Parody of Skeptical NT Criticism

In my readings, I came across this article based on the death of the science fiction author Ray Bradbury.  It is a solid lampoon of skepticism that offers outlandish claims.  I only hope it is worthy of reading for the laughs, and learning from the insight.

Ponder.

Did Ray Bradbury exist?

Bradbury died Tuesday night in Los Angeles, his agent Michael Congdon confirmed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-ray-bradbury-20120607,0,5622415.story

Bradbury’s daughter confirmed his death to the Associated Press on Wednesday morning. She said her father died Tuesday night in Southern California.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/chi-author-ray-bradbury-dead-20120606,0,3340056.story

Legendary science-fiction author Ray Bradbury passed away Wednesday morning in Los Angeles.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/ray-bradbury-movies-dead-fahrenheit-451_n_1574138.html

How do we account for discrepant reports regarding the death of Ray Bradbury?

“This is evidence that the obituaries for Bradbury were written decades later,” said Bart Ehrman, professor of religious studies at Chapel Hill. “Bradbury really died on Wednesday morning. The report that he died Tuesday night, but his death was confirmed on Wednesday morning, is an orthodox scribal harmonization of two contradictory traditions.”

“It's a telltale clue that Bradbury never existed,” said Richard Carrier, renowned author of Proving History. “If Bradbury really was the world-famous figure that legend imputes to him, it’s inconceivable that major news outlets would bungle the date of his death–especially in the information age.”

According to Robert Price, “The statement that ‘he died Tuesday night in Los Angeles, his agent Michael Congdon confirmed’ is a legendary embellishment, redacting the earlier tradition that he died Wednesday morning. The redactor is deifying Bradbury as an exalted, celestial figure. Notice that his agent is named after the Archangel Michael. Angels are “agents.” In the Bible, angels appear to people at night in dreams. And notice that the legendary place of his demise is the ‘City of Angels.’ So this represents the apotheosis of Bradbury, as a dying and rising god–like Hercules and Adonis.”

A "Resolution" of the Problem of Evil

In the recent Stand to Reason blog, in an article called the "Problem of Good," Gregory Koukl posted that the so-called problem of evil has more difficulties in promoting an atheistic mind-set than a theistic one.  He points out:  But the atheist must also take his turn offering his own explanation, and his task faces a complication the theist does not encounter. He must explain how evil itself could exist in the first place to make room for his complaint. He must account for the objective, transcendent moral standard that has to be in position before moral judgments of any kind can be made.

This difficulty signals an additional problem: The atheist must also solve the problem of good. How can anything ultimately be evil or good in a universe bereft of any standard to make sense of the terms?
The atheist does have a solution worth pondering, essentially depicting "good" and "evil" as human constructs each without ontological basis of reality.  One atheist comment raised the philosophical defense of skepticism: An atheist is under no obligation to develop a complex theory about why evil or good exist, because for him, the universe is ultimately meaningless. There is no need to explain something that does not make sense. It just is. How he deals with that in his day-to-day life results in the creation of a specific moral code. Many develop this code based on some version of Utilitarianism, in which the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences. It is not useful to have people murdering each other, so murder is 'bad.' It is useful to be able to trust other people, so honesty is 'good.' Good and bad are not absolutes, merely more or less effective ways of running society for the benefit of the largest number of people.

While a noteworthy response, it lacks substance in the fact that events of "good" and "evil" are easily demonstrable.  We could initiate a pogrom against a group of atheists, and after a season of persecution, we might survey them on the effects and validity of such treatment.  Base denial of evil would allow for a continuation of the pogrom for a longer time.  The issue of utilitarianism would be satisfied if a majority of citizens would see a useful employment of such a segment of society so that a perceived arrogance might be curtailed.  At any rate, after a season of abuse, all parties may come to a conclusion that such an approach to an atheistic community was too high handed and unworthy of consideration for any group for any perception of that group, correct as it might be deemed.

If evil does exist, then we remain with the problem that a world that is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient deity is incompatible with the reality of evil in the world.  For all the arguments that I have heard for and against the reality of a powerful, benign God in a world teeming with evil, I would approach this matter from what may be a novel position.  Let us posit both God and evil in the world, and imagine that God be granted the opportunity to remove the issue of evil or vindicate the reality of evil in spite of God.  To my mind, there would be two solutions, but would inquire toward more possibilities. 

1.  The world can be resolved from evil, but the present evil has some role for which God allows.

In my reasoning, I would imagine that God is given a chance to deal with the evil-problem as a landlord would deal with some plumbing or heating problem in his rentals.  If He is a responsible landlord, He would see to the problem.  If, however, He doesn't, are there attendant circumstances that would explain the matter?  Has the rent been paid, or has the rental show malicious vandalism to the rental that would make the landlord's simple fixing of the problem moot?  Does the renter damage the rooms as the repairs are made, making such repetitious repairs unreasonable?  Has the landlord some issue with the responsibilities of the renter that makes the obvious issue of making repair and restitution of the renter's needs?  Is it possible that repairs shall be initiated in the future once the renter has complied over some matter?  You see, a simple fix-job may not be simple as all that.

In extending the issue to the problem of evil, it can be maintained that the world of evil was initiated by man in defiance of God, that sin warps the perfect world so that the bad, the awful, the unspeakable does occur.  Most evil is inflicted man-to-man.  Natural events such as tsunamis may in the end be ultimately anthropogenic.  The Scriptures speaks of the world "groaning and sighing" under the weight of human consequence (Rom 8: 20-22).  Evil is a natural by-product of a world hijacked for human programs and humanistic appeals, which cannot sustain progress without digression into oppression.  Evil is what man has allowed it to become, and we pay the price of the mistake.  As a landlord cannot resolve an issue that the renter continues to sabotage, neither can God resolve the evil-problem, hardly as a favor to man, much less on human merit.

2.  A resolution to the evil-problem would be too radical for human security and safety.

To return to the landlord-belligerent renter metaphor, one option a landlord would be able to accomplish is the eviction of the renter.  Once removed, the problem is solved.  In this case, is the problem of evil a human construct itself, solved by the eradication of the human race?  We hold that such a solution is evil in itself.  Thus, this cannot be an acceptable solution, even if it might be argued that it would be ultimately fair.

The solution is settled in the concept that evil is always something that God can counter, being able to work for the good of those that love Him.  Evil remains a divine pronouncement on a human league that opposes divine intents, as evil is a human derivative.  But divine efforts can seek to ameliorate the decay, and faith trusts the ultimate goal is a restored world where evil is banished.

Would that mankind sees the role of evil in a blemished world under reconstruction.

The Adequacy of Fideism

Having reviewed the concept of understanding the idea of God totally by faith is not an accepted approach in the field of apologetics.  The core of the issue is proving the reality of religious experience which has been pursued on philosophical grounds.  The historical arguments of cosmological, ontological, moral, and teleological premises have indicated that belief in God is a possibly logical venture, but atheists have spoken against these issues, and the clear victories of William Lane Craig in his manifold debates came when his atheist opponents refused to counter these arguments.  Silverman, Law, and Kappel prove that a belligerent approach to the historic arguments reaps disaster, revealing a closed-mindedness to what could be strong ideas; Milligan performed far better in his British debate with Craig for this same reason.

To return to fideism.  The ability to find absolute proof for God's existence is just that, debatable.  And in the whole of all human experience, our ability to arrive at truth concepts is based on the opinion that such truth statements are attainable, or that the scientific dependancy on the observable can produce truth.  Such foundations is fideisitic.  I am confident that science can accomplish many positive things, heal diseases, offer convenience, fascilitate processes.  But is this the core of approaching truth claims?  I can by evaluating the observations I encounter daily to survive day by day.  I look both ways before crossing streets, scan my ever-changing driving environments to guarantee safe passage for myself and my family.  But in doing so, I must trust my eyesight and the ability of my brain to evaluate the present situations.  Truth seems to be a consious blend to evaluate and observe well, with the confidence that I am not being deceived in doing so.

In the matter of salvation, it does not depend on how many brain cells that have to be activated toward such a status salvus.  It relies on a pledge of divine sources compelled by divine assurances.  I may be able to offer demonstrations of this faith foundation as being valid in and of itself.  But it rests on faith alone.  If we examine this concept, how much of life is living in this realm of trusting what we have come to perceive, if not see?  Colin Tudge is entirely accurate:  Indeed, atheism—when you boil it down—is little more than dogma: simple denial, a refusal to take seriously the proposition that there could be more to the universe than meets the eye.

On the Explanation of Understanding

This event happened a long time ago, but it has been a point of great realization.

The glass of juice I was drinking from was extremely wet from condensation.  I had drawn a track of this moisture on the kitchen table and had placed the glass on the surface.  With a slight touch of the glass, I marveled at the fact that the glass rode the slick surface for a distance of about five inches.  A simple scientific stunt.  But a stunner to a young child.

I wished to explain this to my teacher at the time, so when I had gotten to school I went to my teacher and remarked in the best wording I could muster: "Teacher, I made a wet 'r' and the glass moved!"

I remember the puzzled look on my kindergarten teacher's face and probably figured (even for a five-year old) that my teacher didn't understand the phenomenon that I had witnessed at my breakfast.  I could only say, "I made a wet 'r' and the glass moved."  As a kindergartener, I didn't have the vocabulary to explain; I knew nothing of the words "condensation," "moisture," or even "phenomenon."  All I knew was that there was this slightly curved track of moisture that allowed my drinking glass to move a slight distance.  But it was something remarkable to my young mind, and I wished to explain it all with a childish "I made a wet 'r' and the glass moved."  But I grew up, gained the right words, and can easily explain what I had observed decades ago.  Now, where is that teacher today?

In dealing with the miraculous, we often feel we lack a command of the situation to explain.  Perhaps it is because in our intellectual vocabulary, we lack the adequacy of words, and not because we lose grip of the real.  It is definitely a response to the Humian challenge of the miracle.  Science cannot support it, but in time the right mode for understanding becomes available.  Perhaps science becomes the impediment to a raised sense of awareness.

A mere thought, easily dismissed.  But if we wed ourselves too much to the faith of scientism, we may lose too much.



In Defense of Slippery Slope: A Critique of a Postmodern Logical "Fallacy"

In examining two separate listings of recognized logical fallacies, I had noted each had declared the concept of the "slippery slope" as a bona fide error in reasoning.  Wondering that I may have missed something in my courses in logic (taken in the 70's and early 80's), I consulted my old textbooks (works by Irwin Copi and Richard Jeffrey).  I could not find references to this as a recognized logical fallacy, and thus wondered about its present inclusion.  The definition of the slippery slope fallacy is given as: Assuming that a relatively small first step will inevitably result in a series of several presumably negative results.  The example given as a classic misuse of the slippery slope:  Legalizing marijuana will inevitably increase the use of more serious drugs as crack and heroin, which will promote the further legalization of these substances as well.

I have studied this issue of the slippery slope as a legitimate fallacy and deem a few matters wanting.  The first point is the matter of believing the true error being that of false cause.  The process of causation is a complex one, and determining if a correct series of events can be surmised from a first cause is central to this issue.  In some instances, a series of cause-effect situations could be determined.  in making valid judgment decisions, we hope to see what would be affected from them.  The other matter is determining the flow of events that have occurred and the tendency of similar results being attained over similar matters.  In a classical ploy of foiled logic, an argument in the 1950's expressed the thought of allowing African-Americans to sit in any portion of the bus having the effect of conceding other considerations as eating in whites-only restaurants, living in any neighborhood, using the same schooling opportunities.  Happily, the intent of sharpening resolve to deny such advancements of human equality were rejected.  But did conceding one issue lead to the concession of others?  Many slippery slopes are worth the time to schuss down.

The novelty of this logical fallacy also has the difficulty of denying the premise of a "domino effect" recognized in other situations.  In the very point of this concept's introduction, the argument that deserting Vietnam would guarantee the conversion of the whole region of South East Asia to Communism had mixed results.  Laos and Cambodia, yes.  Thailand and Malaysia, no.  The sense that such a tipping of small states from democratic forms to Communism was achieved, but not to the fullest level.  Thus, an ability to offer some predictions is possible, and rejecting the appeal of a slippery slope causality demonstrates an unwillingness to ponder the possibilities or offer alternate results.

The idea of the slippery slope can be traced to one verse in the Psalms:

Surely you set them in slippery places.
You throw them down to destruction. (Ps.73: 18)

The sense of this verse is the psalmist's quandary over the apparent successes of the unbeliever, who thwarts the Deity, yet seems to prosper at every opportunity.  After much frustration over the matter, he comes to realize that having one's goals set on accomplishment and acquisition deprives that person from coming to fear God, and on failing to repent, face destruction at the judgment.  It is the very idea that actions have consequences that ought to make one pause over the decisions one effects. This is the intent of the slippery slope argument, and it should be valued.  Or if seen in this light:

If A occurs, then Z, an unpleasant circumstance will occur.
If A is performed on the hope that Z can be averted, A could be permitted.
But if Z occurs, then the original objection to A would be valid.  But then it would be too late.
Can the prospect of averting Z be justified?

The problem is causality, and the importance (or possibility) of determining what may come versus what must come leads to a need to discuss the matter fully.  Thus the slippery slope argument is an invitation to verify our fears of what may come from thoughtless or inconsiderate choices.  The fallacy of false cause would be valid, but only after establishing the probable results.

Let us not condemn the so-called slippery slope as definite logical fallacy, but the need to pause and reflect.



Logical Fallacies and the Foundations of Truth/Reality

In studying the chart of the various logical fallacies, I was drawn to the listing of illegitimate appeals to the mind, such as appeals to popular belief, money, and established or assumed authority.  Two that caught my attention were the fallacies of appeal to novelty and appeal to tradition.  The examples of the zeal for the latest trend and the traditional conception of marriage as between man and woman were obvious examples of the perception of culture as a neutralizing agent for all presented arguments.  An innovation is merely new, not true.  The ideas that have passed some test of time may still be based on erroneous suppositions that could change with modern scientific discovery.  As I paused to take in this dissertation on what could make an argument fallacious, an intriguing application to this came up in the sports section of the local (Madison, WI) newspaper and television newscasts.

It appears that for the next two years, the boys and girls' state basketball tournaments will no longer be played at one site, the Kohl's Center of Madison.  In the next two years, the boys' event will continue to be held in Madison, while the girls' final round games will be played in Green Bay.  Thereupon, the reviewing body, the WIAA, will review the issue of placement.  The rationale of this move was based on site availability in an expanding use market in sporting events.  The newscasts were thorough and fair is assessing the situation, but felt a sense of loss, if not in tradition, at least in lost revenue.  The Wisconsin State Journal also reported the decision of the WIAA and the rationale behind this selection process, but also published an editorial on the need to return the WIAA boys and girls' basketball tourney to a single Madisonian site.  Again, the reference to lost revenue was echoed, along with a litany of a lost heritage of classic basketball battles in the capital city in the thrilling month of March.

Set side by side was the conflict of the novel and the traditional, the need for change with an impetus to accommodate future change to a traditional model.  It was maddening that Madison's personal loss was the underpinning of the whole matter, not the issue of availability, nor a site more central in the state to accommodate towns from the furthest northern section of the Badger State, nor an arena whose size could accomodate the several levels of competition in the huge structure of Wisconsin High School Basketball.  It pained Madison, and thus the issue runs large, never to be resolved until Madison monopolizes the tournament once again.

Is convenience and personal advantage the final groundings of what we are to accept as truth and reality?  On certain days I wonder, and remark that all the neccessary logical safeguards, the careful regard not to commit some logical fallacy, are being sacrificed to a central elite standard that determines what is acceptable as it benefits them and few others.  I would love to see the WIAA keep a tournament presence in Madison (tradition) but realize a need to impliment change (novelty).  A good solution would be a traditional construct that feels the impulse of adaptation and meets the needs as they arrive.  If traditions are to be maintained, work is in store to keep them valid.  And in that one sense, it proves the old French proverb, Le plus change, le plus reste.  The more things change ...





Critique of McCandless & Posavec's Left/Right Government Infographic

Before I move forward with this post, I wish to acknowledge the brilliance that this graphic has offered to my understanding of political systems.  I viewed this graphic after scanning the rhetorical and logical fallacies chart (another fine example of well-structured information).  But I noted that the vast array of examples of foggy reasoning leaned heavily on conservative thought, only once using Bill Clinton's example of the overt lie as bad logic.  It was then that I saw that one of the sites other displays was a graphic explaining the concepts of left-wing and right-wing political opinion.  I was curious, so I switched views and admired the depth of detail in explaining the major tenets of what it meant to be left and right in the political spectrum.

The graphic splits into two areas each employing red and blue ink to differentiate the major groups.  And yes, Democratic Party was found in the blue section, the Republican in the red.  For the most part it noted the emphases of each mindset fairly, with the leftist desire for equality matched by the rightist love for freedom.  It acknowledged the leftist approach of having government interfere with the structures of society and the rightist tenet of non-interference.  I agree that the leftist family would seek to promote the potential of their children while the rightist drives to form good character as their main goal.  I questioned the viewpoint of social evolution as the primary socialogical trend of the leftist while the rightist seeks the status quo; it seemed more of a matter of change and acceptance of same.  A conservative would acknowledge that change occurs, but wishes such change would impact society positively, and seeks towards a studied change.

Yet, I felt the diagram also injected unsubstantial dogma, which would easily lead to strawman argumentation (the promotion of the opponent's argument that clearly is a weaken argument, or a misconception of the argument.  In the political spectrum, the Democratic Party would match with the Communist Party, while the Republican would have the Nationalist Party as its kindred spirit.  This is an unnecessary pigeonhole.  Republicans have the ability to field candidates from a wide range of political viewpoints; thus the present Republican primary-debates seem to be a wrangling over who is the true conservative.  Indeed, several of the Democratic Party members would identify as conservative, whether fiscal or moral.  we always seem to fume over RINO's and DINO's.  The notion that the foundation of the leftist as scientific while the rightist is theistic is also inaccurate.  It begs to lead to the unfounded notion that rightists are Bible banging science haters; leftists as godless hooligans..  To suggest that the educational approaches of the leftist lean towards cooperation while rightists favor individualism belies the usage of cooperative learning strategies employed in conservative schools.  To indicate that the leftist tends to be urban while the rightist tends to be rural promotes the misconception that the urbanite can't be conservative, nor the farmer a liberal.  In fact, I am a conservative and a teacher.  This occupation is deemed an exploit of the left-leaner.  I am said to be better suited-for business.  I personally can't fathom economics.

In short, while the info gram tends to be a fine compendium of political concepts, it can never be a 100% fool-proof indicator of each and every person's political assessment.  To bandy about that leftists are pacifists and rightists are militarists could be simplistic, and slanderous.  Even a leftist has been known to throw a punch, a rightist to offer philanthropic gestures.

I offer the infographic below.  Examine and ponder.