Tuesday, March 21, 2006

What am I Freeing Myself To?

P.Z. Myers over at Pharyngula has a post up about atheism and spirituality, which, along with its excellent comments, brought to mind some of my recent ponderings.

I am still working my way through the whole Moral Argument for the Existence of God. I've read a multitude of philosophers' and theologians' ideas on the subject, and I believe I'm coming to the conclusion that morality neither confirms nor denies the existence of God - it is a concept that stands on its own. I have yet to see if I can support that.

Anyway. When mulling matters of spiritual significance - particularly the existence of God - the more I pull away from my Christian roots, the more I ask myself a question: "What am I freeing myself to?"

I am well aware of what I am freeing myself from - dogmatic fundamentalist Christianity, which I am increasingly convinced cannot be entirely reasonable. The harder question is what I am becoming: something without a label. To say atheist is to speak too soon - while my arguments may lean in that direction, I am not there yet. To say non-Christian theist is to speak with too much authority. While as an engineer, I am drawn to the seeming telos (purpose) exhibited in the universe, I also see order arising from purely natural processes. I am sans conclusion.

This limbo dramatically affects one of the fundamental elements of meaning in life: self-definition. Who am I? Losing the label of Christian, all I can call myself now is human. While such a perception engenders all the self-determinant freedom that humanists promise, I can't help but feel empty when once I defined myself as so much more - a Child of God who would be rewarded in Heaven. Atheism hardly has a concept to replace that.

Nonetheless, intellectual honesty demands that we divorce our search for truth from any fantasy we have attached to the result of our quest. The theist, therefore, must justify that the conclusion of God's existence is not motivated by the desire for an afterlife and supernatural reward. If this heavenly result is an a priori desire attached to the thesis rather than an a posteriori claim after having already proved God, the theist must question the validity of their quest for truth: was their conclusion informed by desire and longing or by reason?

Similarly, the agnostic or atheist that seeks to claim logic as the root of their beliefs must also search themselves to determine if their hope for a reality without God did not motivate their conclusion against him. Defining the Christian, Islamic, or Judaic God as non-existent necessarily forces us to restructure traditional morality according to a paradigm of reality that affords an immense amount more personal freedom and self-definition. If this desire is an a priori motivation for the atheist, he must, with the same rigor required of the theist above, determine if his conclusion was based on desire or reason.

As human beings, the question "Which came first, desire or reason?" will plague our every philosophical and moral endeavor. For those that fall on either side of any debate, however, intellectual honesty requires that after the self-examination is complete, the most reasonable conclusion is accepted.

Such introspection leads me to honesty, but not to meaning or self-definition. I am no closer to answering what I am freeing myself to.

9 comments Links to this post at 5:01 PM Labels: , ,

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Finished a Book!

For the first time in a very long while, I finished a single book without being distracted by a litany of others. I'm much better at starting than finishing. Prompted by Paule over at Sophia, I'm examining the Moral Argument for the Existence of God. My first step was to read a few of his articles, which prompted me to read a few other authors prior to posting a response. The first author I read was Ravi Zacharias, whose Can Man Live Without God? I have outlined it here:

Can Man Live without God?

By Ravi Zacharias

Outline/Summary by Zeteo Eurisko

Outline Written March 11, 2006


This is a tossed together page of notes. Most of this is a summary of RZ's thoughts, not my own. I wrote this only for a short record of what I have read. I do have a few personal interjections throughout. Also, this is meant to be an outline of the book, not an exposition of RZ's argument – read the book to clarify any points.


My original intent of reading Can Man Live Without God? was to find a coherent, modern rendering of the moral argument for the existence of God. While this book provides this, it reaches beyond the simple postulates of argumentation. It begins by describing the principles of atheistic, postmodern thinking and empirically testing them through the experience of history. The major thesis of the book is that atheistic philosophy has proved completely unworkable when tested historically in its purest forms, while theism provides both rationally and empirically fulfilling precepts. It is only through theism that an intellectually satisfying, non-self-stultifying philosophical framework can be made for morality, and, thus, society and law. Similarly, meaning and hope can only be defined rationally with God as their basis.


The book is fascinating in its breadth while being comprehensible in its focus – a difficult task for any author to accomplish. I readily admit that Zacharias' intellectual faculties and familiarity with philosophy dwarf my own capabilities. In his prose, he can, seemingly on a whim, bring forth a pertinent example or quote from any of an army of philosophers to illustrate his points. While each chapter is tightly argued around a sub-thesis in support of his major hypothesis, the content is engaging enough to transfer the reader through each argument without giving the impression of suffering through an outline of postulates.


It must be noted that morality in the Christian world view is a central principle of how man relates to God. It is an imperative Christian belief that men are born innately evil and require Christ's sacrifice to bridge the gap between God's perfection and man's sin. This being the case, the argument from morality can be considered a necessary (though not sufficient) postulate that must be thoroughly proven prior to one's acceptance of Christianity as a world view. Zacharias makes the case from history that any godless philosophy that does not include this belief is fatally flawed. He then proceeds to build a defense of Christianity from this perspective.


An outline of the book follows. The bold text are chapter and section headings. Quotes are from the text. All other text comprises my notes.


Part 1: Antitheism is Alive – and Deadly

This section “analyzes the antitheistic world-view, demonstrating both its built-in logical contradictions and its existential inadequacies that ultimately make it philosophically unlivable.... A philosophy of meaninglessness is an unavoidable consequence of the antitheistic starting point.”

  1. Anguish in Affluence

      In the midst of our developed world, we still struggle with the despair of meaninglessness in our daily living. There are three levels at which we approach philosophical topics: logic, the level of philosophers; the arts, the level at which most people deal with higher concepts; and the kitchen table, where most of us deal with morality through casual conversation.

  2. Straying through an Infinite Nothing

      Through an examination of Nietzsche's The Madman, Zacharias makes the case that modern philosophy has left societies and governments without a moral foundation.

  3. The Madman Arrives

      A discussion of Nietzsche's character Zarathustra, and a comparison of how the offspring of these philosophies include both Nazism and Stalinist communism. Also includes quotes from Aldus Huxley and Stephen Jay Gould. “One may angrily argue that I am misrepresenting antithesim and that not all antitheists are immoral or despondent. The anger I can understand, but the argument is illogical. It is true that not all antitheists are immoral, but the larger point has been completely missed. Antitheism provides every reason to be immoral and is bereft of any objective point of reference with which to condemn any choice.”

  4. The Homeless Mind

      The “first point of breakdown when attempting to live without God” is that “there remains no moral point of reference that is both coherent and logically prescriptive.” There is no law outside of God. A look at Kantian ethics and several philosophers that built on Kant's system.

  5. Where Is Antitheism When It Hurts?

      “By raising the question of pain and death in a moral context, an antitheist betrays a glaring contradiction in his understanding of reality if at the same time he denies God's existence. If this is not a moral universe, why position the question morally?” Given the pain and death that surrounds us, the second consequence of living without God is a lack of “future hope, either personal or cosmic.” A multitude of philosophers and religions are referenced.

  6. In Search of Lower Meaning

      The third consequence is that we can have no higher meaning outside ourselves if there is no God to provide it. “When one attempts to live without God, the answers to morality and meaning send one back into his or her own world to fashion an individualized answer.”


My question from this section, however, is this: Who says we are even to be looking for law, hope, and meaning? Why do we even think we are owed these things? Is the answer simply that not looking for these things makes life unlivable?


Part 2: What Gives Life Meaning?

Is meaninglessness really liberating, as philosophers espouse? Why do we continue, generation after generation, to search for meaning, and what best explains that search? It is an error to assume “this hunger to be merely a belief and not a certainty.” This section “defends the certainty of the longing for meaning and provides some cogent answers in that search.”

  1. The Science of Knowing and the Art of Living

      RZ draws from Shakespeare and other authors to divide life into four stages: childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, and maturity. This is the framework through which he will, in the following chapters, “demonstrate and explore how, at each stage, meaning is pursued, attained, and sometimes lost.”

  2. The Romance of Enchantment

      Childhood. “For a child meaning is procured by his recognition of the awe-inspiring reality that surrounds his life. That reality is fused with wonder and design, engendering purpose. The world is not seen as mindless or capricious.” When this wonder is lost, there are three consequences: (1) all life is reduced to becoming chemical or molecular, (2) there is a loss of gratitude, since we are “just here”, and (3) there is a slide into emptiness. He argues that Christ can be a sustainer of wonder, since his claims of providing purpose are rooted in historical truth.

  3. Truth – an Endangered Species

      Adolescence. “Aristotle was right when he opined that all philosophy begins with wonder; but the journey, I suggest, can only progress through truth.” Provides a multitude of examples of how the truth is no longer valued in many facets of societies throughout the world. “Truthfulness in the heart, said Jesus, precedes truth in the objective realm. Intent is prior to content.” He then argues that Jesus is the personality of truth, a personality we can know, because he claimed to be the Truth.

  4. Love's Labor Won

      Young adulthood. “The commitment of love is essential to meaning; the absence of love contributes to the absence of meaning.” In the “young adulthood” stage of one's life search for meaning, love must be accounted for. “The love of God is indispensable to meaning – that love is revealed in Christ and may be experienced personally.”

  5. Crossing the Bar

      Maturity. As mortality becomes evident, security is required to solidify meaning in life. Jesus provides this security by giving hope for a resurrection from the dead and eternal life. “Wonder, truth, love, and security. When one claims to have found meaning, that meaning must coalesce these four elements. And all four are found in the person of Jesus Christ, who alone brings life meaning by meeting the test at every age of life.... God alone is the perpetual novelty—providing wonder, truth, love and security.”


Part 3: Who Is Jesus (and Why Does it Matter?)

“It is to the gnawing question of the tenability of the Christian message that the third section of this book addresses itself.... [Jesus'] answers to life's deepest questions are presented, not only as relevant for our time, but as compellingly unique, both in detail and in extent.”

  1. Getting to the Truth

      “There are three tests to which any system or statement that makes a claim to truth must be subjected as a preliminary requirement if that statement is to be considered meaningful for debate... (1) logical consistency, (2) empirical adequacy, and (3) experiential relevance.” It must also pass the logical truth test of undeniability and the falsehood test of unaffirmability. He references Norman Geisler's work in this area, and claims that Christianity passes these tests. (I think he does this to stick closely to his argument based on morality so as not to lose the reader in philosophy.) He then makes the case that the prejudice against Christianity due to its exclusive truth claims are not a justification for claiming its falsehood.

  2. Humanity's Dilemma

      Where antitheistic philosophies have failed, Christianity correctly describes mankind's moral problem: separation from God as the result of our innately sinful nature. “Conviction of sin comes when we measure ourselves before God. A consciousness of one's own need is the beginning of purpose and the beginning of character. Jesus' description of our hearts [as sinful and in need of forgiveness from God] is in clear correspondence with our universal experience; a denial of this description flies in the face of reality and breeds contempt one for another.”

  3. The Philosopher's Quest

      Christianity correctly describes the solution to the historical philosophical dilemma of unifying the diverse experiences and realities of life into a cohesive whole. This unity is modeled by the Trinity: “a community of love and essential dignity without mitigating personality, individuality, and diversity.” He concludes the chapter by describing worship as the embodiment of the unity in diversity that philosophers seek; thus, again, theism generally and Christianity specifically can be the only fulfilling philosophy. (Read the chapter to really understand his argument).

  4. The Historian's Centerpiece

      This chapter contends not only that Christ is important due to his life that served as an historical turning point in the history of man but also that Christianity's claims to be historically accurate – a verifiable account of God intervening in the lives of men – makes it unique among religions.

  5. The Believer's Treasure

      This concluding chapter ties together the various arguments of the book, he makes the strong claim – once again quoting both philosophers and scripture – that Christianity is the only self-consistent system of dealing with the question of suffering and death. “When man lives apart from God, chaos is the norm. When man lives with God, as revealed in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the hungers of the mind and heart find their fulfillment. For in Christ we find coherence and consolation as He reveals to us, in the most verifiable terms of truth and experience, the nature of man, the nature of reality, the nature of history, the nature of our destiny, and the nature of suffering.”


Appendix A: Questions and Answers on Atheism and Theism

A compelling section of Q&A from the Veritas Lectures Zacharias gave at Harvard University.


Appendix B: Mentors to the Skeptic

Brief biographies of the philosophers most quoted in the text: Rene Descartes, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Soren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, and Jean-Paul Sartre.


From the Notes: Authors/Books Zeteo Wants to Read Further

Some of these I've read in their entirety, some in part, others I heard of for the first time by reading this book:

2 comments Links to this post at 4:08 PM Labels: , ,

Wednesday, March 1, 2006

Kent Hovind: The Complete Encounter

I intended to give this post more time and thought, but I owe it to those posters on Pharyngula and UTI - who generously answered my request for ideas - to convey a record of my encounter with the consummate showman of the young-earth Creationsists, Kent Hovind. (My boss reads my blog, so, for the record, this was written over a long lunch, off the clock…)

First, a bit about my background. For those of you that don’t believe that an indoctrinated YEC mind can muster the intellectual velocity to escape the orbit of a fundamentalist upbringing, I am the exception. I was home schooled and home churched throughout my childhood and adolescence in an isolated environment of fundamentalist doctrine and Biblical literalism. My science education was learned physically at the feet of Ken Ham, Henry Morris, John Morris, and Russell Humphreys. Their word was my confidence; their books, an extension to my Bible.

Enlightenment began for me at 16, when I entered college early, as many home schooled students do – academically ahead in all aspects except turning a trained intellect on the Bible. A complete biography of my de-conversion will wait for another post, but suffice it to say that now I consider myself an honest agnostic religiously and a methodological naturalist scientifically (Yes, that means I “believe” in evolution).

With this background, I entered the Hovind talk with no small amount of roiling emotion welling in my gut. I was five minutes late to the talk, and the 450 seat auditorium in our student center was packed to the aisles and walkways with at least 500 people – standing, sitting on stairs, listening from outside the auditorium. The church busses and vans outside betrayed that people had traveled from several surrounding counties for their science lesson, many, I’m sure, receiving “credit” in their home/church schools for attending. A vote requested by Kent at the beginning revealed a 75% pro-Creationist audience.

Kent did not stray from his usual talking points. These have been well-described at http://www.kent-hovind.com and http://www.talkorigins.org . He spoke only for 75 minutes before stopping to use the rest of the session for Q&A – a straight 3 hours!

Ah, the stupidity of the students who came to the mic! They came ill-prepared with their sophomore-level understanding of science and evolution and played right into the hand of the master performer who deftly redirected the audience with his 1000 PowerPoint slides – with the same vapid, well-worn answers for every evidence for evolution – ready with the click of a hyperlink to redefine any given question to fit the answer for which he had colorfully, graphically prepared. These kids did not realize they were dealing with a master manipulator and a very intelligent man who knows how to anticipate questions, redefine them into straw men, and burn them at the stake to the delighted cries and laughter of his self assured, uneducated audience.

I thus decided to take a different tactic. Knowing the audience to be predominantly YECs, I chose to draw upon my experience within that mindset to drive a wedge between him and more respected YEC thinkers. I thought this might get a few people to realize that hell does not await all those who counter Kent; lots of well-respected Christians do, without the expected lightning from heaven.

My conversation went thusly, as best I remember. He interrupted me during each sentence, so it did not come off this cleanly. The only actual quotes are in quotes. My comments in [].

ZE: Creation science, as you’ve described it, is largely an observational science…

KH: Oh, no it’s not. [Begins rapidly flipping around his PowerPoint slides]

ZE: Observational sciences include the practice of creating hypotheses that best fit observations and checking those hypotheses for accuracy based on how well they fit existing and new evidence. It is on that basis they are accepted or rejected.

KH: [Motioning to his slide showing the Wright Flyer] The Wright brothers were Creationists and they were the first to fly. That’s not observational science.

ZE: That is completely off topic. The creation science you’ve been discussing has to do with the age of the earth. That is observational.

KH: OK.

ZE: Please give me three examples of creation science ideas or hypotheses that you have rejected on the basis of a close examination of observed evidence. [Intending to show that he does not apply any critical thinking to the evidences he uses for a young earth – anything works as long as it makes the earth look young.]

KH: There are many evidences for a young earth. [He then went, slides and all, into a discussion of the Recession of the Moon argument.]

ZE: That’s based on a flawed model that assumes a constant rate of the moon’s orbit extending [a bit more back and forth]. But it’s off topic. Let me be more specific. In your talk you claimed that the speed of light has changed throughout history to prove that distant supernovas are less than 6000 years old. You also quoted Dr. Russell Humphreys' Creationist work, Starlight and Time, to prove the same point. Humphreys assumes that both general and special relativity are accurate – a point you discount in your educational material – and that the speed of time is constant and has been throughout history. Which is right? Is it constant or not?

KH: Humphreys is wrong, the speed of light has changed.

ZE: On the basis of what evidence?

KH: [Flipping back through his presentation] All these physicists who say the speed of light has changed.

ZE: Then why did you quote both to support your argument? Humphreys is a member of a Creationist group, Answers in Genesis, that has several web pages dedicated to debunking the science that you use.

KH: They shouldn’t do that. I think they should take them down. [And, upon further inspection, I think they have.] It comes down to this: “I’m right and they are wrong.” [A direct quote, emphasis mine.]

ZE: On the basis of what? They have trained scientists such as Kurt Wise from Harvard and Russell Humphreys – you have a degree from Patriot University!

KH: OK, now you’re doing an ad hominem attack. [Motions to cut off my mic.]

ZE: It’s not ad hominem since you just established yourself as the only basis of authority for your claim! I'm attacking the authority you established! [Realizing my mic is off, I get very angry and return to my seat.]

Again, the exchange was not this clean, and, I must admit, I made the mistake of getting angry in the face of his ever-smiling, happily-defending-the-faith visage. I got stuck winning the logic, but losing my composure. In all, I think most people got lost due to his indirections. Note that by appealing to the authority of better educated Creationists, I was not agreeing with them, just establishing them as a more respected source for the audience to use as a basis for critical thinking within their insulated minds.

And it worked. The end result was that I was treated afterwards by the exiting audience as a source of counterpoint to what they had just heard. I spoke to at least 10 people – both students of evolutionary biology who were confused about what they had just experienced and YEC kids who ranged from inquisitive to belligerent – about my alternative point of view. I pointed lots of folks to good websites. It may be a minor victory, but one that means a lot to me, since my mind was similarly opened by taking the first baby steps towards independent, critical thinking.

In closing, a few comments to those YECs that read my blog. When you see a guy like Kent Hovind, meditate for a moment about where you are putting your faith. Are you really putting your faith in the literal truth of Genesis, or are you putting it in the perceived confidence of an intelligent showman? As you leave the show, are you on an emotional high or an intellectual high? Will you follow up? Please read the Index to Creationist Claims on Talk Origins. Then answer me this one question. If you claim to believe by faith the literal accounts of Genesis that can be and have been demonstrated false by Christian and Atheist scientists alike, why should rational thinkers listen when you claim to put the same faith in Jesus for the sake of salvation? If your faith is tested this one way and fails, why should any thinking person believe you when you claim, by faith, anything else? Please consider the damage you are doing to a faith that, in my opinion, has a lot more to offer than rhetoric, illogic, and misdirection.

41 comments Links to this post at 1:47 PM Labels: ,

My Question for Kent Hovind

It will have to suffice for now to say that my question was good enough for me to be the only guy up there who got his mic turned off because Kent didn't like what I was saying.

I have to calm down now because I'm so angry at this Kent Hovind guy. Not only did he not listen to my valid questions, he told my wife that she and I had to leave the auditorium at MY SCHOOL because after the talk we were standing around answering the questions of the Campus Crusaders in whose minds new neurons had fired based on the points I brought up. We did not leave.

In all, I suppose I was successful in getting a few folks to think in a novel way. I'm on vacation from my full-time work and full-time school schedule next week, and I'll try to find time to blog more completely then.

4 comments Links to this post at 12:35 AM Labels: , ,

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)