiom at the foundation of an argument that came to crazy conclusions, every step, including this axiom, would be reconsidered. There is no dogma within science. Everything is challengeable, and nothing is sacred. If 1 + 1 = 2 were only true in some situations but not others, that would be duly noted. For example, Newton’s law of gravity worked until it didn’t, and relativistic caveats are now part of that law.
Here are three of Turek’s fundamentals.

  • We assume orderly natural laws. Show us that disorderly laws are to be expected. Without that, why is your observation interesting?
  • Causality. “You have to assume the law of causality to do a science experiment.” If the “law of causality” states that every effect must have a cause, we know that that’s not the case. Quantum events may not have causes, for example. Second, nothing is taken on faith, including any assumption of causality.
  • Laws of logic. When presented with a puzzle such as “Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?” (or a square circle or a married bachelor), I’ve heard apologists sidestep this by saying that God can only do things that are logically possible. But in so doing, they defeat Turek’s objection. God is then bound by logic; logic is external to God. Logic becomes a property of reality, not an invention of God.

WWSD (What Would Sherlock Do?)
Sherlock Holmes observed, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” While this sounds appropriately wise from the Sage of Detection, I find this dictum useless in practice.
Say that I’m looking for my car key. I drove home and haven’t left since, so it has to be in the house. But it’s not in the key drawer or my pants pocket, and my wife didn’t take it. With the obvious options eliminated, does that mean that “ghosts took it” becomes a viable option? Of course not. The weak part of Holmes’ scheme is being sure that you’ve eliminated the impossible. I’ll likely find that my key was in the key drawer but I didn’t see it, or it’s in the pocket of my other pants, or my wife did take it but forgot or misunderstood my question.
This seems to be Turek’s approach to apologetics. He tries (ineptly) to eliminate natural explanations and show, by elimination, that his pet theory is the winner.
No, it doesn’t work that way. Does God exist? Great—then show us the evidence. Science has to; why should you get a pass? Without evidence, your hypothesis isn’t even in the running.

Which is it, is man one of God’s blunders,
or is God one of man’s?
— Friedrich Nietzsche

If God has made us in his image,
we have returned him the favor.
— Voltaire

Photo credit: Wikipedia

Pointless Parables

Posted on by

I like some of the parables in the New Testament. The parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, for example, give good examples of the right path and add to the moral vocabulary of civilization.
Lately, however, I’ve come across a few modern apologetic parables that fall far short of those in the Bible. Let me start with a tediously long story making a very small point. (I’ve abbreviated all the parables here. You’re welcome!)
“The Blind Faith of Atheism”
An atheist professor was harassing his Christian students about their God belief, so they challenge him to a debate. The arrogant professor agrees, thinking he could shut down this God thing once and for all.
The atheist’s opening remark likens God belief to Santa Claus belief. We give up one when we grow up; why not both?
The Christian debater goes through a long process of arguing that the atheist doesn’t know everything, to which the atheist agrees. And now he releases the snare: isn’t it possible that evidence of God could exist in that huge fraction of all knowledge that the atheist doesn’t understand? “Have you been to South Yemen?” the Christian asks. “Maybe God is in South Yemen.”
The debate isn’t going his way, so the atheist complains that the debate isn’t fair.
The Christian pushes his point and gets the atheist, now meek and whiney, to admit that the claim “There is no God” is indefensible and that the atheist’s claim is actually a faith position. A little more back and forth, and the atheist slinks away, publicly humiliated.
This is rather like the Chick tract in which the nasty Biology professor gets shredded and then converted by a calm and polite Christian.

So the moral is: don’t say, “God absolutely, for sure doesn’t exist.” Got it. I never have.
In the first place, very few atheists are certain that there is no God. They would say instead that they have no God belief, just like the Christian has no Poseidon belief. We follow the evidence and say that the evidence points more to not-God than God.
Second, “there is no God” is a faith position just like “there are no unicorns” is—that is, not at all. Could unicorns exist? It’s possible, but the evidence strongly argues that they don’t. We don’t have faith that unicorns don’t exist; we trust that they don’t because we have evidence that they don’t. In the same way, belief in God is a faith position, but following the facts where they point (and tentatively concluding that God is in the same bin as Zeus, Shiva, and the other gods from history) is a trust position.
Here’s story #2.
“A Man and His Barber”
As the barber trims a customer’s hair, he says that he doesn’t believe in God. He points to the problem of evil—why would there be so much pain and suffering in the world if God existed?
Wanting to avoid antagonizing the man who had his coiffure in his hands, the Christian customer doesn’t engage in the argument, but after leaving the shop, he sees a man with a scruffy beard and long unkempt hair. He returns to the barber shop and says, “I just realized something—barbers don’t exist either.”
“But I just cut your hair!” the barber replies.
“If barbers existed, there would be no one with long hair, like the man I just saw.”
“Don’t blame me if they don’t come to me.”
“Exactly!” the Christian replies. “And we can’t blame God if we don’t go to him. He exists; the problem with pain and suffering is that people don’t seek God.”
Huh? But Christians do go to God. How does that help the pain and suffering in the world? How does that remove pain and suffering from just the lives of Christians? How does that undo the damage from tornadoes or tsunamis? Praying to a God, even one who’s not there, can bring comfort, I’ll admit, but that’s no evidence in favor of the Christian’s claim, that God exists.
Finally, a well-made video from the Macedonian Ministry of Education and Science.
“Does God Exist?”
The video opens with a schoolboy running into school. The time period looks to be about 1900.
The teacher at the front of the room speaks in German, with English subtitles. He declares that if God exists then he is evil. If he created everything, then he created evil, right?
Our schoolboy protagonist stands to challenge this. “Professor, does cold exist?”
“Of course it does.”
“No, sir, cold doesn’t exist. Heat exists, and cold is merely the absence of heat. Professor, does darkness exist?”
“Of course.”
“No, sir. Darkness doesn’t exist. It is merely the absence of light. In the same way, evil doesn’t exist. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love in his heart.”
At the end, we see the name of this precocious schoolboy: Albert Einstein. We’re left with the tagline: “Religion is knowledge too. Bring religion back to school.”
With a tagline like that on a government video, I guess there’s not much separation of church and state here. And a Macedonian ministry puts together a German video with English subtitles? Why not Macedonian subtitles? What possible goal of theirs could this serve?
Putting aside this mystery, this isn’t an honest portrayal of Einstein’s religious beliefs, at least not in his later life.
And the professor knew his Bible better than little Albert. God did indeed create evil.

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)
Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? (Lamentations 3:38)

We can quibble about whether evil is something or the absence of something, but the final statement, that evil is the result of not having God’s love, is simply an assertion without evidence. Unconvincing.
Is it me, or have Christian parables gone downhill?

If people are good
only because they fear punishment,
and hope for reward,
then we are a sorry lot indeed.
— Albert Einstein

(This is a modified version of a post originally published 12/2/11.)

James Dobson Needs My Money (and an Education)

Posted on by

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, was good enough to send me a letter a few years ago. Not a personal letter—he basically just wants me to give him some of my money—but a letter nonetheless. He outlined some of his views about the Christian foundation our country was built on, reported how our country is going to hell in a jet-propelled handbasket, and made the irresistible swipe at homosexuality.
In case he forgot to send you one, I’ve highlighted a few interesting bits of his letter to reply to.
America is a Christian Nation! (Or something.)

Our Founding Fathers clearly understood the relationship between Christian Truth and the stability of our (then) new nation. Here are just a few quotes that express that essential connection.

And he goes on to quote mine the founding fathers’ writings to find their most pro-Christian statements. This desire is irresistible to many history revisionists today, so let me try to apply the brakes.
When pundits bring up quotes from the founders, you know that they’re out of arguments. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land, regardless of what the founders thought, wrote, or wanted. They had their chance to define how the country should be run, and they seized it. That document was revolutionary at the time and now, with a few amendments, effectively governs us more than two centuries later. It supersedes any other writings of the founders. Christianity has its place within society thanks to the Constitution, not vice versa.

Thomas Jefferson, … revisionists tell us, wanted a “wall of separation” to protect the government from people of faith.

No need for revisionists—Thomas Jefferson himself talked about “a wall of separation between church and state.” And, to be precise, the First Amendment protects the people (whether or not of faith) from the government, not the other way around.
Dobson then goes on to give a long quote by Abraham Lincoln. Well, not really by Lincoln. This was a Senate resolution for a National Fast Day signed by Lincoln. And this was the same Lincoln who said, “When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion.”
This was the same Lincoln who said, “The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion.”
This was the same Lincoln who said, “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.”
The private Lincoln wasn’t the strong Christian that Dobson imagines. (And it wouldn’t change the Constitution if he were.)

We are witnessing an unprecedented campaign to secularize our society and “de-moralize” our institutions from the top down. … Most forms of prayer have been declared unconstitutional in the nation’s schools. The Ten Commandments have been prohibited on school bulletin boards. … In this wonderful Land of the Free, we have gagged and bound all of our public officials, our teachers, our elected representatives, and our judges.

Again: read the Constitution, our 100% secular Constitution. Prayer should never have been allowed in schools in the first place—not after the 14th Amendment, anyway. Ten Commandments in courthouses or in schools? Clearly out of step with the Constitution.
I don’t want to see Christian citizens gagged; I want them to have the same public speech rights that I do. But when you’re acting as a public official, teacher, or elected representative, the rules are different. The First Amendment demands that you create an unbiased environment. Evangelism with prayer or religious documents is forbidden. Dobson somehow finds this a shocking new realization, but the First Amendment was adopted in 1791.
As a secularist, I know when to stop. I’m only asking that the First Amendment be followed. I want no Christian preferences—such as “In God We Trust” as the motto, prayers before government meetings, Creationism in schools, crosses on public land, and so on—but when we have reached that secular situation, I will stop. I’m not striving for a society where Christianity is illegal. (See what a good friend a secular Constitution is for the Christian?)
But I see no stopping point on the other side, no unambiguous standard that all Christians are striving for. If they got prayer back in schools, what would be next?
The sky is falling. Or not.

Since we have effectively censored their expressions of faith in public life, the predictable is happening: a generation of young people is growing up with very little understanding of the spiritual principles on which our country was founded. And we wonder why so many of them can kill, steal, take drugs, and engage in promiscuous sex with no pangs of conscience.

I wonder what happens when Christianity fades away? Does that society devolve into the post-apocalyptic Mad Max world that Dobson imagines?
Let’s compare other Western societies to find out. Looking at quantifiable social metrics (such as homicides, incarceration, juvenile mortality, STDs, abortions, adolescent pregnancies, marriage duration, and income disparity) in 17 Western countries, a 2009 study concluded: “Of the 25 socioeconomic and environmental indicators, the most theistic and procreationist western nation, the U.S., scores the worst in 14 and by a very large margin in 8, very poorly in 2, average in 4, well or very in 4, and the best in 1.”1
Ouch—religiosity is inversely correlated with social health. Sorry, Dr. Dobson.
The obligatory attack on the gays

It is breathtaking to see how hostile our government has become to traditional marriage, and how both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly antagonistic to parental rights, Christian training, and the financial underpinnings of family life.

I assume that “hostile … to traditional marriage” refers to same-sex marriage. I got married 33 years ago, and my state of Washington has legalized same-sex marriage. I’m still waiting for any sign of hostility or belligerence (or even annoyance or crankiness) to my marriage. So far, nothing.
Help me understand this. At a time when Christian traditionalists like Dobson lament the high divorce rate and the acceptability of couples living together and even having children outside marriage, they dismiss a group that is actually embracing marriage.
Same-sex marriage is a celebration of marriage, not an attack. A simple reframing, and a problem turns into an solution. But of course Dobson doesn’t benefit from solutions; he profits only from continued tension.

The hope of the future is prayer and a spiritual renewal that will sweep the nation. It has happened before, and with concerted prayer, could occur again. … If we continue down the road we are now traveling, I fear for us all.

Yeah, an even stronger Christian fundamentalism does sound like a worrisome future since we’ve seen that secular, gay-loving Europe eclipses the U.S. in social metrics.
Yeah, but I need money

Candidly, this ministry continues to struggle financially, and our very survival will depend on the generosity of our constituents in the next two months.

Translated: “Give me some money.”

Please pray with us about the future of this ministry.

Translated: “Give me some money.” (I’ve written before about how prayer requests of this sort admit that prayer is useless.)
I suppose that this kind of lashing out at other people brings in the money. But it’d be nice to see more credible arguments.

The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad
has made the world ugly and bad.
— Friedrich Nietzsche

1Gregory Paul, “The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions,” Evolutionary Psychology, www.epjournal.net (2009). 7(3): 416.
(This is a modified version of a post originally published 11/21/11.)
Photo credit: Refracted Moments