Rebellious children - the smoking gun that evolution cannot explain humanity

I recently went shopping with my wife and four of our grandchildren. The grandchildren were...well being grandchildren. They were having a shared, rebellious episode in the store. The episode was nothing particularly alarming; it was simply that of small children who were being self-willed rather than being on a productive page.

A thought occurred to me while we were shopping. Given this normal tendency of children, humanity would have been killed off long we could become masters of the world. Rebellious children prove that humanity could not be the product of evolution.

The reason for this impossibility lies in the reasons that underlie why children rebel in the first place. God has gifted human beings with two properties: free will and capacity for abstract intelligence

For the purpose of this argument I will presume that evolution is a plausible explanation of the development. It is not because I do not believe that there are other difficulties, but to focus on one peculiar problem that would invariably occurred as primate would have begun  evolving into human if man were indeed the product of evolution: successful transition from instinctual predominant behavior to rational-volitional modes of behavior.

Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism constructs an argument related to the one I will develop here in this piece: Plantinga argues that evolution selects for belief that promote survival rather than for true beliefs. According to Plantinga, Naturalism via evolution would imply that our rational faculties would not be reliable enough to justify faith in, and arguments for, Naturalism. In this work I will take a different approach. I will begin by stating that lower animals do not have beliefs and do not act on  beliefs. Animals act in terms of pre-programmed responses to stimuli that we call instincts. While there may be some uncertainty in animal behavior, there is no free will and no rational, abstract thought process that governs decision-making.

What happens when that first intelligent ape-like creature is born. Intelligence and freedom come at a cost. This young ape-oid does not follow the instinctual pre-programming like his parents. The parents are not equipped to deal with an intelligent child, and the intelligent child behaves in ways that deviate from tested and robust instincts. Is this behavior advantageous?

Intelligence depends heavily on education and acquisition of a knowledge base. Most of the paths in trial by error result in error. Intelligence requires a heavy investment before it becomes an advantage. Intelligent ape-oids would represent both a quantum evolutionary leap and an evolutionary disadvantage in competing with their instinctual-driven cousins who evolve through incremental modification of instincts. Modern civilization protect our fragile children, and ancient humanity imposed a regime of discipline that would universally be considered child abuse today. The instinct-dominated ancestors, however, would not be equipped to deal with their reasoning children. Once the spark of conscious abstract reason - self-awareness -  was lit, it would invariably and  fatally disadvantage its recipient long before he or she could gain the benefit technologically from the value of a logically developed knowledge-base. Humanoids would have been killed off long before any intelligence could evolve to be an advantage.

The real reason the state is interested in promoting same-sex marriage.

Recently, the push for same-sex marriage has become quite popular with the government of various jurisdictions. It is popularly justified on the grounds that denial of same-sex marriage is discrimination. This argument, however, fails miserably. It fails because the rules for government recognition of marriage are consistently applicable for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. During the oral argument in the recent Supreme Court case, interrogation of lawyers by Justices Scalia and Alito revealed that traditional marriage was normative and same-sex marriage absent even in societies that were very pro-homosexual.Additionally, there is an abundance of evidence that people have Fighting discriminatio sincere religious beliefs concerning homosexuality who practice nn is simply a smoke screen to hide the real reason for states to promote same-sex marriage.   

The real reason for states to promote same-sex marriage is rooted in the fundamental differences in the definitions between traditional and same-sex marriage. Traditional marriage is grounded ontologically in certain fundamental realities that are normative of human sexuality. Heterosexual relations are normative among humans, and the traditional institution of marriage was constructed to channel these powerful forces to function in a manner conducive to the formation of civilization. Traditional marriage fostered the formation of stable families as the basic unit of civilization and the front line for socializing children into behaving like civilized human beings and not like wild animals. 

  Same-sex marriage, however, is not rooted in any ontological ground. It only exists in the minds of those who identify theirs or others’ homosexual relationships as such. It is merely a virtual construct. In fact, much of the radical LGBTQ agenda can only be understood understood as redefining the fundamentals of personal and sexual identity as nothing more than merely virtual constructs. It is this idea that fuels the idea that a person can choose whatever gender they are regardless of the biological facts that pertain to gender. This idea of de-grounding the fundamentals that ground personal meaning has been around for quite a while. The significance of Roe v Wade is that it divorced the concept of person-hood from  any grounding in the sanctity of human life. It only mattered if a fetus was a legal person, and that was determined in terms of recognition by society and the state. Person-hood  is seen here as a mere construct of the state. 

Grounding person-hood, relationships, and sexual identity imposes limiting principles that are inherent in the nature of whatever grounds these things. This imposes limitations on what individuals and states can do with these constructs. The abortion rights and LGBTQ movements attacked these grounds and persuaded many to abandon these foundations because they were seen as too limiting. What they failed to see was that ontologically grounding personal and sexual identity also limited the role of the state. Once these were taken away, there were no longer any limiting principles to super-massive state intervention in matters that were very private and personal. Another problem in de-grounding personal and sexual identity is that this created a need for a virtual replacement. Personal and sexual identity cannot exist in society in a vacuum. Without any ground in the fundamentals of human nature or higher law, then an arbitrary ground had to be created and vested with sufficient force to hold these things together This need of a virtual ground has resulted in these groups looking to the state to step in to create and uphold these constructs.  If person-hood and sexuality are nothing more than constructs of the state, then there is nothing to limit the power or scope of the state in intervening in some very sensitive and private matters. This would give the state unlimited control over personal lives, and this is the real reason the state is interested in promoting same-sex marriage.

The new definition of nondiscrimination : a grave threat to liberty

Recently, the commonwealth of Kentucky is making headlines concerning the upcoming battle over same-sex marriage at the United states Supreme Court. They are making the argument that bans on same-sex marriage are not discriminatory because they “stop heterosexuals from marrying others of the same-sex.¹”

In the current of rabid obsession with things homosexual, this argument is met with scorn. This argument is. However, perfectly valid in light of historic conceptions of discrimination and anti-discrimination. Since the 1960’s, we have had a diversity of anti-discrimination laws that outlaw discrimination based on membership in one or more of various protected classes.

If inappropriate discrimination is based on selection based on “membership in one or more protected classes, “ then neither same-sex marriage nor any of its related issues involve such discrimination. Laws banning same-sex marriage apply equally to all groups in society. Discrimination along related issues is also appropriate in terms of the historical understandings of acceptable discrimination. Not a single one of the recent cases involving whether bakers, florists, and photographers can legally refuse to service same-sex ceremonies involves  denying service to individuals or groups based on membership in a protected class. In all of these cases, the vendors serviced members of the LGBQT community. The discrimination was based on the content of the service: these vendors refuse to perform only the specific services that violated their conscience. They would have denied performing these services to anyone, regardless of what class of which they were a member.

The rejoinder that is given is that these regulations have disproportionate impact on members on the LGBTQ communities. Bans on same-sex marriage are of no consequence to heterosexuals, who presumably would have little use for such legal constructs. This type of arguments, however, marks of major redefinition  of what constitute non-discrimination.

To understand the change that is happening here, one must understand the difference between negative rights and positive rights².

Negative rights simply mark what cannot legally be done. They restrain the government and others from doing thing that would hinder the pursuit of their own happiness. It was each person’s responsibility own their own pursuit of happiness, and own their success or failure. No one else is obligated to assist in that pursuit.

The concept of positive rights, however, asserts that others have a positive legal obligation to assist in one’s search of happiness. The conception of positive rights further implies that the state has a responsibility and right to compel such service.

The difference between negative and positive rights on LBGTQ issues can be described as this. Negative rights for  LBGTQ issues implies that they should not be subject to prosecution for pursuing their peculiar types of sexual relationships and that they should not be denied access to services because they are members of the class of people that do these things. Negative rights do not impose an obligation on anyone else to help them actualize their happiness. They must procure these as free economic agents in the marketplace. In the case of same-sex ceremonies there is both a demand for such services and an abundant supply of vendors willing to perform these services. In a negative rights conception of liberty, vendors are not obligated to provide any particular service: only provide equal access to all people to the services of their choosing. In a positive rights conception, however, others are obligated to provide assistance in one’s pursuit of happiness. What this means for photographers, bakers, and other providers of services that might be demanded for same-sex ceremonies; is that they can be compelled in term of the types of services he/she must offer.

The dangers of positive rights³
The are three dangers to positive rights. They result in forced servitude. They result in the necessity of a government bureaucracy whose authority trumps all liberties. They contain no limiting principle to the exercise of arbitrary state power. They require that tribunals pick winners and losers in cultural conflicts. The enforcement of nondiscrimination as a positive rights allows dominant groups to discriminate against, marginalize, and even genocide other groups with less social power. Finally, the enforcement of the schema of positive rights results in the state being for all practical intents and purposes god on earth.

They result in forced servitude because people must be made to do things they would not do otherwise. Under negative rights, people are free to make their own choices as to what type of business they do; Constraints may exist to ensure equal opportunity and public safety, but no one is compelled to provide types of services they would not otherwise do. Under positive rights they can be forced to provide types of services that would otherwise not be offered. This mean that bakers can be forced to bake cakes for same-sex ceremonies. This means that if all bakers stopped doing wedding cakes, that the state can draft them into providing wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies. This means that if everyone stopped baking, then the state could draft into baking those who would otherwise not be bakers. The result is forced servitude which is otherwise known as slavery. This would have implication that go way way beyond baking cakes. Thus could lead to a society where the state centrally plans all economic activity, even to the point of assigning people their occupations.

They result in the necessity of a government bureaucracy whose authority trumps all liberties due  the complexity of positive rights claims. If, access to healthcare is a positive right, then a bureaucracy must exist to define standards for its delivery and which healthcare issues will have priority. Such a bureaucracy would necessarily have greater authority than any rights claim it adjudicated in order to define and adjudicate them. If such an authority decides that abortion is a right, then it will compel those who believe abortion is murder to assist in performing abortions. If the healthcare bureaucracy believes that it is in the interests of public health to resort to euthanasia to weed out the unfit, then genocide is marketed as a human right.

Because positive rights involve coercing others in assisting in one’s self-actualization (a.k.a the pursuit of happiness), there is no limiting principle to what government may demand. Any issue that relates to one’s self-actualization may be a legitimate target of government regulation. The new definition of enforcing non-discrimination means the end of limited government. Since beliefs, speech, and religion all relate to one’s self-actualization and how it affects the self-actualization of others, there will emerge programs to regulate speech, beliefs, and religion. Speech codes will be enacted that dictate what type of ideas are permissible to express.  

They require that tribunals pick winners and losers in cultural conflicts because there is no coherent way for everyone to fully actualize in a pluralistic society. Different individual’s pursuit of happiness sometimes collide. In the infamous controversies involving same-sex couples wanted their wedding cakes baked by those who want to live that pleases a God who commands them to not support a homosexual lifestyle. In a system of negative rights, these collisions were minimized. People were free to do anything that was not explicitly outlawed, and laws were structured to allow personal freedom for all. Negative rights, in effect, created a personal bubble where the individual was sovereign in his personal sphere. This mitigated collisions of rights claims, proving clear directions for their resolution when they did occur. Positive rights, because they impose an additional positive legal obligation to assist in another self-actualization, allows for an individual to be forcibly dragged into the personal sphere of another. This increases the number of collisions that require state intervention, often at an extreme level. The result is that the state must pick winners and losers. In the name of nondiscrimination, the state must engage in  systematic discrimination.

In the ongoing dispute between the LGBTQ crowd and Evangelicals and Conservatives, in almost every case where there has been conflict, the LGBTQ crows has won and Christians have been told that they must surrender their liberties. When the issue of this unequal burden on religious people was brought to Penn Jillette, he snidely remarked that they “you're not being asked to engage in gay sex.⁴” However, the same logic that is used to force christian bakers to bake homosexually themed cakes could be extended to legally force people to engage in gay sex. If Christians have a positive legal obligation to assist in the self-actualization of a homosexual there is no limiting principle, and the state has decided to discriminate in favor of homosexuals in who wins under this new definition of nondiscrimination, then upon what what basis can the Christian say no if the homosexual path to self-actualization  includes bending said Christian over and sodomizing and otherwise sexually violating him or her.

Genesis 16 describes a homosexual crowd in  Sodom who committed trespassing on Lot’s private property and DEMANDED to engage in homosexual sex with the angels God sent. Lot tried to peacefully co-exist with their demands and meet them half-way. They replied by accusing Lot of judging them. This is telling, as Lot had every rational basis to judge them. They were trespassing on his private property. Lot had the right to demand that they back off and use his sword to defend his property rights. The men of Sodom used language eerily similar to that of the modern gay rights movement. They believed that they had a right to rape, and that any opposition to their advances was unlawful judging. The spirit of Sodom is raging today, and the logic used to compel bakers to bake homosexually themed cakes leads to justifying homosexual rape.

Due to the above reasons, enforcing a schema of positive rights effectively exalts the state  into a position of god on earth. Under this evil scheme, no case based on conscience and personal autonomy can prevail against any claim made by the state or those who have the favor of the state, no matter how intrusive against personal freedom it may be. This could lead to a world where murder, sex trafficking, armed robbery, and rape are all legal when done by the state or by individuals or groups that the state decides to protect. In this world there is no equality under law, but a strict "pecking order" created by the state's selection of who its cronies are and who will be vilified as the dirty dogs.  In this world all who appeal to a higher law will be considered enemies of the state, and those who persist in that appeal will be marked for genocide.

References

1 Kentucky Says Straight People Can’t Have Same-Sex Marriage Either 

http://politicalwire.com/2015/04/01/kentucky-says-straight-people-cant-have-same-sex-marriage-either/

2 Positive Rights vs. Negative Rights, Prof. Aeon Skoble, Learn Liberty

http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/positive-rights-vs-negative-rights/

3 The Perils of Positive Rights
Positive Rights Conflict Most of All with Our Basic Negative Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property
April 01, 2001 by Tibor R. Machan,
http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-perils-of-positive-rights

4 Penn Jillette on Indiana RFRA: "You're Not Being Forced to Have Gay Sex", Reason Magazine
Nick Gillespie|Apr. 2, 2015,
http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/02/penn-jillette-on-indiana-rfra-youre-not 

The incoherence of Bohmian Mechanics

The emergence of quantum mechanics has been a huge challenge to Materialism. Particularly, both the mathematical models and results of the double-slit and quantum erasers experiments suggest that material reality only exists when it is being measured or observed. These particles cannot have a  precise location and momentum until an unentangled observer conducts a measurement on the system. Prior to measurement there is a range of uncertainty that is inherent in the system.

There are three major classes of interpretations: The Copenhagen which asserts that reality is a wave described by the Shrodinger equation until the wave-function is collapsed by measurement; the many worlds interpretation which asserts that each change of quantum state is the multiplication of different worlds, or Bohmian mechanics. This article will focus on Bohmian mechanics.

Bohmian mechanics asserts that particle actually exists in a precise position that is predetermined by pilot waves that are generated by the total configuration of every other particle in  the universe1. Bohmian mechanics posits that there is no actual uncertainty in a quantum system; the uncertainty is only a function of our lack of knowledge of all of the variables - particularly our inability to ever detect the pilot waves that control configuration of particles in the universe.

In Bohmian mechanics the pilot waves are non-local. Locality means that for one object to causally affect another object in the same space, it must act through every point of space between the objects. Non-locality involves the ability of an object to skip the space separating it from another object. Imagine that our three dimensional space is compressed into a sheet of paper. Folding one corner of that paper onto any spot on the paper. An object on that corner can affect non-local action on an object on any spot of the paper that corner touches. An object that transcends the dimensions of that  space, in this case my finger, can also affect non-local action on an object inside that space.

A little introductory weirdness

If pilot waves are produced by every particle in existence, and every particle  is defined by every other particle; then every event - no matter how insignificant or how seemingly irrelevant - has at least some causal influence on every other event. For example, my decision to eat a Big Mac in the summer of 2008 might have made the difference in deciding whether Obama won or McCain won the presidency. It is also possible that the last I passed gas that it tilted the causal scale that caused someone in China to die of a heart attack.

This weirdness is not limited to space. Relativity describes space as containing time as a fourth dimension. This is called Minkowski space-time or simply space-time2. While there is much more limited knowledge of non-locality of time in quantum mechanics, there has been limited observations of such non-locality3. Additionally, the description of space in relativity as including time as a fourth dimension would suggest that non-locality of space would also include non-locality of time as well.

If space includes time as a fourth dimension, then the entire universe would include all of time. The generation of pilot waves by the configuration of every particle in the universe includes every moment of time. Does this mean that that my mom feel in love with my dad because I love Mexican food? It would necessarily mean that. It might be objected that it plays such a tiny, tiny role. If EVERY particle contributes to the pilot waves that defines every other particle, then even the most obscure and seeming irrelevant events have some causal influence on any given event. 

From weirdness to absurdity

If can causally influence my parents decision to become a couple, that does not take away the necessity that their coming together had a huge causal influence in my coming into existence on this physical world. Given Bohmian mechanics, my creation was a circular event. My actions influenced actions which then caused me to exist. This circularity often comes up in  time travel paradoxes. (i.e what happens if someone murders their grandparents before their parents were born. Such circularity is a defeater because ultimately nothing is sufficient to explain anything. A depends on B, but B does not exist because it depends on A; since B does not exist, neither can A.

In Bohmian mechanics this circularity is not limited to particular paradoxes, but consumes the whole universe. If every element is defined by the configuration of every other element, and all of those elements depends on every other element that depends on them, then ultimately nothing can be defined and nothing can exist in any configuration. Bohmian mechanics cannot account for itself. 

References

1 Quantum Weirdness Replaced by Classical Fluid Dynamics

http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/

From the article: “ In the de Broglie-Bohm Interpretation, quantum events are inherently nonlocal: because the vector of any one particle is a function of the pilot-wave, which depends on the global configuration of the entire universe ”

2 A Space-Time Cocktail: Minkowski Space and Special Relativity

http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2013/02/10/a-space-time-cocktail-minkowski-space-and-special-relativity/

3 Nonlocality With Time Reversibility

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Quantum/localepr.html

Atheism on the ropes

Lately, a new theory has been making the rounds that some popular publications claim “puts God on the ropes.” It purports a naturalistic explanation of life that eliminates the need for God.

Jeremy England, a young MIT professor, has proposed a theory that suggests that the Second law of Thermodynamics implies that life is not accidental but necessary. He is quoted in Quanta magazine as saying:

"From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life¹.” 

This theory implies that life is an inherent and emergent property of all physical systems that behave according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This idea actually puts atheism on the ropes rather than Theism.

How the Grinch could steal the election

Stalin once said that it is not those who vote that decide the election, but those who count the votes. This statement is a testimony to the power of vote fraud to overthrow the will of the people in a corrupt system. Tactics like "stuffing the ballot box," spurious counting by biased poll workers, and dead people casting their vote has been going on for a long time. I would not be surprised if my dead dad (1924-1981) cast "his" vote for Obama in Illinois in the last Presidential election.

The introduction of advanced technology into the electoral process, however, may prove to be a major game changer. It is now possible for the hacker to steal the election. Elections are nowadays settled in battleground state where the margin of victory is 1-2%. This low margin of victory makes good cover for electronic hacks. There is evidence that such hacks are indeed taking place. There are reports that in Illinois that voting machines were switching Republican votes to Democrat.  There are other reports that in North Carolina that voting machines were switching Democrat votes to Republican.

I have written a demo program that steals an election and show the results in the iframe below and the source code with explanatory notes below the iframe. These results change every time the page is reloaded. This program is strictly  demo that does not run on any actual machine that counts votes in any elections; this is NOT intended to be used in that way either, This program is for educational purposes only!!! There is good reason to believe, however, that similar code may live on these machines.

// The following function switches about 5% of all non-Democrat votes
function castVote($party)
  {
   if ($party != "Democrat")
     {
      // the following insure that 5% of all non-Democrat votes at random
      // are switched to Democrat. The rest are left alone. All Democrat
      // votes are left alone
      $b = mt_rand(0,100); // The random function generates a number such that the following line will switch 5% of the non-Democrat
      //                      vote to democrat
      if ($b <= 5) $party = "Democrat"; // This line of code steals the election!!!!
     }
  return $party; // Democrat votes are passed untouched
  }

$i = 1; //counter
// simulates an election with a million votes
While ($i <= 1000000)
 {
 // in real election, this would be receiving input, but
 // for the purpose of this demo a random function will simulate
 // an election where 51.75% select the Republican candidate in the voting
 // booth
 $a = mt_rand(0,10000);

 if ($a <= 5175)
   {
    $selectedVote = "Republican";
    $Republican  = $Republican + 1; //tracks how many Republicans were actually selected
   }
if ($a > 5175)
   {
    $selectedVote = "Democrat";
    $Democrat = $Democrat + 1; //tracks how many Democrats were actually selected
    }
 $v = castVote($selectedVote); // passes vote to function that switches 5% of all non-Democrat votes

 // The following lines count the adjusted vote
 if ($v == "Republican") $pseudoRepublican = $pseudoRepublican + 1;
 if ($v == "Democrat") $pseudoDemocrat = $pseudoDemocrat + 1;
$i = $i + 1; // adds one vote to the overall counter

}
//Publishes result that are in the iframe
echo 'The results are in!!!
';
echo 'Republican votes selected by voters: ' . $Republican.'
';
echo 'Democrat votes selected by voters: ' . $Democrat.'
';
echo 'This program switched ';
echo  $Republican - $pseudoRepublican;
echo ' Republican votes to Democrat
';
if ($pseudoRepublican < $pseudoDemocrat && $Republican > $Democrat) echo 'A hacker just stole the election!!! Democrats win!!!
';
if ($pseudoRepublican < $pseudoDemocrat && $Republican < $Democrat) echo 'Democrats won any way!!!
';
if ($pseudoRepublican > $pseudoDemocrat && $Republican > $Democrat) echo 'The Republicans survived the cheat!!!
';
echo 'Republicans: ' . $pseudoRepublican . '
' . "Democrats: " . $pseudoDemocrat;
?>

Is religion and religious extremism a threat to world peace, or is it totalitarianism?

In this day and age, it is vogue to demonize religion. This is fueled by the fact that religion is being increasingly used to justify violent and extreme actions on a global scale. There are two common but false answers that have been given: Religion is the root of all war and religious extremism is the root of all war.

 New Atheists like Richard Dawkins like to paint religion as the root of all evil and the cause of all wars. This, however, is demonstrably false. Many religions are, in fact, pacifist in their teaching and practice. Groups like the Amish, Quakers, and Mennonites reject all violence - even self-defense.

The subject of the relationship between religion and violence has made its way into conversations among the globalist elites. The emerging consensus there is a little bit different. The United Nations, as I point out in Mystery Babylon Rising, has a religious agenda, so they do not condemn all religion. Their demon is "religious extremism." The means through which they address this issue is through an initiative called the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. The emerging answer to to create an entity - a one-world church - to marginalize extremists. This entity would exercise authority over all religion and persecute those who refuse to submit to their agenda.

However, This post is not about the coming one-world church. I simply bring this up show that it is being proposed by some as a response to a false answer concerning the relationship of religion to war. And it is a false answer that doesn't work too well either. Amish Quakers, Shakers and Mennonites would be considered extreme by the standards of most people. These groups have extreme views against violence; they won't even defend themselves or their families with violence if some one came out to kill them.

Totalitarianism Cause of Violence
If religiosity and extremism are not sufficient to explain religiously oriented violence, what is the explanation? The root of violence is the tethering of an ideology to the use of force. Only those ideologies that advocate the use of force to compel others to submit can be a threat. This is why Fundamentalist Baptists, while extremely religious and extreme in their religion, are not a threat. They are isolationists who simply want to be left to practice their religion without interference. This tethering of ideology to the use of force is not limited to ideologies that are traditionally considered religious. Marxism is officially atheist, but has murdered over 100 million people in a scheme to force Communism down their throats.

Any ideology that is totalitarian and requires or encourages its adherents to use physical force can be a threat. The threat is the same whether the force is carried out through terrorism or by state-sanctioned force. The state-sanctioned variety is a lot more dangerous than rogue terrorists. There are, in fact,  two elements that make totalitarian ideologies dangerous: they all have an eschatology and they all conscript their adherents to use or support the use of force to compel obedience by others to the eschatological vision.

All totalitarian ideologies have an eschatology - this includes secular ideologies. While secular ideologies lack elements in their eschatologies that are present in traditionally religious eschatologies; both have the commonality of having a vision of what constitutes the best possible world, and both have faith that history is headed - or should be headed - towards this best possible world. There are four basic totalitarian and holistic eschatologies in the world today. Three of these pose a danger because they conscript their adherents to use or support the use of force by human means. This is also connected to the central idea of humanism - it is up to man makes his own paradise.  Comparing various eschatologies:

 Humanistic Eschatologies that threaten world peace

Secular Fundamentalism ( man defines and make his own paradise)

1. Man creates heaven on earth by using science and technology to create a New World Order
2. With science and technology, man can fake being god - transhumanism

"Pantheistic Fundamentalism" (god in nature defines paradise; man must enable god to actualize himself and make the paradise happen.

1. God works as a naturalistic cosmic principle in evolution and history, leading to a naturally emergent New World Order.
2. The divine principle works through "world-historical" individuals(Hegel) to bring forth a New World Order.

Islamic Fundamentalism (god commands paradise to be brought forth, but it is up to man to produce it)

1. Allah commands Muslims to "slay the infidel."
2. Muslims have the burden to bring forth Islamic paradise, as their theology is almost entirely "works-based."

Contrast this with Christian eschatology, which is God-centered:

Christian eschatology does not depend on human works. God produces the paradise, often using the powerless and operating counter-culturally. The people of God are not a threat to world-peace. Some might consider God to be a threat. Keep in mind that this is His world to run. He has been gracious to mankind and given us abundant freedom - freedom to enter into a love relationship with Him. This is why He has tolerated sin for so long; however, justice demands an end to all evil at some point - the process of annihilating all evil is going to be messy. Here are the features of God's action to bring about his New World Order

1. God's New World Order is produced by God's action via supernatural intervention in the form of judgments against the evil systems of man.
2. The people of God are largely stripped of any political, economic, and social power, being pushed to the brink of becoming victims of a genocide perpetrated by a global consensus.
3. The involvement of the people of God in the final conflict involves spiritual weapons rather than physical. As God's people pray to Him, praise Him, and proclaim His Word; judgments fall upon the earth.
4. The conflict is ended by Christ personally returning to the earth, wiping out the armies of His enemies, and setting up His Throne in Jerusalem- from which everlasting peace will flow.

Equipping the Saints Week 51/ Hermeneutics Week 09: Informal Fallacies

Informal fallacies are fallacies that relate to the meaning, rather than the form of, words and propositions in an argument. Fallacies can arise over misinterpretations due to ambiguity or vagueness in language, the presence in an argument of propositions irrelevant to the meaning, or unreasonable inductive inferences.

Below is brief description of the major informal fallacies.¹ This list is not a comprehensive list, but includes a few of the most common fallacies that have manifested as hermeneutical mistakes in commentaries of various interpreters.

Begging the question occurs when a conclusion is simply assumed in the premises. Usually begging the question assuming a conclusion without attempting to support it through arguments, but sometimes it can be used as circular reasoning.

Cherry picking occurs when an interpreter selectively picks only data that is useful as evidence for a particular point of view. This is a frequent problem in Biblical hermeneutics. People will cherry-pick proof-texts and string them together to form doctrine without considering the broader context or other passages to get a more complete view of Scriptural teaching.

Example 1: One sect teaches that 1 John 3:9 teaches that Christians cannot sin because they have cherry-picked the text that says "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Other sects insist that we will always have sin in our lives while we are on the earth because of 1 John 1:8 that says " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. " different sect draw contradictory conclusions by cherry-picking two clauses that are not only in the same book, but also in the same context. 1 John, when seen in context, asserts that the born experience transforms human nature by planting the Word of God as spiritual DNA. The action of the Word of God in the life of the believer will progressively transform that believer from one who  sins to one who does righteousness.

Cherry-picking is also common in anti-Christian polemics. Anti-Christians will pull verse out of context to create a picture far removed from the picture that was intended by God and the human authors of the Bible. These haters would cherry-pick difficult passages from  have you believe that Moses is a genocide-loving, pro-slavery fascist. They avoid the many other Scriptures that extol the sanctity of human life, particularly the fact that the unequivocal condemnation  of child sacrifice in the Mosaic law  was unprecedented for any ancient near eastern nation of that era. The pagan world in which God revealed Himself was quite inhumane and particularly hostile to women and children, and that it was the influence of Judeo-Christian morality that enlightened the world to the heinous nature of practices like slavery and genocide that are today universally condemned.

A complex question is a question that has two or more  components that present a concealed dilemma. Complex questions are worded such that any yes or no answer involves implying something that is false or scandalous.  For example, any yes or no answer to  the question "have you stopped beating your spouse" implies that the person interrogated has beaten their spouse. If the implication has already been established, then the complex question is valid as a follow up question; otherwise, it is a fallacy. Unless spouse abuse has already been factually established, this question would be fallacious.

A loaded question is a complex question that contains emotionally loaded language The question "Do you support marriage equality or the continuation of bigotry" is a loaded question. It assumes that the only possibilities are support for same-sex marriage or bigotry - that there is no possibility of reasonable disagreement. Here I Blog shows a real world example of this:

" Fallacy of Complex Question – is loaded with assumption so the opponent is guilty no matter the answer.

"Again, from the Anderson – Morgan debate. At about 2:40 Morgan begins asking Anderson about prisoners’ rights to marry asking, “You would rather defend a prisoner’s right to get married than you would Suze Orman’s right to get married to her partner?”

"If Anderson simply answers “no” then it appears he is not in favor of prisoners marrying. If he simply says “yes” then Morgan has not only been allowed to re-define the topic again, but it seems as though Anderson wants greater rights for convicted criminals than for Orman and all homosexuals."

http://hereiblog.com/fallacy-journal-ii-piers-morgan-edition/

Fallacies of distribution (composition -  division) are fallacies that wrongly interpret the relationship between the whole or collective of a class and the particular members that make up that class. Such fallacies can be fallacies of composition or division. Fallacies of composition are fallacies that make wrong inferences about the whole of something based upon known facts concerning some or every part of the whole. Fallacies of division are fallacies that make wrong inferences about some or every part of the whole based upon known facts concerning the whole of something.

Atheists commit the fallacy of composition when they argue that religion is the source of all wars, violence, and repressive behaviors. They cite the behavior of certain extreme groups, but commit the fallacy of composition by arguing that the attribute that lead these group to violence are attributes of religion in general. What applies to certain sects does not apply to every sect - or to the whole.

Rationalization, in both psychology and logic, involves making excuses. The informal fallacy of rationalization occurs when people resort to making an excessive number of ad hoc hypothesis to salvage a view that has many difficulties. An ad hoc hypothesis is an alternate explanation that is invoked and applied exclusively to plug up a hole in  a theory. Ad hoc hypotheses are not always fallacious; sometimes they can provide important modifications to a theory that make it workable. When done excessively, however, it can destroy the possibility of as coherent understanding of a topic - bringing instead an incoherent patchwork of ideas that just don't fit together.

Rationalization  occurs in Biblical hermeneutics when a doctrine is asserted is found to  run contrary to the plain meaning, and the interpreter re-interprets the passages that contradict the doctrine in way different from the plain sense. An occasional rationalization can be justified, because sometimes literary and textual considerations indicate that a passages is best interpreted in a fashion different than the plain sense. If one's doctrine requires them to constantly or excessively rationalize a large number of Scripture to make the Scripture fit the doctrine, then there is a big problem. Interpreting the plain sense is the default - and most of the time - best way to read the Scripture.

Rationalization is often employed alongside cherry-picking, particularly in defense of denominational "sacred cows." The sect will cherry-pick verses that support their sacred cow doctrinal point, and then explain away large number of Scriptures that contradict the doctrine. They employ any fallacy, whether it is a hermeneutical mistake or logical fallacy, to evade the plain application of the passage in refuting the pet doctrine. They may argue that the passage is allegorical, and interpret the allegory to fit the pet doctrine. They may deconstruct either the passage or a key word, interpreting in way that fits their pet doctrine rather than the context in which the passage is actually found.

Relative privation is a fallacy that argues that a point is unimportant because another may be perceived as  more important. It is often used in an attempt to dismiss the condemnation of one sin because another is not being adequately  addressed, being often tethered to accusations of hypocrisy. Those who would advocate that the Bible fails to condemn homosexuality will argue that those who condemn it fail to condemn adultery, charging them with hypocrisy. Their intent is to stop people from condemning homosexuality. This is fallacious, as the Biblical condemnation of hypocrisy was never intended to become a license to sin but a call to be consistently sin-free. When we find ourselves having inconsistent attitudes towards sin, we should continue to pursue a more consistent righteousness rather than justify sin. Since the Bible calls both homosexuality and adultery sinful, our moral teaching should be consistent with the Bible.

Correlative-based fallacies occur when errors are made in representing the number of logical possibilities in a given context. There are three type of correlative or correlation-based fallacies: Denying the correlative, Suppressing correlative, False dilemma.

Denying the correlative is attempting to insert a possibility that does not really exist. Suppressing the correlative involves defining the possibilities such that one or more are eliminated. The most common correlative fallacy is the false dilemma.

A false dilemma exist when it is asserted that there are only two logical possibilities when in fact there are other possibilities. The Jewish religious leaders sought to trap Jesus with a false dilemma in Matthew 22:15-22.  They asked him " Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? "  The dilemma they were trying to set up allowed only two possibilities: Be a traitor to the Law of God and give tribute to Caesar, or be a traitor to Caesar and reject tribute to Caesar. They thought they had Him trapped.

"Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.   16  And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.   17  Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?   18  But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?   19  Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.   20  And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?   21  They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.   22  When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way." - Mat 22:15-22 

Jesus, however, saw through their scheme. He demonstrated that it was a false dilemma and grab the dilemma by the horns. In vs 19-20, He asks whose image is on the money. They answered it was Caesar. Jesus replied " Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. " Jesus pointed out that the Jewish leadership had, by their actions had entered into a social contract with Caesar. They used Caesar's money, Caesar's roads, and in less than a week they would use Caesar's police power and courts to crucify Christ, claiming that their only king was Caesar. They had entered into a social contract, or in Hebrew thought, taken a vow or promise of allegiance to Caesar. Jesus answer, then was one that was legal under both God's and Caesar's law.

Inductive fallacies include sampling bias, false analogy, slothful induction, hasty generalization, and "correlation proves causation."

False analogy is where an analogy is drawn on irrelevant grounds. For example, it is a false analogy to conclude that bizarre facial hair causes people to become ruthless dictators because there is no connection between attribute of one's facial hair to their political philosophy or moral character.

       

 Sampling bias occurs when the data observed in a sample is not representative of the whole population or class of objects. Sampling bias often occur in comparing statistics. For example, comparisons between the United States and many other developed countries on standardized test are faulty due to sampling bias; in the United states any high school student is eligible to take the SAT test, whereas in many other countries only the top students are allowed to sit for an SAT-comparable test. The test sample in these countries are not representative to the total student populations, but only the elite students, so it is unable to provide a valid comparison between the overall student populations between the United States and other developed countries

Hasty generalization occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on  insufficient  observations. Hasty generalizations fail because there is not enough information to know whether the observed sample is representative of the whole class. Hasty generalization occurs in the promotion of many ideas in the evolutionist movement, as we do not have an adequate basis of observation to know whether the observation sample is representative of extreme of space and time.

Slothful induction occurs where there is sufficient information to justify a conclusion, but no conclusion is drawn. Atheistic scientists commit slothful induction occurs in relation to the fine-tuning argument, which present strong evidence against a random universe but presents implications that are difficult for an atheistic or materialistic philosophy. Many scientists who are philosophic materialists have conjectured that the current universe is just one of an infinite number of universes in a multiverse. This theory, by its very nature, is untestable; it is a rationalization - the creation of an ad hoc hypothesis without any testability in order to salvage their viewpoint and avoid the strong inference that is suggested by the fine-tuning argument.

It is a fallacy to assert that mere correlation proves causation. Merely because things are similar or coincide does not imply a causal connection. For example, there is a strong correlation between the consumption of ice-cream and  the rise in juvenile crime rates. It would however be a fallacy to conclude that consumption of ice cream causes crime. Such an explanation is fallacious because  it provides no explanation of any mechanism adequate to account for causation. There is no mechanism to that connects causally ice-cream consumption to juvenile delinquency. There is, however, a mechanism that connects summer vacation via boredom to juvenile delinquency; and there is also  a mechanism that connects heat to ice cream consumption - both of which occur in the summer months.

Fallacies of correlation occur in evolutionary theory when similarities amongst fossils and genomes of various types of organisms. Mere similarity does not prove common descent, and scientists have not observed any mechanism adequate to account for the diversity of life. Evolutionary biologists have proposed  such mechanisms, but have not, and due to the nature of evolution likely never will, confirm the existence of these mechanisms.

Fallacies of Amphibology and Equivocation  are fallacies related to ambiguity in language. Amphiboly involves ambiguity in sentence structure and equivocation involves people shifting the meanings of words in the middle of a discourse.

This ambiguity of amphibology allows people to parse words in a very misleading way by exploiting the range of meanings possible in a given word or sentence structure. The greater the amphibology, the more wiggle room careless or dishonest interpreters have to focus on the range of meaning that is most convenient for their purposes.  It is even entirely possible to have war of definitions. The Bible calls this striving over words.

" If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;   4  He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,   5  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." - 1 Timothy  6:3-5 

The Bible strongly condemns this parsing of words, characterizing this  practice as "perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth (verse5)." God wants us to pursue truth in interpretation. We should specifically avoid informal fallacies in both Biblical interpretation and our broader thinking.

References

1 List of Fallacies, sect Informal Fallacies, Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies

Week 51 Questions

1What are Informal Fallacies?

2 What are three types of informal fallacies?

3 Which two-fallacy combination is the most common in Biblical hermeneutics?

4 Fill in the blank the fallacy

a (                            ) occurs when an interpreter selectively picks only data that is useful as evidence for a particular point of view.

b (                            ) occurs when a conclusion is simply assumed in the premises.

c A (                            ) is a question that has two or more  components that present a concealed dilemma. Complex questions are worded such that any yes or no answer involves implying something else  that is false or scandalous without actually establishing the implication. 

d A (                            ) is a complex question that contains emotionally loaded language.

e (                            ) are fallacies that wrongly interpret the relationship between the whole or collective of a class and the particular members that make up that class. Such fallacies can be fallacies of composition or division.

f  (                            ) are fallacies that make wrong inferences about the whole of something based upon known facts concerning some or every part of the whole.

g (                            ) are fallacies that make wrong inferences about some or every part of the whole based upon known facts concerning the whole of something.

h (                            )  occurs in Biblical hermeneutics when a doctrine is asserted is found to  run contrary to the plain meaning, and the interpreter re-interprets the passages that contradict the doctrine in way different from the plain sense in  order to salvage the doctrine.

i (                            ) is a fallacy that argues that a point is unimportant because another may be perceived as more important. It is often used in an attempt to dismiss the condemnation of one sin because another is not being adequately addressed.

j A (                            ) exists when it is asserted that there are only two logical possibilities when in fact there are other possibilities.

k (                            ) is where an analogy is drawn on irrelevant grounds.

       

 l (                            ) occurs when the data observed in a sample is not representative of the whole population or class of objects.

m  (                            ) occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on  insufficient  observations.

n (                            ) occurs where there is sufficient information to justify a conclusion, but no conclusion is drawn.

o The fallacy of (                            ) is the assumption that events or phenomena that are similar or coincide  imply a causal connection.

p (                            )  involves ambiguity in sentence structure

q (                            )  involves shifting the meanings of words in the middle of a discourse.