The Two Tax Plans

McCain's economists think McCain has the better tax plan.

So do Obama's.

(Online, of course, you can find criticisms of both tax plans.)

My question is this: If the economists can't agree on the economy, how can we?

(Tentative answer: Differences in economic goals - normative economics - are at least partially responsible for the deviation. Therefore, as a general rule, we can listen to the economists with whose normative judgments we agree.)

But seriously, the debt our government is racking up could be "catastrophic" - and I've seen non-partisan articles (which I can't find anymore) suggesting that either candidate would increase our deficit by trillions.

Mo' gov'ment, mo' problems.

The Irony God

"If God exists and Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true."

Most people would agree with that statement, as a general rule.

But I wouldn't.

For it is entirely possible that God conceived Christianity (and humanity) as nothing more than a practical joke, a hoax, a lengthy absurdity which we have (futilely) worshiped as profound - that God is, as Voltaire said, "a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." It is entirely possible that we will come to Judgment Day and be told that Life was merely a spectacle, a game. (In our postmodern society, many of us wouldn't be that surprised.) It is entirely possible that God is a liar and charlatan Whose "love" for us was actually nothing more than depraved knavery. This metaphysic I cannot disprove.

The point of this hypothetical "Irony God" (whom we almost never acknowledge or consider) is not to mock God or Christianity.

Let us consider the nature of the proposition. I am positing a theistic God who gave us the Bible and then allowed Jesus to be raised from the dead. In other words, I am positing what all Christian apologists try to defend.

Based on evidence alone, the Irony God is just as plausible as the Christian God. In other words, when it comes to rational inquiry, to the empirical Pursuit of Truth, we are left at an unseemly dead end. Reason cannot give us an answer; what can?

Trust.

Christianity asks us not just to believe in God, but to trust in Him. At some point, it asks us to stop treating God as an interesting hypothesis and to start treating Him as a Father.

What I was positing before isn't Christianity at all. Christianity says that God loves us and cares for us, as a father would. (And how many children have doubted their fathers' love?) This claim cannot be directly verified or proved. It is, in fact, an intensely personal claim.

It comes as no surprise to me that many people who analyze Christianity "objectively" often reject it - not because Christianity is incompatible with objective analysis, but because we cannot even begin to comprehend Christianity's claims without first seeking to understand its heart. Christianity is so bold as to say that rational inquiry is not and cannot be enough; can it then come as a surprise that those who would reduce it to rational terms deny it?

People are Christians, not (mainly) on the basis of philosophy or science, but ultimately on the basis of trust. They trust God, not as a theory, but as a person.

God does not ask us to prove His existence (although, from my own philosophical perspective, I do not see how He can be denied); He asks us only to trust Him.

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And do not rely on your own understanding.
Acknowledge Him in all your ways,
And He will make your paths straight."

- Proverbs 3:5-6 (NET)

This, of course, just begs the question: Why should we trust God?

We must answer that question for ourselves.

Biblical Inerrancy?

Pretty much every argument between a non-believer and Christian concerning the Bible could be reduced to this:

NON-CHRISTIAN:

[Some Scripture] is a [contradiction or error] in the Bible. The Bible's obviously not the Word of God.

CHRISTIAN:

That's not a [contradiction or error], because of [some reason].

And on and on it goes.

The fundamental assumption, left unspoken and unchallenged in this debate, is simple: If there is an error in the Bible, then the Bible is not the Word of God.

(Interesting side note: This line of reasoning itself conflates the Bible and the "Word of God," treating them as synonymous and identical entities. In other words, it assumes that everything within the Bible is the Word of God, and everything without the Bible is not the Word of God. Although most orthodox Christians would probably agree with that, I suspect it might be overly simplistic. After all, John 1 says Jesus is the Word of God! Hopefully, I will be able to discuss thia in further detail later on.)

Given that fundamental assumption, it comes as no surprise that the standard modus operandi of Christian apologists is to demonstrate there are no errors in the Bible. Whether or not they have succeeded is debatable. (I imagine that, in most cases, the committed skeptics will detract from apologists' explanations and the committed believers will rationalize any alleged flaws. However, I should mention that, even if it is not inerrant, the Bible is the most reliable historical and scientific document of antiquity. Most - but not all - of the arguments critics present are laughably easy to refute.)

But let us consider the question: What if there is an error in the Bible? What would the implications of such an error be?

(In my mind, there are two separate issues here. One is whether the authors of the Bible were honest, deceitful, or deluded. The other is whether or not inerrancy is necessary to demonstrate reliability. I am addressing the second issue here, not the first.)

The implications would depend on many things. Which Bibles are the Word of God? Are only the autographs (original manuscripts) inspired? Are the Old and New Testaments inspired in the same manner? In what sense (if any) is the Bible the "Word of God"? Belief that the Bible is the Word of God does not (for example) signify belief that God physically wrote the Bible; to my knowledge, all Christians accept that men physically wrote (or transmitted) the Bible. In what manner did these men transmit the Bible? Were they possessed by the Spirit?

And what is the nature of the error? Is it scientific, historical, or theological? Is it an internal inconsistency? If so, of what kind?

All of these are important questions. But the most important questions, I think, are different:

What was God's purpose for His written Word?

Does the alleged error undermine this purpose?

What does the Bible say about the Word of God? (Note that the Bible says nothing about "the Bible"; it technically does not mention itself. This is important.)

What is (and was) man's role in communicating God's message?

On a fundamental level, God intended to communicate something with His word. But what did He intend to communicate? That much is obvious: the message of the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18); the message of grace (Acts 14:3); the message of love (1 John 3:11). It is a simple, but powerful, message - a message not directly contingent upon the inerrancy of the Bible.

The Bible, though it may be inspired by God, was written by men for men. I see this as an interesting parallel with the nature of Jesus, who is the Word (John 1); Jesus, just slike the Bible, is both human and divine. (If God entrusted Himself to us, could He not also have entrusted His Word to us?)

From the perspective of apologetics, scientific and historical accuracy in the Bible are important because they reinforce the reliability of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life. They demonstrate that the Bible is more than "cleverly concocted fables" (2 Peter 1:16, NET). Internal consistency is important for the same reason, especially theological and moral consistency. (Of course, orthodox Christianity is paradoxical by nature - Jesus is fully man and fully God, God is One and Trinity, etc. - and so I expect conundra to arise in Christian theology.)

Christian apologists have sought to defend that which is most difficult to prove or believe: flawlessness. I am convinced that the Word of God is flawless; I do not know whether or not the Bible, our collection of a certain sixty-six books, is.

I believe it necessary that we examine this topic more closely.

Economic Freedom and Power

I don't think people understand how closely political economics is tied to freedom.

When taxes are raised and government is allowed to expand, individual Americans effectively cede a portion of their liberty. In certain situations, this is vital and unavoidable. A good example is our nationalized police force; no one wants public order to be maintained solely by private corporations.

Unfortunately, history has taught us that government constantly abuses and increases its power when given the chance. This trend is painfully obvious in the United States, where the national government now controls a great many things it was never originally intended to control.

In the past hundred years, the ideologies of socialism, communism, and fascism have advocated governmental dominion over the economy. Modern power does not exist in military might, but in economic strength; therefore, socialist, communist, and fascist governments who controlled their nations' economies have almost always been totalitarian. The great atrocities of modern times have been perpetrated by governments such as these. There are too many examples to list.

Conversely, in a true capitalist society, private individuals would have more power than they have ever had. (Note that an economy controlled by corporate conglomerates and monopolies is not at all capitalistic. It is oligarchic.) In a capitalist society, government cannot control the people; it can only defend and protect them. Power is diffused, rather than concentrated; it truly belongs to individuals. A capitalist society is not only stronger, but freer.

Americans are (understandably) wary of "Big Brother" when it comes to wiretaps and surveillance, but the much more real peril to our freedom lies in Uncle Sam's increasing control over the economy. We prostitute our economic power and freedom for governmental promises of comfort and welfare. The promises are rarely kept, and the power is rarely returned to the people. Does our government deserve the increasing power with which we are entrusting it?

Recently, Democrats in Congress advocated nationalizing the oil industry. (It'd be funny if it weren't true. And what does Maxine Waters, a former teacher, know about the economy?) Apparently, they haven't heard of Hugo Chávez.

Barack Obama, of course, is no different (and neither is McCain, essentially). According to the Wall Street Journal, "Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. 'Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers,' he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. He spoke aboard his campaign bus, where a big-screen TV was tuned to the final holes of the U.S. Open golf tournament." (For the record, a strong government hand is not needed to "assure that wealth is distributed more equally." I think there are much better ways to do that.)

Consider this: any power given to the government is not only given to the "good" politicians, but also to the "bad" ones. Liberals, do you really want men like George Bush to run the economy? Conservatives, do you really want the Bill Clintons of the world in control of your economy? Wouldn't it make more sense to let the people control the economy?

Only 47% of Americans oppose nationalizing the oil industry. In my opinion, that Democrats (and some Republicans) would even suggest policies such as these under the guise of capitalism is completely duplicitous.

America, meet Socialism.

Sartre on God

Interesting quote from Sartre (of all people):

"I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God."

Obviously, he didn't convert on his deathbed or anything...but still, for him to say this is kind of a big deal.

Objectivity

In a recent discussion about apologetics with a (non-Christian) friend of mine, I referenced a few Christian books written about the history of Christianity. His response to me was that the authors were irreparably biased, because they were themselves Christian.

My friend does have a point; Christian writers will display a bias toward Christianity.

But is that not also true of atheists, or deists, or Muslims, or Hindus, or...anyone? Capitalists, communists, Republicans, Democrats? Who isn't biased? No one. Can anyone find books written in support of certain positions whose authors do not themselves support those positions?

Of course, the solution is not to discard all human knowledge as ideologically tainted, but to seek the truth honestly and from multiple sources.

The problem, however, is not that my friend sought to discard all human knowledge, but that he saw only "religious" knowledge as tainted. In other words, those opposed to Christianity could be objective, but those supporting it could not.

This seems absurd to me.

First of all, everyone is "religious," in the sense that everyone has beliefs about metaphysics. Atheism and agnosticism are each religions of their own. Or, if you prefer to construe "religion" as meaning "traditional ritualized belief systems," I could say that everyone has a belief system of some sort.

The objection is raised (and, in a way, should be raised) that those religious people who choose to defend and write about Christianity are extremely passionate, emotionally invested, and (therefore) invariably biased. The implicit assumption is that atheists and other non-religious people are "rational" and "free-thinking" - objective.

Of course, this ignores the fact that men have hated religion as much as they have loved it. Just as not all religious people are fervently religious, not all non-religious people are God-hating maniacs - but many of the leading atheists sure seem to be.

Sam Harris, one of the most famous modern critics of religion, said, "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion I would not hesitate to get rid of religion." Does that sound objective to anyone? Richard Dawkins' recent bestseller was entitled The God Delusion, implying that the vast majority of the world's population (along with a long list of some of the modern world's greatest thinkers and people such as Aristotle) was deluded in its religious thinking.

Does this sound reasonable or objective? To me, it does not. As Voltaire said, "Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde." (Look it up! And yes, it cuts both ways.) I would argue that Dawkins and Harris are just as emotionally invested in their positions as any Christian I know; in fact, it is probably just as impossible for them to remain objective as it would be for me.

(Criticism of Dawkins, Harris, and other prominent atheists do not come only from their philosophical opponents. Michael Ruse, a philosopher at Florida State University, said, "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist." Scott Atran, in response to a presentation Harris made, used similar words: "It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist.")

Of course, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins do not speak for the mass of non-religious people, and they could just as easily point to inflammatory comments made by theists. The problem is that Christianity has a moderate voice, but anti-Christianity seems to have none (or a very quiet one.)

Finally, we must distinguish between authors and the arguments they make. A child who says he cannot breathe underwater is just as correct in his assessment as the biologist who makes the same claim; in other words, the validity of a certain claim (such as "I cannot breathe underwater" or "God exists") is independent of the person making the claim. We can disagree with conclusions, but we cannot dismiss conclusions merely because we disagree with those who make them.

In the end, Harris' and Dawkins' belligerence does them and their arguments disservice.

Scalia's Dissent

I like it.

Leibnizian Cosmological Arguments

When I wrote this, I didn't realize that Leibniz had already thought of it.

I also didn't realize that Alexander Pruss had written about and basically blown me out of the water.

This is what he has to say.

When Gas Prices Get Too High...

...This happens.

Hat tip to the Fool for this one.

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

A friend showed me this article yesterday, and I was basically stunned.

Whether or not this guy's theory is true (the LHC will hopefully be able to test it), it demonstrates a few very interesting things (and I'm not even talking about the "surfer dude" angle).

First off, it's extremely elegant - or, in its author's words, "exceptionally simple." (That might be a bit of an overstatement, unless you're conversant in Lie algebras. But the title of the theory is actually a pun, because E₈ is technically a "simple" and "exceptional" Lie group.)

In fact, elegance is the main thing it has going for it; even though some people criticize its scientific merits, a lot of people seem enamored with its beauty. One professor said, "Some incredibly beautiful stuff falls out of Lisi's theory, I think that this must be more than coincidence and he really is touching on something profound." Doesn't it sound like he's talking about a work of art instead of a scientific theory?

Paul Dirac (an atheist) said, "God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world." What he meant was that he thought the fundamental physical and mathematical laws governing our reality were rational, simple, and elegant - beautiful.

I've often noticed this mystical (and even religious) devotion scientists and mathematicians have to their respective fields, and how they expect logical and elegant solutions to their problems. They expect the Theory of Everything to make sense, and even to be mathematically perfect. Notice what Lisi says about his theory: "This is an all-or-nothing kind of theory - it's either going to be exactly right, or spectacularly wrong. I'm the first to admit this is a long shot. But it ain't over till the LHC sings."

Why is it "all-or-nothing"? Because if it's off, just by a little, even if it explains gravity, it loses its symmetry. It loses its elegance. It ceases to be beautiful - and as Dirac noted, only beautiful mathematics were used in the creation of the world.

I wonder if he ever asked why this is the case...

Exploding Pigs

Because nothing says environmental responsibility like exploding pigs...

And yes, my friend was able to get a negative life span. Which is amazing for a variety of reasons.

And yes, the TV network producing the Flash game is state-sponsored.

And yes, the game violates the network's own code of practice.

And yes, some people are angry.

And yes...I should stop starting my sentences with "And yes."

Blogroll

Some good blog posts here, here, here (and, in fact, all of the "Inerrancy" posts), and here.

And We're Not Even in a Recession Yet...

The problem here is that this media coverage negatively affects consumer confidence...which negatively affects the economy.

The Myth of the Anthropomorphic God

The Baron of Montesquieu wrote, "If triangles had a god, he would have three sides."

This aphorism implicitly reverses classical theology: We are the creators, and we made God in our image. It also approaches the psychology of religion tangentially; man made God in his image. Man-made gods and religions are, after all, exactly what we would expect from superstitious homo sapiens.

(While I accept Montesquieu's statement as true, its converse is also true: If there were a three-sided god, he would create triangles. God is not anthropomorphic; humans are theomorphic.)

When it comes to orthodox Christianity, the accusation of anthropomorphism is easy to refute. After all, God is Love, God is Light, God is Spirit (cf. 1 John 4:8, 1 John 1:5, John 4:24). (Although these scriptures do not address the issue directly, but they are exemplary of broader Christian thought on the subject.) Despite artistic depictions to the contrary, and despite the human nature Jesus undertook on Earth, the Godhead itself was generally thought of as existing beyond nature, and thus beyond human characteristics. (Interestingly, this article suggests that ancient rabbis did conceive of God as anthropomorphic. Some Latter-Day Saint scriptures also hint at God's corporeality.)

But I don't think the anthropomorphic criticism is truly criticizing the idea of a corporeal God. I think the true, underlying problem people have is with the idea of a personal God. Their reservations are largely removed when they consider abstract entities, higher orders, and life forces.

I haven't really thought out the philosophical implications of a personal (as opposed to an impersonal) creator, but I do know that this aspect of God - personality - is the one which leads to such emotional reactions and thinking on both sides.

Of course, I still can't think of a better explanation for consciousness than a personal God...

Range Voting

Anyone have a reason this shouldn't be how we vote?