I’ve been meaning to post this for quite sometime.

When asked on The Innoculated Mind (Jan 25, 2007) in a conversation about how Science (and more specifically Evolutionary Biology) and Religion might fit together, P.Z. Myers had this to say:

“Well, gee. I believe that you can be a good scientist and you can practice Evolutionary Biology, and be religious, but I think you are doing it by compartmentalizing and setting aside critical thinking in certain aspects of your private life. And that’s perfectly okay. People do that all the time. Umm, but.. . but I think… I think the thing is that Science tends to erode religious belief because once you start seeing the value of the Scientific Method of thinking naturally about things that, uh, what happens is you start applying that to larger and larger chunks of your life, and if you do that you can’t go to church and sit there and listen to the minister without thinking… how do you know that? How did you determine that? And that… that ought to, uhh, completely gut any faith you might have.”

Interesting. Keep in mind these are not the words of some fundamentalist on a witch hunt, rather of a man who is deeply proud of his Atheism.

“Crucified? Not today! Time to kick some ass.”

Haven’t posted in a while! Too busy working on other things; but I thought I would post this very useful tip.

If you use sync to your Gmail account using IMAP in Mac Mail, you’ve probably noticed the “All mail” folder. It’s basically Goggle’s catch-all archiving system. This folder contains a copy of every eMail you’ve sent or received through Gmail. It’s a great idea, but it can take a long time to sync with Mac Mail, and can eat up harddrive space: I was able to free up about a gigabyte but using Google Labs’ “Advanced Imap Controls.”

Just follow the instructions to activate the controls and un-sync your “All mail” folder. The whole thing takes about 20 seconds, and is well worth it!

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.