AMP / WOTMR: Naturalism, Calvinism and Double Standards

The latest of Albert Mohlers blog entries made me write this article. It's about one of the most serious cases of compartmentalization that one encounters when he or she tries to debate Christians. It's about the moral responsibility in a reality in which course of action is determined before they are done or even thought of. More so it's about the right to punish in such a society.
People with a Christian worldview perspective encounter such a reality in Calvinism - specifically in predestination. Predestination is theologically one of the concepts that is hardest to grasp and seems to distort the Christian worldview the more someone understands it. This concept results from the perfect knowledge of God and the absolute sovereignty of his actions. If you have a theist worldview with an omnipotent, omniscient, sovereign good God all his plans for this world were known to him in the beginning of the world. Everything that would happen would have already played out in his perfect mind. Each and every action was known to God from the very beginning. God knew that I would be writing this article in 2008 when the world was created and he also knew that you are reading this article some time later. Even whether you would go to heaven or hell would have been known to God before you were born and there is nothing you can do about changing what God already knew before.



I can really understand that Todd Friel won't present his audience with those most disturbing theological facts. (He rejects to answer any questions dealing with this issue)



The only way you can accept this precept is if you realize that this world was never in any way, shape or form about us. Just in realizing and resigning to the fact that it was always completely and exclusively about God one can perhaps live without desperation in such a world, while probably facing hell.



And now lets turn to naturalism and what theists criticize it. If this world is purely governed by natural law - by physics - everything is purely like a machine. Our own thoughts are just like the program running on a machine which was built by an evolutionary process. There's nothing creative about them, nothing inspirational. Everything is purely chemical and predetermined.

How can anyone be punished if it were just predetermined chemical and physical processes who made him conceive and do the crimes one committed will be asked.



To answer it I want to compare again the similarities between theological predestination and naturalistic predeterminination. Both have in common that everything you do is preset. Either by Gods perfect will or by the laws of physics. Both show that 'Free Will' is just an illusion.

So how do theists go about the fact that in predestined reality no one bears responsibility for his/her actions in the same sense that no one bears responsibility for his/her in a naturalistic reality?

- They ignore it and live just as if Free Will would be real.
They do it for two reasons, Firstly we are addressed in Scripture as if we could have Free Will. So it seems that from his perfect perspective God would find some sense in presenting us with this illusion. Secondly it might keep people from living according to Gods law if they were told that everyone is already assigned whether he or she would go to hell.



People with a naturalistic worldview could of course do the same and ignore the deterministic nature of our reality and stay in their biologically evolved illusion of Free Will.

But even if we would turn our attention to the fact that our mind is just a chemical machine we don't face any moral implications. That we have morals and ethics depends on the fact that we do punish those who break the rules. Morals evolved because it is beneficial for individuals who live in a society to not get murdered or stolen from. Genes that would support social and ethical behavior would replicate very well in a world without cheaters. On the other hand: genes that make individuals cheat on such a moral society would replicate even better. At this point the concept of punishment becomes necessary for the moral rest of the society. To make a moral and ethical order survive within a species those who cheat on this order have to be punished - after all their evolutionary advantage that they could gain from such a behavior has to be neutralized.

Apart from personal responsibility our society has a much better interest in punishing unethical people. If we wouldn't punish cheaters the "God given" moral conscience would disappear rather quickly from the gene pool.



But there is a difference between calvinist predestination and naturalist predetermination. In a naturalist, predetermined world your evolutionary benefit you would gain from crimes just get neutralized by the rest of society through punishment. While in the calvinist, predestined world you get tortured in hell forever for your inability (if you don't have the faith to believe a book of highly disputable origin) to believe in God and respond rightly.



What upsets me most is that the scolding naturalism receives by theists is intellectually fraudulent.



You can't go through a theological education without encountering predestination at least once and learning about it. I don't have the slightest doubt that both, Albert Mohler and Todd Friel, know this concept very well. You can't possibly push that far enough to the back of the mind, that you wouldn't be reminded about it - and about its similarities - as soon as you encounter naturalism.

They just invoke naturalism when debating atheists to scare them off the atheist position into theism, while knowing very well that the predestination part of their worldview isn't much different. I guess they hope that most people won't know those calvinist parts of their religion during the witnessing encounter and that by the time they encounter this issue in their Christian walk their mind is that deafened that they won't remember the intellectual fraud that originally brought them into the religion.



To put it into an aphorism what the use of naturalism as a point against atheism is:



It's like a real-estate agent who wants to sell a house. He tries to get someone out of his old house and into a new by telling him that there are nasty mice in the cellar of his current house while knowing that a very similar breed of mice occupies the cellar of the new house as well.

WOTMR: The Cathedrals of Europe

As an atheist in Europe you will have to address the issue of the magnificent cathedrals that you find all over in Europe. Todd explained how this grandeur of those buildings reflect the greatness of God, how those building tell the believing Christian about God and his relationship with God in making the person in the building feel exceedingly small in comparison to God.
Those cathedrals can't do that to me.

Even more, those cathedrals are the grandest failure in the history of Christianity.

Todd is right about the intentions of the planners and builders of those monumental building. Were those intentions really achieved?
Those buildings portray a stunning beauty, a breathtaking might - but they don't portray God in any way. They also don't portray the human race as small and powerless. They do the opposite. No stone in those cathedrals was set by God, no statue was carved by God, no window was colored by God, nothing of the perceivable beauty in those cathedrals was created by God. Those building are in all their magnificence, their grandeur and their stunning beauty creations of human beings.
Find something equally beauty in nature as those cathedrals! Compare the beauties of human arts to the beauties of nature.!Compare the chants of birds to the music written by Bach (especially his Brandenburg Concertos).
In every field of art human artist created magnificent pieces of beauty and grandeur. And if they did it in adoration of their God they failed in the grandest way - their pieces of art exceeded anything in beautiful might that their supposed God created.
No Christian should be afraid that those unique creations of man will pass after the end of Christianity. There is a greater purpose to come for those buildings and pieces of art. As monuments and museums to a bygone superstition they will portray the grandeur and the might of human creativity.

AMP: Let's do a trade-off!

The pew center found out that there is a large minority of people who don't affiliate them with any religion. In his program on Tuesday Dr. Mohler claimed that many of those non-affiliated ones would just be people to whom religion is so precious that they couldn't imagine narrowing it by affiliating it with any major denomination. I know this kind of argument from Germany very well. And if any religious person encounters me with it I simply, now that we started the math business, make a trade-off. Of course it would be fair to count those who cross non-affiliated for spiritual reason still religious, but now that we started trading it would be equally fair to count those 'Christians' who are just Christian for reasons of tradition, conformism or personal benefit (being employed at a church) as non-religious persons. - normally that's the point the religious people will loose their interest in doing this math quite quickly.

German for beginners:

U-Boot Christen - Christen die nur zwei mal im Jahr auftauchen.

translation

submarine Christians - Christians who just appear twice a year.
(In German the words for 'to dive up' and for 'to appear' are the same word - auftauchen - and will make this joke work)

AMP: Homeschooling

The first topic that Dr. Albert Mohler discussed on his program after I started this blog was homeschooling. There couldn't have been a better one for me even if I was allowed to choose the first topic. Homeschooling is of all the topics the constantly re-arise on the program the only one in which I have to disagree with Dr. Mohler because I'm more conservative than he is.

When looking at the history of homeschooling you will find that homeschooling arose from the very left of society. The reasoning for it was that in a society of fully autonomous citizens every parent knows best what is good for his/her child an is therefor entitled to make a fully free education choice for his/her child. Those early parents who did to teach their children at home did so to protect their children from conformist influences of society teaching their children to be fully autonomous persons.

Dr. Mohler generally disagrees with the precept of personal autonomy especially when it comes to the abortion issue. So why would he turn around on the issue of homeschooling? What is it that makes him suddenly believe in the personal autonomy of parents when it comes to the decision to home school their kids?

It boils down to the issues of sex-education and evolution. The evangelical right has lost one lawsuit after another to get evolution out of biology classes or to get creationism taught as equal in science class. I haven't heard as much on sex-education in the United States as I heard on the campaigns for creationism (against evolution) so I can't go deeper into that.

So homeschooling from the viewpoint of conservative evangelicals is a tool to protect their children from liberal agendas and ideas. I'm a social-democrat and as such I would if I had children raise them to recognize that freedom and wealth always come with a responsibility for the society, and especially for the weak in this society, you live in. Therefor I won't criticize him for trying to raise his children in the Christian faith and according to a conservative agenda.

Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde.



Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

Is the first formulation of the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant. When we are talking about whether someone should be allowed to pull his children out of public-school to pursue his own political agenda, we should ask ourselves whether one could make that universal law. If it was a universal law than we would also have to allow members of the ku klux klan or neo-nazis to pull their children out of school to pursue their own political agendas.

Secondly, can we allow anyone to teach his child at home?

American idol taught us all that not everyone who believes that he can sing is really able to sing. Why should we believe that every parent who believes she/he can teach her/his child is able to teach the child? Teaching requires a certain eloquence, knowledge of the subject, passion to see someone improve but also patience. I've already taught physics and English (foreign language) as a mentor. From my own experience I know that there's a huge difference between knowing something and teaching it. If I would homeschool I might be able to teach mathematics, natural sciences and politics. But I wouldn't be able to teach musics, foreign languages I don't know like Spanish (which is getting more and more important on the American continent) or art.

I'm aware that homeschooling-students are tested whether they achieve the standards that are required of public-school students. By this it is guaranteed that homeschooling students receive the same education. What isn't tested and what can't be tested is what kind of worldview is taught to them. I'm not concerned about the Christian worldview at this point, but I would seriously be concerned if a child of racist, nazi, communist or any other form of autocratic worldview affiliated parents would be deprived of the chance to get instructed by and under the influence of freedom loving persons.

Furthermore those tests for what is taught and how the children are taught within their homeschooling families can just work as long as the number of homeschoolers doesn't grow too large. Besides the ones within the evangelical community who openly campaign for those tests to be removed there's also a large faction of pragmatics. Those pragmatics know that any effective control of what and how is taught in homeschooling families will become impossible in practice as soon as the number of homeschoolers exceed a critical point.

Finally we also have to keep the future of those children in mind.

It isn't just enough to know something. You also need to have it certified. If Dr. Mohler works on his campus with students from homeschooling families than this is surely laudable, but very rarely you will meet universities and companies in our modern world who have the time and patience to assess each applicant.

In Germany and in the United Kingdom (I just know those two countries in that matter) before the real choice process starts those applications that doesn't fit the standard (missing documents, remains of spilled coffee) aren't read but sent immediately back (Germany) or thrown into the bin (UK). I dare to doubt that the process of choosing candidates is that different in the United States.
Do I need to add that missing school documents would fit those criteria for an application to be sent back or to be recycled?

My atheism

I will be asked why I am an atheist. And therefor I need to give this answer right away.

I like to explain my atheism with a scenario.

We are living on a small blue planet that orbits a G-type star at a distance of about 150 mil. kilometers. There need to be a loot of parameters balanced very well to allow for life on this planet. But however numerous those constraints on the existence of advanced civilizations are - the universe is sufficiently huge to make it certain that there are advanced civilizations somewhere.

I don't want to argue at this place for the likelihood of those. I know very well that many Christians deny that those civilizations exist because their creation was never mentioned in the bible. I still want to ask my Christian readers to go with the existence of those civilizations just for the sake of this argument.

When presented with aliens in most Science-Fiction series on TV you will see most likely aliens about as much developed as we humans are. They might be advanced by several hundred years, but you rarely see civilizations that are developed even more.
From the early agricultural beginnings in Egypt to modern day you can roughly tell that the age of our civilization is 10,000 years. (or 6000 years if you committed to biblical creationism). Giving that there is no point of self-destruction in which every civilization when it reaches a certain point of development destroys itself there could be aliens whose civilization is millions of years old.

What would also mean that they are technologically advanced to a point where their abilities would seem magical or divine to us.

Should we therefor pack gold, silver, diamonds and things of worth into a rocket and shoot it into space?

My answer to it is clearly no, and I think most of my readers will agree.

Firstly, we don't know in which direction to shoot the rocket.

Secondly, we don't know whether gold, silver, diamonds and things that seem precious to us are of use for such a civilization.

Thirdly, the aliens never asked for it - even if, (like some UFO-scientists may claim) they did it in a way that the evidence for this is in modern days highly disputable. (to put is mildly)

Fourthly, we don't know whether our supply reaching one civilization wouldn't enrage another one.

Therefor the waste of shooting rockets loaded with valuables and the waste of time to do that isn't justified by any reason.

Now, after setting that up let us turn to theism.

Is it justified to send valuables to any kind of Gods?
And there are sent many valuables to God. Go to Europe and look at the cathedrals. Go to the muslim world and look at the mosques. Even Buddhism can be exceedingly wasteful. Simply research the Swedagon Pagoda in Burma.
Beyond the apparent things done for religion and massive amounts of valuables given to religious purposes, there is an enormous amount of time spent for those purposes - in every religion.

I reason against those sacrifices with the very same arguments than with shooting rockets into the sky.

Firstly, we don't know in which direction to shoot the rocket.

And we also don't know which God to give our time and money to.

Secondly, we don't know whether gold, silver, diamonds and things that seem valuable to us are of use for such a civilization.

How do we know that prayers are of use for God? How can anything we could give to a God be of use for him, her,it or them? God, if existent, could have anything he, she, it or they could want. What exactly do you think he, she, it or they needs from you?

Thirdly, the aliens never asked for it - even if (like some UFO-scientist may claim) they did it in a way that the evidence for this is in modern days highly disputable. (to put is mildly)

It is said that God asked for it. In the Bible, Quran or the Veden. But the origin of those books is also disputable. Supposing this God would be almighty we could expect there to be much better evidences for the demands. Extraordinary demands also need extraordinary proves.
Let's look at the bible for example.
If we go by the best estimations the first gospel was written 10 years after the death of Jesus. Jesus could have turned water into ink, sand into paper and made one of his disciples write his words and deeds down as they were said and done if he was the son of God. But: It seems that he trusted the most important things ever said and done into the hands of 10 years of gossip.
Even if those words and deeds were written down by a first hand witness; 10 years are still a long time. Anyone who doesn't believe that is asked at this point to write down what he or she did 10 years ago.

Fourthly, we don't know whether our supply reaching one civilization wouldn't enrage another one.

That's a really big problem with Gods. You sacrifice to one - you enrage another.

Conclusion:

Just like the aliens would need to show up and ask for their rockets full of gold and diamonds - God would also need to show some provable sort of interaction with this world that would be enough to justify the enormous amount of sacrifice he, she, it or they demand.

The ambition of a lot of atheists or agnostics to disprove that he, she, it or they don't exist is leading nowhere. The lack of provable interaction itself justifies a de-facto atheism completely. I don't discard the possibility of the existence of a God or Gods but I discard the necessity to give anything to them.

Why I'm doing this blog

Are you an atheist who listens to Christian talk-radio? If you are you will know how quickly you can get intrigued by it.
While most of the listeners of those program want to hear news and the world reviewed from their worldview perspective, I'm fascinated by listening to a worldview that isn't my own. In his program on March the 3rd Dr. Albert Mohler presented his audience with the question "Can the Church learn from the World?".
Of course it can.
You can reinforce your worldview perspective by listening to those you agree with, but you can reinforce it as well by listening to those you passionately disagree with. But there is a difference between both options. While you will stay on your own small worldview island if you choose the first possibility, you will be prepared for your political opponents if you choose the second possibility. I'm still amazed how many atheists call the Way of the Master program naively and stumble when they are asked whether they are a good person. You just need to listen to the WOTM program for one week to know that this 'good person test' is their standard for callers who aren't Christians. I guess the atheist callers in this program who aren't prepared for this test are the same kind of person who isn't prepared for the question: "What is your motivation to apply for this job?" in a job interview. One could make the point that if we would simply ignore them, we wouldn't need to know what to answer to their petty tests. True, but it's not just because of that. By listening to those programs you will get to know their worldview. You will get to know how they argue their positions and those points in their worldview they won't come down to on their own when you are debating them.
I hope to help atheists who want to engage theists with this blog. I also hope that Christian readers of this blog are encouraged to look beyond their worldview island as well. Learning from atheists why they are atheist is something very different than learning from Albert Mohler or Todd Friel why those atheists are atheist. Just like learning why both mentioned are Christians is different when you learn it from than, than if you would learn it from atheists.
And there is of course a third purpose. If you listen to Christian radio programs you sometimes find yourself agreeing, regularly laughing and quite often wanting to call and correct the host. I really thought about doing that before. But if I would call every time I would want to correct them I would pretty soon be a pain in their neck. Until now I very much contented myself by writing e-mails to those programs. I'm sure that they are read by someone and my mails have already been read 3 times on the Way of the Master program but they can't read every mail sent in. This blog shall give vent my comments, my critiques and moments I found funny.

And last but not least I guess that both shows are greatly interested what people who aren't of their worldview perspective think about them. Todd Friel tends to say that the world must think he's a knucklehead (thank you for teaching me this nice world Todd) he might be surprised that this isn't exactly what I think about him.