Are Atheists Evil?

In consideration of this prickly question, Bill Vallicella at Maverick Philosopher poses two preliminary questions:

Q1. Given some agreed-upon moral code, are people who profess some version of theism more 'moral,' i.e., more likely to live in accordance with the agreed-upon code, than those who profess some version of atheism?

Q2. Given some agreed-upon moral code, are atheists justified in adhering to the code?

Visit his blog to see how he answers them in this insightful post.

Bible Services

Here's my first ever attempt at a screen play. Inspired by the earlier post on the "worst sermon ever."

[Scene 1: Small, store-front church; preacher railing on and on about the evils of something or other, saliva flying; citing crazy number theory as proof of his view, intermittently wiping brow with dingy hankerchief. *Camera work reminscent of a comedic, documentary-style like "The Office."]

Enter Man and Woman (abruptly), dressed Scully and Mulder-esque. They stand at the back of the boxy, utilitarian room (lined with cheap paneling) until the preacher stops to notice them.

Preacher: Can I help you?
Man: Are you Rev. Smoot?
Preacher: That's right.
Man: We're with Bible Services. (Flash badges) Is that your Bible there on the pulpit?
Preacher: You bet it is!
Man: I'm afraid the Bible is going to have to come with us.
(Gasps from the motley congregation.)
Preacher: Scuse me?
(Man walks forward briskly, reaches toward Bible. Preacher snatches it defiantly, his eyes wide.)
Man: We don't want any trouble, Rev. Smoot. Just let us take the Bible. It will be perfectly safe.
Preacher: What in tarnation are you doin'? This is MY Bible and ain't no one takin it nowhere!
(Scullyish woman approaches, displaying document.)
Woman: We have a warrant, Reverend. There have been reports of Bible abuse.
Preacher: Huh?
Man: Bible abuse. I'm sorry sir, but if you don't let the Bible come with us peacefully, the officers outside will place you under arrest, and you'll end up losing your Bible anyway.
Preacher: (mouth hanging open, slowly hands Bible to Man) W-w-what are you going to do with it?
Man: The Bible will go to a foster home until we can set a court date. It will be perfectly fine. Don't worry.
Woman: Do you have any other Bibles?
Preacher: In my study.
Woman: Please show me. All your Bibles will have to come with us.
(Woman and preacher exit)
Man: (turning to congregation) I'm very sorry for the interruption ladies and gentlemen. Please continue your worship. Your preacher will need to fill out some paperwork while we process the Bibles, but I'm sure he'd want you to carry on. Have a nice day.
(Man walks down the isle, exits.)
(Congregation sits in silence, looking around at each other. Cut to commercial.)

The Story of Stuff

Okay, I'm finally going to put this on my blog. It is an extremely well-produced animation/live video presentaion dealing with the effects of consumerism on the creation*. The propaganda is a little thick at times -- I wish they could have written this in an objective, scientific, and properly boring manner. But then again, who likes boring? I don't endorse the overall view of economics, but I think Annie Leonard is dead on target about things like "planned obsolescence" (you'll see what I mean). I watched this with my wife and it sparked serious discussion about how we can make changes in our buying. Perhaps I could do a later post on a Christian argument for creation-stewardship and responsible buying.

Here it is: The Story of Stuff

*I prefer the term 'creation' to 'environment.' The latter is so sterile and generic. Creation is a far richer concept and pregnant with meaning.

Good Friday

One of the most striking paintings we saw in the Vatican Museum a few years ago. A fitting image for contemplation today.

The Entombment of Christ, Caravaggio (c. 1602)

Evil Intentions?

Philosophers sometimes worry about the difference between intentional and unintentional actions. This matters because we don't want to hold people morally responsible for things they didn't intentionally do. For instance, when I bump the table causing my gun to fall to the floor, and it goes off and shoots you in the arse, I'm not (usually) morally responsible for that action. Why? Because it wasn't intentional. But its not always easy to see the difference. Consider this puzzle:

Suppose Jack is sitting at a computer terminal and needs to punch in a 10 digit code in order to achieve some end (call it X). He doesn't know the code, but punches in the first 10 digits that come to mind. Low and behold, he gets all 10 right! He achieves X!

Now suppose Jill is sitting at a computer terminal and faces a similar situation, but is trying to achieve Y. She punches in the first 10 digits that come to mind, and voila, she gets them all right. She achieves Y.

Would you say that Jack and Jill achieve their ends intentionally? Remember, they both got really lucky. This is a problem because we don't usually call lucky actions intentional. If I have never played darts in my life, and throw a dart haphazardly at the board, scoring a bulls-eye, we wouldn't want to say that I hit the bulls-eye intentionally, right?

Now consider this: it turns out that Jack was trying to win a lottery game, but Jill was trying to launch a missile carrying a deadly toxin to a heavily-populated area. So,
X= win a lottery game
Y= launch a toxic missile at a heavily-populated area

Would we still say that Jack's winning the lottery game was not intentional? It seems so. When someone wins the lottery, we don't say that they did it intentionally. We usually reserve that sort of talk for things we have some control over, like kicking the dog or setting the evil puppet villain on fire. Those are things we do intentionally.

What about Jill? Would we still say, after the missile explodes and results in the death of hundreds, "Oh, she didn't launch the missile intentionally. It was just a lucky guess." That sounds crazy, but their actions are exactly similar. Is it just the moral difference that accounts for her action's being intentional?

This is what we call an "asymmetry." It seems that we think lucky actions are unintentional if they involve no morally significant consequences, but intentional if they do have morally significant consequences. But in both cases, the luck and the means were the same. It's a little strange. So, the question is this -- is there some other factor that accounts for the difference?

Funnier without Garfield

Would you believe that Garfield (the comic strip) is funnier (that's not saying much) without the fat feline? Check it out here. I laughed out loud.



HT: Evangelical Outpost

Savior of Ireland, Savior of Civilization

Most people know that Patrick brought the gospel to Ireland, but he is indirectly responsible for the preservation of western civilization, as well. When Rome fell, the monasteries he built in Ireland were the only repositories of the history, theology, and philosophy of the ancient world. The Dark Ages would have been permanent, had it not been for the diligent and persevering scholarship of Irish monks.

The Breastplate of St. Patrick

Christ be with me, Christ within me,
Christ behind me, Christ before me,
Christ beside me, Christ to win me,
Christ to comfort me and restore me,
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ in quiet, Christ in danger,
Christ in hearts of all that love me,
Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.

Strange Bedfellows? Bill Bright and St. Augustine

Here's a short, insightful post by theologian Fred Sanders that gives ol' Bill some much-needed theological vindication. I think what Sanders shows is what Bill and Augustine already knew: 'simple' is not always 'simplistic.'

Who Am I When No One's Looking?

"Who am I when no one's looking?" That question has haunted me for years, because I am often not at my best when beyond the gaze or knowledge of others. Can you relate?

I'm starting to wonder, though, if this sentiment is just wrong-headed. When Bill Hybels penned this phrase in his book of the same name, he was obviously imagining a situation where no human is looking. But I am beginning to suspect that when I am neither in the presence nor the thought of any human being, I am not fully human.

I think most theologians (and psychologists as well, I imagine) would agree that human beings are created to live in relationship. If God exists necessarily in relationship (being a Trinity), and we are created in his image, it would seem to follow that relationships are necessary for our flourishing. I would even go so far as to say that we are not fully human when in isolation from one another.

The necessity of relationship for the life of makarios, or blessedness, permeates the Scriptures. Consider the following passages -- but resist the temptation gloss over their familiarity.

"Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor. For if either of them falls, the one will lift up his companion. But woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up. Furthermore, if two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one be warm alone? And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him." (Eccl. 4:9-12)

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34-5)

"Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ." (Gal. 6:2)

"We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. . . The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (1John 3:14; 4:8)

To be a Christian is to love, and to love is to be in relationship. But this love, this relatedness, must be of a certain sort -- it must be Christ-love. What would it mean to love as Christ loved? It could not be done from a distance, in the abstract. To love as Christ loved is to "share your salt" as it were. Christ-love is enfleshed -- it is sweaty and mortal and down-in-the-dirt. It is near enough to grab a falling hand, to warm the other with its warmth.

To be alone, outside the love of a friend is to be less than fully human. What do I mean by "fully human?" Well, I certainly don't mean that we can somehow lose or possess less humanity than other humans. What I mean is that our humanity is not fully expressed or realized. Just as a guitar that languishes perpetually in its case is not fully a guitar, in some sense, we are not fully human when we are chronically alone.

One application of this truth is that our goal should never simply be to achieve some level of "independent integrity." In other words, the man who needs the steady, persistent love and accountability of his friends in order to maintain his integrity is no weaker than the man who needs the regular nourishment of food and water to maintain life. In fact, it is only in coming to grips with this neediness that there is hope for holiness.

So, maybe instead of asking, "Who am I when no one's looking?" we should be asking, "Who am I when in the love of a friend?" That is when I am fully human. That is when I am living the Christ-life.

Could This Be the Worst Sermon Ever?

This is why we need a bar exam for ministers. I wasn't sure whether to laugh, cry or cuss. Forget the problem of evil -- how about the problem of bad sermons? To be fair, this is just the last few minutes of the message. I'm sure the first 20 minutes were rife with coherency, reason and displays of hermeneutical acumen.

HT: A Thinker's Progress

Does God Speak to Me? (Abridged)

I think the long version was a little overwhelming, so here's a shorter version.

My view is that God does speak to us today. Here are a few ways that He does this:

1. First, we see in the Bible cases where it appears that God spoke in an audible voice with human language. For instance, the prophen Habakkuk writes that "the LORD answered me and said, 'Record the vision and inscribe it on tablets . . .'" The instances I am referring to are not just vague "feelings" or "senses" that God was saying something, but clear linguistic communication.

2. Second, God speaks through the medium of written language. Certainly God's Word is, indirectly, God speaking. God has brought it about that his intentions, commands, thoughts, etc. are communicated to us by means of written language.

3. Third, I think God speaks to believers intuitively. By this I mean to capture things like impressions during prayer, or when God speaks personally through the Word. When we experience intuitive communication, we sometimes say that we have a sense of God's leading or his direction on a matter. We don't hear or see any language, but we just know. Sometimes this is called tacit knowing. You may not know how you know, but you just know. Perhaps an example of this is in Acts when the elders of the church said that "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . ."

4. Fourth, God can speak to us through other people. This one is akin to the first, since it generally involves hearing an audible voice, but not God's voice. The prophets are good examples of this type, as are angels. God once got his message across to Balam by means of a donkey! Recall, though, that it was the donkey's words, not God being "channeled" through the donkey.

5. Fifth, I think God can speak to us through circumstances or through creation. "Dat to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge." (Ps. 19) This psalm is metaphorical, but the idea is that God is attempting to say something by means of creation. There is content -- they tell of the glory of God. Another example might be Jonah and the vine.

So, all these examples are well and good, but does God still speak to us today, as he did in the Bible? I think the answer has to be "yes," but with one caveat. Let's distinguish between two kinds of information or message-content that God might transmit to us. I will call the first "gnostic" information and the second "biblical." What I mean by "gnostic" is secret, privileged information that God gives to a very limited number of persons. Gnostic information consists of propositions that are not contained in, nor can be inferred from the Bible. In fact, they may even be contrary to the Bible.

Biblical information, on the other hand, is intended to be public, consistent with and very often echoing Scripture. God's speaking to a person should not be considered strictly a private matter, but ultimately for the building up of the body as a whole community. I am extremely skeptical of any alleged "divine message," the content of which is something that no Christian could ever have known or discerned apart from the revelation of the message. That is, I believe that when God speaks, he will simply be recapitulating what he has already said, in one way or another.

Obviously, much more needs to be said, but this will do for now.

Does God Speak To People?

We frequently hear Christians say things like, "God spoke to me" or "I sensed God saying to me . . ." or "I'm learning to hear God's voice" or "We need to listen to God." We often pray for an answer to a specific question, expecting that God will, in some way, give us a specific answer. Are these ways of talking based on bad theology?

What would it mean for God to speak to me? In cases of human communication, a simple model involves four parts: sender, message, medium and receiver. On this simple model, God is the sender, the message is various and I am the receiver. But what is the medium? There seem to be several possible answers to this question.

If God does "speak" to humans, there are several means or mediums by which God might do so. First, we see in the Bible cases where it appears that God spoke in an audible voice with human language. For instance, the prophen Habakkuk writes that "the LORD answered me and said, 'Record the vision and inscribe it on tablets . . .'" Of course, it is possible that God spoke directly to his mind and bypassed the ears altogether. I'm not sure it matters, though. The important thing to note is that the "speaking" was linguistic and readily understandable. I would also include dreams and visions in this category. The instances I am referring to are not just vague "feelings" or "senses" that God was saying something, but clear linguistic communication.

Second, God speaks through the medium of written language. Certainly God's Word is, indirectly, God speaking. God has brought it about that his intentions, commands, thoughts, etc. are communicated to us by means of written language. This is perhaps the easiest medium to accept.

Third, I think God speaks to believers intuitively. By this I mean to capture things like impressions during prayer, or when God speaks personally through the Word. When we experience intuitive communication, we sometimes say that we have a sense of God's leading or his direction on a matter. We don't hear or see any language, but we just know. Sometimes this is called tacit knowing. You may not know how you know, but you just know. Perhaps an example of this is in Acts when the elders of the church said that "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . ."

Fourth, God can speak to us through other people. This one is akin to the first, since it generally involves hearing an audible voice, but not God's voice. It is a linguistic and propositional form of communication. The prophets are good examples of this type, as are angels. God once got his message across to Balam by means of a donkey! Recall, though, that it was the donkey's words, not God being "channeled" through the donkey.

Fifth, I think God can speak to us through circumstances or through creation. "Dat to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge." (Ps. 19) This is metaphorical, but the idea is that God is attempting to say something by means of creation. There is content. They tell of the glory of God. My favorite example is Jonah and the vine. God causes the vine to grow and perish overnight in order to get a message across to Jonah. The vine was not the message, but it was meant to get his attention and reveal to him the dark places in his soul. God may also "close a door" or cause some other event that is meant to signal his desire for us.

So, all these examples are well and good, but does God still speak to us today, as he did in the Bible? I think the answer has to be "yes," but with one caveat. The content of God's message in the act of communication is almost always going to be of a certain sort. Let's distinguish between two kinds of information or message-content that God might transmit to us. I will call the first "gnostic" information and the second "biblical" (you can see where this is going). Most people are wary of "speaking" talk because of abuses that generally involve gnostic information. What I mean by "gnostic" is secret, privileged information that God gives to a very limited number of persons. Gnostic information consists of propositions that are not contained in, nor can be inferred from the Bible. In fact, they may even be contrary to the Bible. Moreover, gnostic information is allegedly given to one person or a small group of people. I do not believe that God speaks in this way, with very few exceptions.

Biblical information, on the other hand, is intended to be public, consistent with and very often echoing Scripture. Paul's conclusion in the dispute over the communicative gifts is this: "Let all things be done for edification." God's speaking to a person should not be considered strictly a private matter, but ultimately for the building up of the body as a whole community. I am extremely skeptical of any alleged "divine message," the content of which is something that no Christian could ever have known or discerned apart from the revelation of the message. That is, I believe that when God speaks, he will simply be recapitulating what he has already said, in one way or another. This is what the entire ministry of the Old Testament prophets consisted in. They simply recapitulated or rehashed the Mosaic law and covenant, with all its promises and warnings.

So, I probably have not said enough here to draw a sound conclusion. More distinctions need to be drawn, more terms defined, more Scriptures explored. That will be for a later post. Of course, if I get absolutely no comments on this, I won't be terribly motivated to write more. I'll let the "free market" decide.