Beliefs are not directly chosen: part 2

This is a direct follow up to my post on the involuntary nature of belief acquisition.

William Lane Craig recently answered a “question of the week” on his website. The questioner said, in part,

I believe God exists, but I am troubled with a question.

Christians are supposed to think that God will punish atheists for choosing not to believe. But how can an sincere atheist be blamed for not believing? I don't think belief is a choice.

In response, Craig said, in part,

we can agree that a person cannot be held morally responsible for failing to discharge a duty of which he is uninformed. So the entire question is: are people sufficiently informed to be held morally responsible for failing to believe in God? The biblical answer to that question is unequivocal. First, God has provided a revelation of Himself in nature that is sufficiently clear for all cognitively normal persons to know that God exists. Paul writes to the Roman church:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (Rom. 1. 18-21).

In Paul’s view God’s properties, His eternal power and deity, are clearly revealed in creation, so that people who fail to believe in an eternal, powerful Creator of the world are without excuse. Indeed, Paul says that they actually do know that God exists, but they suppress this truth because of their unrighteousness. As result they become so clouded in their thinking that they may actually deceive themselves into thinking that they are open-minded inquirers honestly pursuing the truth. The human capacity for rationalization and self-deception, I’m sure we’ve all observed, is very great, indeed, and in the biblical view atheists are prey to it.

Craig agrees that God won’t blame people for something they didn’t have any direct control over.

But then he goes on to insist that beliefs are chosen – that we do indeed have direct control over beliefs. In fact, Craig’s answer goes on to say that “anyone who fails to believe in God by the end of his lifetime does so only by a stubborn resistance to the work of the Holy Spirit”.

At this point I’d ask readers to consider the points I made in part 1. Aside from what I said in part 1, I’d like to add a few things.

As I explained before, our experience shows us that beliefs aren’t directly chosen. So if Paul really were saying (or implying) otherwise, then he’d be wrong. If Paul said it on behalf of God, or with God’s inspiration, then God was mistaken. I don’t think God can make mistakes (and Craig agrees), so I don’t think we should attribute mistakes to God. So again, if Paul were really saying what Craig thinks he was saying, then Paul was wrong.

(This raises questions about the nature of scripture and the Bible. I’ll share my views in another post).

Having said that, I think Craig is misinterpreting Paul. In verse 21 Paul says, “although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him”. Paul seems to be talking about believers who turned their backs on God, not people who merely lack belief.

On this point, Craig may want to point out that the passage also says,

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse

Here Paul could be interpreted as saying that the creation itself (the world around us) reveals “God’s... eternal power and divine nature”. And on that view, self-proclaimed atheists are just refusing to acknowledge what is “plain to them”.

Once again, I think Craig is misinterpreting Paul or that Paul himself was just wrong.

First, God is not “plain” to sincere atheists. If he were then self-proclaimed “atheists” would really just be believers who have forsaken God. But on the contrary, there really are people who do not have any belief in God whatsoever. Here’s an alternative interpretation of the text: Paul was talking about people who already believed, people for whom God was “plain”. Since they believed God created the world, all they had to do was look at the marvels in the world in order to see God’s magnificence (his “eternal power”). Despite knowing God and his power, they still ended up turning their backs on him.

Second, let’s assume that Craig’s interpretation is correct - that Paul really was saying that God’s existence is obvious from the world around us. If so, then Paul was overlooking something (and so is Craig): Even IF certain features of the world point to a higher intelligence, they do not point to Christian theism. In other words, somebody could look at those features and (on the basis of those features) have just as much reason for inferring polytheism, or panpsychism, or idealism, or Islam, or deism, some non-traditional monotheism.

Beliefs are not directly chosen: Part 1

A while back, in a different blog, I posted two essays on hell. I argued that the Jewish and Christian scriptures could be reasonably interpreted as supporting a form of universalism. I also made a few philosophical arguments.

I haven't touched the essays in a long time and they both need a lot of work. I want to eventually include new themes and expand upon those already mentioned.

Part 1 is here.

Part 2 is here.

I want to share an expert from part 2. You may need to read both parts in order to fully appreciate the footnote I include at the end of the excerpt.

[...] specific religious beliefs are often “an accident of geography”, i.e. largely (though not entirely) influenced by environment and geographic location. People who grow up in the Middle East are more likely to have Islamic beliefs by no choice of their own; it is a matter of conditioning. They usually do not feel any pull towards Christianity, just as Christians usually do not feel any pull towards Islam. And although some Muslims convert to Christianity (and vice versa), they usually are not swayed by apologists on the other side. We do not choose what we believe, or at least most people do not. Instead, people can choose to perform an investigation, but the result of that investigation is not chosen – the mind involuntarily assents to a particular conclusion based on what strikes the investigator as most reasonable. Whether something appears more reasonable depends on several factors (including neurobiological and cultural).

An agnostic may be “moved” into becoming a Christian, but similarly, a Christian may be reluctantly swayed by atheists. For example, Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman grew up Christian, but “painfully” became an agnostic during his scholarly education. He did not want to lose his Christian faith, but he had no choice. Many atheists are reluctant atheists in the sense that they truly yearn to have a belief in God, but simply cannot produce it (by no fault of their own).

If beliefs are freely chosen, then I could will myself into believing that Bill Clinton is really an alien from Mars. But no matter how hard I try to force myself into believing that claim, I will never believe it apart from convincing evidence (or what I perceive to be convincing evidence).

If God imposes retributive punishment onto people because of their beliefs, then God punishes them for something they cannot control, which means that God would hold them responsible for something they are not actually responsible for. To drive home this point, consider the following scenario. Tim is a father to three children whom he loves dearly. The love Tim has for his children can be described as patient, unfailing, embracing, and something that compels him to do whatever he can to achieve the best interest of his children. As a demonstration of his love for his children, Tim places wonderful gifts beneath the Christmas tree. So far, there is nothing inconsistent about his behavior. However, Tim goes on to tell his children that if they do not believe that he is the person who placed the gifts beneath the tree, then the children will suffer a horrible fate: They will be separated from Tim for the rest of their lives. More than that, the children must acquire the belief by Christmas Eve (Christmas day will be too late). Tim says it will be okay if they acquire the belief by 11:59 PM on Christmas Eve, but no later. If they acquire it a minute later, then it will be “too late”, regardless of how sincere the children are.

Most of us would characterize Tim’s behavior as appalling. We also recognize the sharp contrast between loving and unloving behavior in this scenario. [10] There are people with such split personalities, where one aspect feels love and expresses love, while the other aspect feels rage and expresses it through violence. But surely God is not like that – not if God “is love”, has “love” for all human beings (including “enemies”), and expresses that “love” to them (see chapter 2). Love, when properly defined, is mutually exclusive with the type of behavior exhibited by hypothetical Tim. But it is also incompatible with the idea that God imposes endless misery onto people who fail to acquire certain beliefs before they physically die (see chapter 2 for a more thorough defense of this argument).

A few additional points should be made. It should be pointed out that disbelieving in Jesus’ divinity and resurrection is not the same as outright rejecting Jesus. Before going further, allow me to define my use of “reject”. I am using it in a social sense, e.g. “I asked a girl out to dinner, but she rejected me” (something that cannot occur if the girl does not believe in the existence of the person she is rejecting). Genuine atheists cannot reject Jesus in that sense of the word because they do not believe that Jesus exists to be rejected. People can reject something only if it exists to be rejected (or if they think that the thing exists). Likewise, Muslims do not reject Jesus (in the aforementioned sense of “reject”); they simply have a different set of beliefs about Jesus’ nature and ministry. However, if these same persons were to become convinced of Jesus’ divinity and resurrection, but turned Jesus away, then we could claim that they have rejected Jesus. One cannot knowingly reject a gift unless one believes that the gift exists in the first place. To clarify, I am not denying that some people will/do reject God, but instead I am attempting to demonstrate that Christians should not be so condemning towards those with non-Christian beliefs.

[FOOTNOTE 10: Of course, Tim could still be “just” and demonstrate justice without it violating his love. For example, if Tim’s son (Randy) were to damage his neighbor’s property, then Tim may force Randy to get a job in order to pay off the debt. This is not only just, but also educational. Tim’s love for Randy is consistent with his discipline. Perhaps Tim himself will pay off the debt, but then require Randy to some chores. Again, this is consistent with Tim’s love. But if Tim were to force Randy to do chores for eternity, then the debt will never be paid off. At that point, Tim would simply be punishing Randy for the sake of punishment, rather than for the sake of the person being punished. Moreover, Randy’s siblings (Jamie and Jessie) are fully aware of Randy’s situation and still love him; in fact, they love Randy as much as they love themselves. Not only does this disturb Jessie and Jamie, it also creates tension between them and their father.]

[END OF EXCEPRT]

Sean Hannity's failure to be "fair and balanced"

How many factual mistakes are professional reporters/anchors allowed to make before they’re reprimanded or fired?

This is part 1 of a series that highlights false claims made by reporters or anchors.

A while back Sean Hannity played carefully-edited footage of Barack Obama on taxes. You really have to see and hear it for yourself. Click here.

Hannity prefaced the video by saying,

the president had a rare moment of honesty in his speech. I hope voters around the country are watching this

Hannity then aired footage of Obama saying:

taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year [pause] for everybody

The clip then ended and Hannity added,

Alright and I’m sure that the anointed one will make sure that it happens

However, that was only the second half of Obama’s sentence. Here is the full sentence:

Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year ... [pause] for everybody. By the way, this was by design.

So Obama was saying that taxes are scheduled to go up because of Bush’s tax plan, not his own. The clip that Sean Hannity played omitted the first half of Obama’s sentence. It was removed to make it look like Obama is the one planning on raising taxes “for everybody”.

That is outrageous. Sean Hannity was either

a) intentionally / knowingly tricking people

or

b) was himself being tricked by someone higher up in the Fox News food chain.

In either case, this is one obvious example of Fox News failing to be “fair and balanced”. Obama has consistently said that the only group he was ever planning to raise taxes on is the group of people making more than 250,000 dollars a year.

Greg Boyd: "Jesus, protect me from your followers"

Part 2 of Carter's 3 books

Review of Chris Carter’s book “SCIENCE AND THE NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE: How Consciousness Survives Death” (Inner Traditions, 2010)

[4/28/11 Update: Carter is going to be releasing a revised edition soon. I'll add details to this review after I read the revised edition]

I’m hesitant to interpret NDEs (and death bed visions) as evidence for postmortem survival (more than I was in the past). If I had to put a number on it, I am anywhere from 50% to 65% confident of the survivalist interpretation of NDEs, and future arguments/studies could push me in either direction (for or against the survivalist interpretation).

That said, Chris Carter’s book is well-argued. I agree with NDE expert Dr. Bruce Greyson that this is “the best book on NDEs in years”, even for people who disagree with the author.

(In my opinion, the runner-up is the massive 2007 book “Irreducible Mind” by Kelly and Kelly et al.).

In part 1, Carter lays out a model of mind-brain relationship that is compatible with both dualism and observations from neuroscience. In building this model, he discusses (and builds upon) William James’ “transmission” model, ancient and modern ideas of mind-body interaction, neuroscience data, the relationship between consciousness and contemporary physics (which includes a discussion on “the dreaded interaction problem”), philosophy of science,* theories of life (including Sheldrake’s hypothesis of morphic resonance and fields), and whether the brain stores memories or tunes into them (Carter argues that both ideas are compatible with neuroscience data). Critics often say that advances in neuroscience show the absolute dependence of mind on brain; they say that minds cannot exist without brains. Drugs, alcohol, aging, and head injuries can alter personality and memory retrieval because of their effects on the brain. So how can personality (and the overlapping memory retrieval) continue to exist after brain death? Read this book to find out. Part 1 alone is worth the price of purchase. Part 1 also deals with the objections of several skeptics on the compatibility (or alleged incompatibility) of dualism and neuroscience data, including Paul Edwards and Daniel Dennett.

(* Carter has a longer discussion on philosophy of science in his first book)

After describing the aforementioned model, the author then presents arguments for it. He argues from a careful examination of Near Death Experiences (NDEs) and death bed visions. His discussion of NDEs includes their features (both “core” and unusual features), cross-cultural similarities and differences, possible cases of veridical observations during the NDE (i.e. cases where subjects report events that are later verified by others), and NDEs among the blind (including those born blind).

Critics of the survivalist (or “transcendental”) model have offered several alternatives, including psychological theories, physiological theories, and varying combinations. Carter discusses Susan Blackmore’s “dying brain theory”, the ketamine model, the G-force induced loss of consciousness model, various drug models, magnetic and electrical stimulation models, the excessive carbon dioxide model, the oxygen starvation model, the endorphins model, temporal lobe seizures, fantasy and wishful thinking, dissociated states, imaginative reconstructions, semiconscious perception, and birth memories. However, one by one, Carter provides a devastating critique of each alternative model. He demonstrates that they simply cannot account for the actual features of NDEs, alone or in combination.

Aside from the (current) utter failure of alternative explanations, Carter also defends the survivalist interpretation by citing possible veridical cases, NDEs among the blind, and similarities with death bed visions. He suggests that the best explanation is the one given by most NDE-subjects themselves (i.e. that they really are experiencing other realms of existence).

This book is part two in a series of three books by the author. The first book is “Parapsychology and the Skeptics” (2007), which makes a convincing case for the existence of some psi phenomena (and in the process also exposes weak objections by critics... click here for my review of it). Carter’s next book will look at reincarnation, apparitions, and mediumistic communications under fraud-resistant conditions (including several Leonora Piper cases, according to an email from Carter). These separate lines of evidence each point towards postmortem survival and they converge to make a very compelling cumulative case.

I’m glad that Carter also highlights examples of certain skeptics distorting or misusing data (e.g. Shermer’s misuse of Pim van Lommel’s Lancent paper). All too often, certain individual critics of parapsychology have distorted data and played unfairly. This was explored more thoroughly in Carter’s first book. I’m not saying (and Carter certainly isn’t saying) that all skeptics do that. People on both sides of the debate have played unfairly, and it needs to be pointed out whenever it happens.

With all of that being said, the AWARE study has the potential to strengthen or weaken the survivalist interpretation of NDEs. Of course, it won’t (or shouldn’t) be the last word. But if the results are negative— in the sense of NDE-OBE subjects making observational claims that are falsified* — then the survivalist interpretation of NDEs will be severely weakened. IF the AWARE study is negative in that sense, I hope that people will still buy and read Carter’s book for two reasons. First, Carter provides excellent discussions on physics, mind-brain models, and non-evidential aspects of NDEs. Second, Carter’s case is very suggestive, and a negative outcome from AWARE shouldn’t be the final word.

(* For example, let's say patient X has a classic NDE-OBE in which they observe their nurse performing jumping jacks in the ICU during surgery. Now let's say that the claim is falsified because video footage shows that the nurse did not perform any jumping jacks. Worse, X's false observation occurs without any verified observations. If the AWARE project produces many X cases then it would greatlt weaken the survivalist interpretation in my mind)

----- CRITICISMS -----

Unfortunately, Carter does not directly deal with Gerald Woerlee or Keith Augustine. Some of their claims can still be countered by what Carter says, but I wish that Carter had at least mentioned their work.

Also, in my judgment, the best "veridical" cases are not ironclad. That isn't Carter's fault, of course, but I remain hesitant because the current database of "veridical" NDEs can be picked at and have holes poked through it (though I also grant that some of the "holes" are unverifiable complaints). In my judgment, the case for authentic veridical NDEs is nowhere near as strong as the case for veridical "mediumship" produced by the British and American Societies for Psychical Research, though I hope it will be someday.

(Just to clarify on this last point, I'm 99% confident that the British and American SPRs documented genuine cases of psychic functioning in their best "medium" subjects, but I'm nowhere that confident in the paranormality of the best NDE cases)

Regardless of these shortcomings, I highly recommended this book and give it 4 out of 5 stars.

Same Sex Relationships: Revisiting the Creation Narrative

Below is a short essay I wrote on another blog.
========================

I want to revisit the creation narrative in Genesis 2:1-25, which many Christians claim shows God's true intention for romantic relationships. I'm not discussing other texts cited against SS relationships. Whether or not the Bible condemns SS relationships per se in other passages is not the topic of this entry, so please don't leave comments to the effect of: "Yes, but the Bible forbids homosexual acts in many passages". I'm simply suggesting that the creation narrative should not be used against SS relationships.

There are two arguments from silence that are often made against SS relationships, one of which is broad and the other is more specific.

The broad argument is "if SS relationships are acceptable, then why aren't they ever affirmed in the Bible?"

The more specific argument is "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" – i.e. the creation narrative lists the first couple, and they are opposite sexed, which therefore indicates that OS relationships are what God intended. It won't do any good to argue that the account is myth because non-literalist Christians can still argue something like the following: "The beautiful and divinely inspired myth contains an archetype of what romantic relationships are supposed to be like: one man and one woman."

I will discuss both arguments from silence below.

The first argument from silence

In the case of same-sex relationships per se from a scriptural point of view, does the absence of (explicit) affirmation equal the presence of condemnation?

Let's apply the same question to other activities that are never affirmed. The Bible never affirms or explicitly condones ingesting caffeine or junk food, yoga, full contact sports, or masturbation. Are these activities also immoral on the basis of scripture never mentioning them? In these latter cases, does the absence of affirmation equal the presence of condemnation? If not, then why not?

If anything, there is a much stronger case against full-contact sports and "fake" pro-wrestling (whose "competition" is fake but whose violence is real in varying degrees) than against same-sex relationships. Full contact sports (such as boxing or hockey) and pro-wrestling are very violent and always require damaging the human body, which is supposed to be a temple for the Lord.

And what about eating junk food and ingesting caffeine? "Junk food" is given that label because it provides little to no sustenance/nutritional support. It wastes the function of the intestines, which is to obtain nutrients from foods and deliver them to the bloodstream. Caffeine actually removes water from the body because it is a diuretic. Aside from that, it also interferes with sleep and is a highly addictive substance that leads to severe withdrawal symptoms. The more you drink the more you need, and the more you need the more severe the withdrawal. In other words, instead of consumers mastering caffeine, caffeine becomes the master and takes control. As with all addictions, the addict cannot function normally (in some cases for over a week) without another "hit". Why is caffeine consumption morally acceptable and yet same-sex relationships are not?

Again, I'm here dealing with the argument from silence. It's usually claimed that the Bible does indeed explicitly and repeatedly condemn all SS relationships for all time. But right now I'm dealing with the argument from silence ("the Bible never approves of SS relationships"). My contention is that the argument is very weak because the Bible never approves of many things that we take for granted.

The Second Argument from Silence – "Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve"

Conventional authors on this subject argue that if God affirms SS relationships, then he would have included a SS couple in the creation story. As the first argument from silence, I think this one is weak. Actually, I think that it's even weaker and also bizarre.

For starters, the creation narrative is silent on a lot of things that we would never condemn, such as celibacy, meat eating, platonic friendships, and so on. I want to briefly discuss each of those below.

Celibacy – Robert Gagnon argues that the affirmation of SS relationships would require an entirely different creation story, but he fails to note that the claim could be said of celibacy. In fact, the story commands the opposite ("be fruitful and multiply" and "for this reason a man will dabaq to woman"). The creation narrative simply does not mention or affirm either celibacy or singleness, but we would never condemn those... right? (By "celibacy", I mean total abstinence from sexual activity, something required of Catholic Priests)

Meat eating – the only diet mentioned is vegetarianism, and meat eating is not mentioned until much later in Genesis.

Platonic friendships – These are simply not mentioned; the only human relationship mentioned is an erotic/romantic relationship, and there is no hint in the story that humans were meant to have platonic friendships with each other. Conventional authors could counter by saying that "the story also never condemns such friendships", but that is precisely my point. The story never condemns SS relationships, but instead simply fails to mention them, which is not the same as indicating that OS relationships are somehow "ideal" or superior to SS relationships. Concluding otherwise would be hasty and inconsistent. Why not also conclude that "erotic relationships are ideal and superior to platonic relationships". And even if we do conclude that erotic relationships are better than platonic relationships, we would still not condemn platonic relationships... right?

Secondly, the model of one woman and one man is challenged by the Bible itself, indeed by Genesis itself. Genesis itself goes on to show the affirmation for polygamy (1 man with multiple women). Genesis also affirms concubines. And the vegetarian diet in the creation narrative is replaced with meat eating after Noah's flood. All of these are not only absent in the creation story, but they also go against the model in the creation story.

Third, prior to the creation of Eve, the creation story explicitly says that the animals were not suitable as a mate for Adam. But if SS relationships are wrong, then why didn't the story also explicitly say that Steve is not a suitable mate for Adam?? I first heard this particular argument from a biological anthropologist named Patrick Chapman, who recently published an excellent book that I highly recommend.

Aside from that, I think a lot of people will be interested in Brian Rainey's essay on the creation story (which I posted in my xanga, with all credit given to him, here)

So what am I saying? Again, I'm simply saying that the argument from silence is very weak, regardless of whether it takes place in the form of Adam and Eve or more broadly. But somebody could still argue that the Bible explicitly condemns SS relationships elsewhere. That isn't my present concern and is not the topic of this entry. One issue at a time.

Romans 1, those lusty gays, and hippies

This isn’t a formal essay, but I included footnotes and a brief list of sources because I like being neat.

In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul describes male-male sexual activity as “para phusis” and “atimia” (Romans 1:26-27). The former is often translated as “against nature” and the latter as “vile” or “shameful” or “disgraceful”.

There’s debate about whether Paul was including female-female sexual activity, or female-male activity that was “likewise” para phusis [1]. Moreover, there’s debate about whether Paul was linking the sexual activity of verses 26-27 to the preceding verses on idolatry, in which case he may have been describing certain cults that used male-male sexual activity to worship their god/goddess [2]. But for now, let’s leave those questions aside. I’ll come back to the idolatry issue later on. Instead, I want to focus on something else.

Long Hair on Men

St. Paul uses the same terminology to describe men with long hair in his letter to the Corinthian church (11:14). He asks his readers,

Does not even phusis itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is atimia to him?

Here the two key words used in Romans 1:26 (“phusis” and “atimia”) are used against men with long hair. This confirms my suspicion that hippies are evil people.

Seriously though, if Paul’s language in Romans 1 implies universal moral condemnation then why shouldn’t we interpret Corinthians 11:14 the same way? If we say that Paul’s condemnation of long hair is culturally-limited, then why can’t we say his condemnation of same-sex intercourse in Romans is also culturally-limited?

It’s also not clear what Paul meant by “phusis”. There are several possible interpretations.

If he really meant “nature” then Paul was badly mistaken. Biologists have shown that same-sex sexual activity is common in at least 450 animal species in otherwise non-pathological populations and some of those animals even form lifelong same-sex pairs [3]. And if anything, it’s against nature for men to cut their hair. (Interestingly, Leviticus 19:27 forbids men from cutting hair on the sides of their heads) But maybe Paul was offering his own opinion and was indeed mistaken.

Maybe the description was culturally-specific. Perhaps “para phusis” meant “unexpected”, or “beyond current cultural customs”, etc. Paul’s additional description of male-male sex as “aschemosyne” supports the idea that the description culturally-specific. This same word is in only one other NT text: Revelation 16:15, which uses the word to describe naked people. But surely there is nothing inherently wrong with being naked. In ancient Israel, Jewish culture forbade people from approaching God’s altar by walking up stairs for fear that the person’s genitalia would be exposed. The Septuagint translation of Exodus 20:26 refers to this custom using the word “aschemosyne” [4]. This would make sense of Paul’s description of long hair on men, unless we say that long hair on men is inherently immoral (or at least accuse Paul of saying that). In my experience, most Christians do not have a problem with men having long hair.

Maybe Paul meant “against individual inclinations” and was describing heterosexual men. This would make sense of his claim that the men “abandoned” women for each other. In general, gay men do not “give up” on women; they’re attracted to other men from an early age and usually don’t experience any attraction to women. Why heterosexual men would do that is another discussion. Perhaps they were only engaging in homoeroticism as a way of worshipping their god(dess), which I’ll elaborate on shortly.

Some may cite other texts that condemn same-sex eroticism, but for now let’s stick with the relevance of Romans 1. The specific words of “phusis” and “atimia” are not applied to same-sex eroticism in any other Biblical text. I’m suggesting that those specific words in Romans 1 do not imply a universal moral condemnation. If Paul were really making a universal moral condemnation with the words “phusis” and “atimia”, then perhaps it was just his own opinion, otherwise it would be sinful for men to have long hair.

Some may wish to bring up God’s design and say that same-sex eroticism is against God’s plan for mankind. Maybe SSE is against nature in that sense. But again, if we condemn SSE by citing Paul’s language in Romans 1, then why shouldn’t we condemn long hair on men by citing Corinthians 11:14?

Idolatry

In a conversation on another blog, I suggested that Paul was making a direct connection between the sex acts of v. 26-27 and the idolatry of v. 23-25. A fellow blogger expressed his doubts:

I will concede that it is possible that he [Paul] is listing various religious practices in chapter 1 of Romans, but I don't feel it is definitely so. The reason being, Paul is not that kind of writer. His letters often have convoluted clauses and subclauses, even subtopics in the middle of sentences, making it nearly impossible to discern whether two consecutive statements are directly related, or if they will both be tied in 4 paragraphs in the future.

This person was suggesting that Paul’s writing style tended to be so all over the place – so random – that we cannot definitively know whether Paul’s reference to same-sex activity was limited to a cultic sex. In contrast, I think that it is obvious that Paul directly linked the same-sex activity to idolatry. I invite people to carefully look at the passage for themselves: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-32;&version=KJV

In verse 21, Paul says

they knew God, [but] glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened

Paul continues describing the aforementioned “they” in verse 22:

professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

Wait, who is “they”? The reference to “they” refers the same people spoken of in verse 21. He hasn't changed the subject yet.

Verse 23 continues describing the people in verse 22. Here are verses 22 and 23 next to each other:

[v. 22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, [v. 23] And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

So verses 22 and 23 are both refer to the same people spoken of in verse 21. Paul hasn’t changed the subject yet.

Now we come to verse 24:

[v 24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.

Who is the unqualified “them” in verse 24? The word “them” here refers to the very same people in verse 23, who are the same people in verses 21 and 22. Paul hasn't changed the subject yet.

Now we come to verse 25:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen

What does Paul mean by the word “who” in the beginning of this verse? Paul is continuing his description of the people in verse 24, and verse 24 refers to the same people in verses 21-23.

Some may think that Paul’s use of “amen” implies a change in topic. However, the wording in the very next verse (v 26) shows that he hasn’t changed the subject yet. Here is verse 26:

For THIS CAUSE God gave THEM up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

Again, who is “them” that Paul is referring to? It must be the same people spoken of in verses 21-25. That explains why Paul says “for this cause”. What cause? The “cause” he mentions here is the idolatry in verses 23-25.

So Paul does not change the subject between verse 21 and verse 27. He is talking about the same people. The passage describes these particular people as engaging in specific forms of idolatry and engaging in certain sexual activities that were “para phusis” (discussed earlier).

It just so happens that in Paul’s era, there were priests called galli, and these galli had sex with male worshippers in the temples. Also, female galli sometimes used artificial penises to penetrate men. [2] Townsley also argues that the structure of Paul’s letter uses parallelism. Specifically, Townsley argues that verses 26-27 (the sexual verses) were meant to parallel verses 23-25 (the idolatry verses) [2].

Verse 26 is usually thought to condemn female-female eroticism (“lesbian sex”), but it is not explicitly stated. The parallel between verses 26 and 27 is that both sex acts are “para phusis”. Verse 26 refers to some kind of sexual activity that is para phusis, and 27 refers to men who engaged in activity that was “likewise” para phusis by having sex with each other. But this doesn’t mean that verse 26 refers to lesbianism. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn’t.

Footnotes:

[1] Discussed by Moore (2003), Chapman (2008), and Townsley (2001)

2. See Townsley’s online essay here (or shorter version here)

3. Bagemihl (2000). Also see Own (2004) and Chapman (2008). There is some dispute about whether any animals have a homosexual orientation. However, the existence of lifelong same-sex pairs (with sexual activity) in animals seems to suggest the existence of a “preference” or an innate predisposition.

4. Discussed by Moore (2003) and Chapman (2008)

Sources (alphabetically listed):

Bagemihl, B (2000). Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, published by Stonewall Inn Editions. Bagemihl is a biologist whose book was described by Nature as one that “should become the standard reference work for research on the topics covered”.

Chapman, P (2008). Thou Shalt Not Love: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays, published by Haiduk Press. Chapman is an anthropologist trained in cultural, forensic, and biological anthropology.

Moore, G (2003). A Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality, published by Continuum. Moore Was a Dominican Priest who gave lectures on theology and philosophy at Oxford. He died shortly before the book was published. Amazon link.

Owen, J (2004) Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate, National Geographic News. Available online here. A brief National Geographic video clip can also be found online here. At 1:56 the narrator notes that some male Orangutans invert their penises to create a cavity for other males to penetrate.

Brief Critique of Wl Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument

The KCA runs as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist (in an absolute manner).

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This cause, Craig argues, produced time altogether. He says time had an absolute beginning from a timeless cause, and the only way for a temporal effect to come from a timeless cause is for the cause to be personal (to possess self-awareness and free will). If that’s correct, then the cause of the universe is essentially a person that “was” timeless without the universe but is “now” temporally-extended with the universe. This is one of the most talked-about arguments for theism, but I’m not currently convinced by its usual formulations.

I’d like to question premise 1. Craig offers three reasons why he thinks premise 1 is true:

a) “Something cannot come from nothing” (actual quotation from Craig)

b) We don’t see other things coming into being from non-being... why is the universe the only thing that came into being from non-being?

c) The premise is constantly verified by observation, but never falsified.

Okay. Let’s talk about those justifications.

Defense a merely re-states the premise and hence cannot be a defense of the premise. To say that “something cannot come from nothing” is identical to saying that everything which begins to exist has a cause or that everything which comes into being did so because of some other being.

For defense b, Craig says that nothingness cannot be constrained by anything because “there isn’t anything to be constrained.” And he says that nothingness cannot have properties because there isn’t anything to possess properties. So IF the universe “literally came from nothing”, Craig wants to know why other things don’t also come from nothing. He says “it becomes inexplicable why just anything and everything doesn’t come into being from nothing.” We can’t say that nothingness is limited to producing universes because there isn’t anything to be limited.

Craig thinks this is a good defense of premise 1. However, the same reasoning can go in the other direction. Why should we expect “nothingness” to produce “anything and everything”? We can’t say that nothingness should be expected to possess such creative potential because there isn’t anything to be “creative” or to possess such creative potential. Moreover, “inexplicable” doesn’t mean “impossible”.

Regarding defense c, I would say that observing beings producing other beings does not undermine the possibility of some beings coming from non-being. Craig seems to mean that if it were possible for being to come from non-being, then we ought to observe it happening. But that was already suggested by defense b, to which I asked why we should expect nothingness to produce other things given that there isn’t anything for us to have expectations about.

Having said all of that, it may be the case that it’s metaphysically impossible for being to come from non-being. But if that is the case, we currently don’t have any way of knowing that it is the case. It’s just an assumption, or if you like, an intuition.

"out of nothing"

(This is not a formal paper... just a few brief comments)

I definitely don’t agree with everything William Lane Craig says*, but I think this is worth sharing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qQcWh3DKyg

Some (but certainly not all) atheists cite “virtual particles” coming out of the quantum vacuum and suggest that “if these can come into existence out of nothing, then so can out universe”.

As Craig points out, those particles do not “come from nothing”. They emerge out of pre-existing energy. Craig argues (elsewhere) that even the quantum vacuum energy had an absolute beginning “at some point in the finite past”.

The Origin of the Universe

I currently lack the expertise required for authoritative cosmological or astrophysical analysis. But Craig is not alone in his view on the absolute origin of all time, space, matter, and energy. Even some atheist/ agnostic cosmologists agree, including Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin. (Note: Guth’s view is sometimes misunderstood; he does not think that inflation is eternal in the past. He says that the idea “is in fact not possible” [1]).

Vilenkin argues that the laws of physics exist platonically and in a manner that is/was “logically prior” or explanatorily prior (but not temporally prior) to the absolute beginning of time. [2]

Craig argues that the absolute beginning of time (if there was one) would be evidence for theism (a key part of his Kalam Cosmological argument) [3], but I’m currently not convinced of that.

Despite Vilenkin’s suggestion that universe came from pre-existing platonic laws (that existed logically prior to the space-time-energy arena), he sometimes says that his model is that of spontaneous creation “out of nothing”. But clearly, if his model requires pre-existing platonic laws, it’s not “creation out of nothing”; rather it’s creation out of platonic/mathematical laws. Such “laws” may be hard to grasp, but they can’t coherently be described as “nothing” [4].

...

* (Regarding areas where I think Craig is mistaken)

For example, I think Craig’s moral argument for theism begs the question. Using Craig’s standard outline, the argument usually runs like this:

1. If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist

2. But objective moral values DO exist

3. Therefore, God exists

I think the argument is flawed, but let me clarify what Craig is saying. He is not saying (and IME has never said) that belief in God is necessary to live a morally-decent life. Instead, he is interested in the objective/subjective ontological status of moral values.

Craig defines an objective moral value as one that would be true and binding even if everybody disagreed with it. For example, Craig suggests that rape would be morally wrong even if everybody viewed it as morally neutral. And many people feel that way about moral values. Many (maybe most) people feel that rape violates some deep and intrinsic truth about reality. Craig suggests that such a feeling cannot be true UNLESS God exists “as an anchor point”. Craig is “interested in the plumb line”. If he is correct, then the existence of objective morality would prove God’s existence.

But how do we know whether objective morality exists (premise 2)? We feel it. It’s our moral experience. But how do we know whether our feelings/intuitions are correct? Craig is assuming that premise 2 is correct. Maybe it is, but I approach the issue differently.

My own approach is to FIRST argue that God exists (or that we have reason for thinking so). THEN from there I would suggest that our moral feelings are correct. So I think Craig’s approach is backwards. Here is how I would outline an argument:

1. If God exists then objective moral values exist because God serves as the anchor point

2. God exists (or more modestly: we have reasons for thinking that God exists)

3. Therefore, objective morality exists (or more modestly: to the extent that we are justified in inferring God’s existence, we are also justified in inferring the existence of objective moral values)

As I see it, if we want to know whether our moral intuitions are true then we need to first know whether God exists. I agree that objective morality exists, but only because I already believe in God (prior to contemplating the nature of morality).

FOOTNOTES:

1. Here are two interviews with Guth:

http://closertotruth.com/video-profile/Why-is-There-Anything-At-All-Alan-Guth-/860 (towards the end he says that time had an absolute beginning)

and here http://closertotruth.com/video-profile/Did-Our-Universe-have-a-Beginning-Alan-Guth-/856 (towards the end he says that it’s “in fact not possible” for inflation to be eternal in the past.)

2. Here’s an interesting interview with Vilenkin: http://closertotruth.com/video-profile/Did-Our-Universe-have-a-Beginning-Alexander-Vilenkin-/1402 - towards the end he clarifies that by “spontaneous creation out of nothing” he means creation from “laws” that existed “prior to the universe itself”. Then he suggests that “the laws of physics have some platonic existence that is independent of the universe”. He goes on to suggest that time itself had an absolute beginning and that it stemmed from the platonic laws.

3. Craig argues that a temporal effect cannot come from a timeless cause unless the cause possessed self-awareness and freewill (i.e. unless the cause is personal or a mind). For example, see Craig’s 1999 article “The Ultimate Question of Origins:
God and the Beginning of the Universe” in Astrophysics and Space Science, volume 269-270, pages 723-740. The entire paper can be read online at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html . Craig has more up to date articles available for free on his web site at www.reasonablefaith.org (you have to join before you can read, but membership is free). Additionally, Craig gave a lecture back in 2004 titled “Beyond the Big Bang”, which is currently available on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esqGaLSWgNc .

As I said, I’m currently not convinced, and neither are many others. For example, you can find several critiques of Craig’s argument at http://www.qsmithwmu.com/vita.htm (Craig has written several replies, which are available on his web site). Craig and Smith have debated back and forth several times. Though much of it is still beyond me, I recommend looking into their exchanges.

Annoying theism: "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it! Rawr-peoplechoosetobegayandscienceisbad!-rawr"

Annoying atheism: "Richard Dawkins said it, I believe it, that settles it. Rawr-itsokaytohaveasuperficialunderstandingofphilosophyandtheology!-Rawr"