During the past few months I’ve been mulling over the various arguments regarding Christian pacifism, and there’s one argument I’m exploring that I feel needs serious consideration.

1st Samuel 16:18 says, “Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who is a skillful musician, a mighty man of valor, a warrior, one prudent in speech, and a handsome man; and the LORD is with him.”

Got hates sin. It is impossible that God could esteem sin, and yet, God esteems warriors. The only conclusion that makes any sense is that being a warrior is not in itself sinful, otherwise God could not esteem it.

In the Old Testament, strength in combat was considered a praiseworthy attribute, and God placed honour upon those that were skillful in battle. We read of David that his valor and military skill were not simply commendable, but were also parallel and coincident with the presence of God in his life.

Now, what this means for Christians today is not immediately clear, though one thing is certain: God esteems that valiant warrior.

To get to the very root of humanity, one descends to the level of intention. I do not believe there is anything underneath this that can be observed about humanity (except simple Being, but this is not unique to humanity). Now, there are most certainly foundations that allow for intention, but my intuition is that they would be too abstract to identify or discuss. We can drill down only to intention.

From the Intender, everything else arises. Intention lies at the base of the mind; it is the very seat of consciousness. It is the presence of the Intender that allows for awareness, choice, and action. Remove the Intender, and you are left with a mere organism. Insert the Intender, and you arrive at humanity.

Intention arises, seemingly, from nothing. There is no naturalistic explanation for the appearance of an intention (in the sense that I am using the term). Biological life exhibits reaction, all of which is predicated on chemistry; chemicals react to each other in certain ways, chemicals make up biological machines, and these machines execute function as they react to internal and external stimuli. All of biological life based on reaction and all reaction is based on chemistry.

There is no accounting for the spontaneous birth of an intention. To be sure, humans are biological and so much of human life is nothing more that reaction. All of this human reaction is, however, easily explained and predictable, not unlike the rest of activity within the animal kingdom. Of course, even within a biological system there is randomness – will a startled zebra flee to the left or to the right? No one can know for certain. What we can know is that, whichever direction it chooses, the zebra will indeed flee. What appears to us to have the shape of an intention is nothing more than a reaction; it is causality within a chemical system.

Given enough time, these reactions become largely predictable, and this is true of humanity as far as biology is concerned. However, there is no possible prediction that can be made for intention. The desire to call to mind a specific memory for no reason. The desire to ask a question out of the blue. The desire to desire. Such examples find no answer in biology; they do not evidence the patterning, causality, and predictability found universally within biological systems.

One might argue that what appears to be spontaneous intention somehow hangs on a quantum phenomenon, and would therefore be random and essentially meaningless. I believe that we can be fairly certain that such instances of intention are not purely random, but rather are initiated with purpose and control. Intentions are not meaningless; the Intender is the one entity in Creation that searches for meaning.

Does it make any sense whatsoever that one searches for meaning driven by a fundamentally meaningless impetus – that one searches for meaning, meaninglessly?

I think it’s fairly easy to determine if one is being spiritual by looking at the fruit: is that person loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good-hearted, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled? Are they all these things? The absence of fruit most certainly reveals an absence of Spirit – the Spirit alone causes growth.

But in terms of our duty, Mark Horne has a rather unusual yet near perfect assemblage of Scriptures that show what the daily life of a spiritual person looks like.

Go read.

I’ve decided to pull this post for the time being until I’m entirely satisfied with my interpretation of the Unpardonable Sin.

A fantastic interpretation by Mark Horne can be found here. It doesn’t completely satisfy me, but I think it’s elegantly succinct, and helps to clear up most of the questions surrounding this passage of Scripture.

I switched to Wordpress, started publishing feeds with Feedburner, and changed web hosts, all in the span of about a month.

Stupid me, I forgot to update my Feedburner info to take note of some of those changes. Everything’s kosher now – the Internet is safe once again.

What interests me most in Philosophy of Mind are defeaters to arguments that mind – that consciousness – arrived Naturalistically. I plan to explore this idea here soon.

In the mean time…I caught this post on The Prosblogion reviewing Plantinga’s argument that a Naturalistic system cannot in-and-of-itself create content (thus out of that system, beliefs cannot arise).

In Knowledge of God, Plantinga writes:

When light strikes photo-receptor cells in the retina, there is a complex cascade of electrical activity, resulting in an electrical signal to the brain. I have no idea how all that works; but of course I know it happens all the time. But the case under consideration is different. Here it’s not merely that I don’t know how physical interaction among neurons brings it about that an assemblage of neurons has content and is a belief. No, in this case, we can’t see how such an event could have content – that is, it seems upon reflection that it could not have content. It’s a little like trying to understand what it would be for the number seven, e.g., to weigh five pounds (or for an elephant to be a proposition). We can’t see how that could happen; more exactly, we can see that it couldn’t happen. A number just isn’t the sort of thing that can have weight; there is no way in which that number or any other number could weigh anything at all. (The same goes for elephants and propositions.) Similarly, we can see, I think, that physical activity among neurons can’t generate content. These neurons are clicking away, sending electrical impulses hither and yon. But what has this to do with content? How is content or aboutness supposed to arise from this neuronal activity? How can such a thing be a belief? You might as well say that thought arises from the activity of the wind or the waves. But then no neuronal event can as such have a content, can be about something, in the way in which my belief that the number seven is prime is about the number seven, or my belief that the oak tree in my backyard is without leaves is about that oak tree. (p. 54)

I love it.

I’ve been bandying back and forth with Andrew on City of God (here too) over the weekend about pacifism and the justification for the State’s (meaning government in general, not specifically the USA) use of force. I thought I would post the comment here regarding Romans 13. It’s nothing new, but I think it’s useful.

God has ordained the State’s power. He has not only ordained its power, but has approved its use of force. How do we know this?

From Romans 13 we know the State has force (it bears the sword) but we also know that it is right for the State to use that force (it does not bear the sword in vain – lit. inconsiderately; without just cause).

According to the passage, the State does bear the Sword unjustly. Who is the arbiter of justice? The Lord. Who has placed the sword into the hands of government? Also the Lord. Therefore, the Lord has deemed it just (thus right) for the State to use the sword. In fact, the State exists for that very purpose.

Now, if one takes “not in vain” to mean “God uses evil for good,” I think one is playing fast and loose with the passage; it is emphatic that what we see here is not the “accidental” will of God, but rather the very specific, foreordained will of God. God is not turning lemons into lemonade. Granted, force wouldn’t be needed if there was no sin, so in a way there will always be an “accidental” quality to justice. This, however, does not mean that God’s will for the State to use force in a fallen economy is itself accidental. The passage has a bias and this bias is toward intentionality. God is not improvising, He’s being intentional regarding the State. Thus, in it’s justice it is justified.

Now, Rom 12 just told us not to take revenge for ourselves, but that revenge is the Lord’s…

“But Apostle Paul, how does the Lord avenge us?”

“Keep reading! It’s in the next chapter!”

Sometimes the Lord is pleased to avenge us through Divine intervention, but He often works through a minister or agent. What is His agent of revenge? Who bears the sword on His behalf? The State! How do we know this? Rom 13 says so! It calls the State a minister of God’s justice – an avenger.

Consider, much of the law, the “10 Commandments” in particular, are directed toward individual conduct. This is why the Israelite army could go and kill yet not be in violation of the Law. God was not being inconsistent in anyway or creating a special “alternate” Law so that He could calling them to war – different rules apply to the State than do to the individual.

Therefore, Paul’s reminder not to avenge ourselves does not necessarily apply to the State. In fact we see that Rom 13 justifies the State in using force (God establishes the State so that it can execute His judgments, and it wields the sword rightly, justly, “unaccidentally”).

Parents use the family credit card – children cannot. I must obey the speed limit – police can be exempt. The judicial system can incarcerate someone for decades – I would be prosecuted for doing the so.

What is true for the individual is not always true for the group, and the apparent tension between Romans 12 and Romans 13 is resolved when we grant this.

Let’s grant that Evolution is a fact and that morality has evolved in a completely naturalistic way. Morality is what it is with no outside influence (God), but is merely a body of principles that form and remain because they are somehow connected to the success and continued existence of humanity.

Let’s also grant that what is best for the “group” trumps what is best for the individual (thought I think I’ve adequately refuted that Evolutionists cannot make this claim in my previous point).

Let’s get practical: how is all this playing out? Well, it’s not playing out in a way that is consistent with Evolutionary dictates.

As just one example, disabled persons benefit far more from “the system” than many of us able-boddied folks do. Resource upon resource is poured into people whe are Evolutionarily useless.

If we have Evolved, if we have morals that are based on this Evolution, and if the welfare of the group is a “check and balance” for what right conduct is, then caring for the feeble is wrong. Labouring over disabled persons, enabling them to live “normal lives,” and pouring resources into keeping them alive when left to themselves they’d simply die, deprives the group. Weakens the group. Dilutes the strength of the group. Food that could be going to healthy, fit specimens is going to broken, feeble specimens. Care that could be directed toward people who would advance the species is instead going to those that hold it back.

In fact, I think if one was going to be honest, then an Evolutionary-based ethic would have to assert that euthanasia is morally acceptable and preferable: kill the feeble and the elderly, use them for food, fuel, building supplies, stem cell harvesting, etc. This is actually seen in nature as in many species, mothers eat their young if they are feeble. There’s a very pragmatic reason: it reduces the amount of weak genes available to taint and weaken the population. This is beneficial to Evolution! Removing destructive genes from the population allows evolution to continue positively, thus promoting the advantage and existence of the group.

But look at our species; look at how we care for the weak. Look at how we pour care into what are, by all appearances and for all practical reasons, useless people. People that weaken our race. Yes we can do better, but the fact that we care at all says a great deal about us as a species. Clearly our morality has come to be what it is separate from the course that Evolution is supposed to be charting.

A few weeks ago I wrote a series of posts critiquing Kenneth R Miller’s view that Christians can and should accept the teachings of Evolution. One statement he made unsettled me more than all the rest:

“evolution may explain the existence of our most basic biological drives and desires, but that does not tell us that it is always proper to act on them”

To this point I responded:

1) If our Universe is independent, by definition, every moral principle inside the Universe must be developed internally.

2) If we are creatures that have evolved, the doctrine of Survival of the Fittest is the ultimate, primary, and most reliable basis for the establishment of moral truth. Thus, any action that promotes my survival is justified.

According to evolution, Survival of the Fittest is conclusively, inextricably connected to life. Life depends on this principle — if Miller is right. Based on his premise, advantageous acts must be morally justifiable. Theft and murder and rape can all enable me to survive and pass on my genetic material to future generations, making the acts morally justifiable. We find examples of this throughout the animal kingdom.

Dan wrote the following in response to my post:

Theft, murder, and rape may temporarily advantage the individual, but they undermine the group. Humanity has lived, in all times and places, in groups - it is to our advantage to constrain acts that disrupt the group.

Dan makes a valid point: certain behaviours are of detriment to the species, and so one can make the case that such behaviours should be labeled as “wrong,” thus, immoral. The point, however, overlooks some rather important issues. Let’s consider, based on Evolutionary concepts, what is actually permitted in an Evolutionary-based morality.

read the rest of this entry »

The following post is only relevant for people using Wordpress.

Ok. So, let’s say you read a blog post, and you want to comment on that post on your own blog. So, you write your post and include a link back to the original post. When you publish the post, Wordpress sends what’s called a pingback to the other blog, letting it know that you linked to it. This pingback shows up in the comments section so readers reading that article can click on to yours and read your response.

Enter Gravatars. These are avatars that follow you whereever you go online so if you comment on a blog and enter your information, it will automatically retrieve your Gravatar (if the blog has the feature enabled). Beside every comment you leave, your own custom icon is displayed.

Well, I discovered that when a blog sends a pingback to another blog that has Gravatars enabled, a generic placeholder shows up. No good! When my blog sends a pingback, I want my Gravatar to show up, just as if I had left a comment.

Well, if you own a Wordpress blog, there’s a very simple way to make sure that your Gravatar appears when your blog sends a pingback. To make YOUR Gravatar appear on the blog you’re pinging, you need to do the following: read the rest of this entry »