God's plan for economics?

Acts 4


32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

What does God think of keeping what you earn? Read what happened to Ananias and Sapphira.

OK, I'm pulling your leg, but only partly.

Gilbert Meilaender reviews Nagel's The Last Word

A redated post.

I believe that Thomas Nagel's The Last Word is really a defense of the Argument from Reason that stops short of offering theism as the conclusion. Nevertheless it does attack naturalism as we know it. The is Lewis scholar Meilaender's review of Nagel's book.

Frank Beckwith rebuts Thomson

Not the original Thomson article, but the new one that BDK linked to.

What does it mean to judge someone?

What does it mean to judge someone? Is it to form an opinion concerning the rightness of an act that someone performed? Or is it to form an opinion regraded the character of the person who performed that act?

If we are talking about the first concept, then if we have a moral standard that proscribes actions that other frequently perform, then we end up often judging others. But I don't see anything wrong with "judging" in that sense. The idea that we have to dumb down all standards of morality for fear of being guilty of judging others seems to me to be ridiculous (though popular). It is more difficult to draw inferences concerning the character of others, however, and so there is a reason to refrain from making these sorts of judgments. But very often we are told we ought not to judge, which ends up meaning we ought not to hold moral standards that would result in our disapproving of the conduct of others.

Abortion and the Deer Hunter Argument

Versions of this argument are found in Beckwith quite frequently. What do you think?

If you were out hunting, and you saw something move, and you didn't know whether it was a deer or a human person, would you fire, or refrain? If we are in doubt as to whether or not fetuses are persons, doesn't moral prudence dictate that we refrain from abortions until we get it figured out?

Asking for a parody

Apparently there is something about the sappy, left-wing idealism if John Lennon's Imagine that invites parody. Do you have any idea how many people have posted versions of "Imagine there's no liberals" and posted it on the internet?

Do skeptics use non-rational persuasion?

Of course.

There is something pusillanimous and sniveling about this point of view, that makes me scarcely able to consider it with patience. To refuse to face facts merely because they are unpleasant is considered the mark of a weak character, except in the sphere of religion. I do not see how it can be ignoble to yield to the tyranny of fear in all terrestrial matters, but noble and virtuous to do the same things where God and the future life are concerned. Bertrand Russell, The Value of Free Thought (1944).

Now this is in defense of the "rational" position, but I mean who wants to be called pusillanimous and sniveling?

Epicurus on death

When death is not, we are, and when death is, we are not. So Epicurus argued that we should not fear death. But would that make murder a victimless crime? After all, once it is committed, the victim is no longer around.

Imposing your religion on others

It is sometimes said that religious believers attempt to impose their religious views on others, and that this is bad. What does this mean? How are they "imposing" their beliefs? With guns, knives, or weapons of mass destruction? Where is this coercion going on?

Even with Jehovah's Witness "door knocking," I don't see the coercion. I really don't.

Bad News for Evangelicals???

I did a search in Bible Gateway for the phrase "accept Christ" and found no responses. Does this mean that pleas to "accept Christ" are unbiblical?

Same thing happened with "lord and savior."

Ilion's defense of the death penalty

Ilion says that I haven't really addressed his argument for capital punishment. It looks like it goes like this.

1. Any civilized society stands in need of protection.
2. The protection of society requires the preparedness to use deadly force. An example would be if, actually happened in 1966, someone went up into the bell tower at the University of Texas and started shooting people. He had to be shot down out of the tower to protect the student and staff of the university.
3. Therefore, a systematic rejection of deadly force in the protection of society undermines the very idea of protecting society.

I think this is a good answer to a simon-pure pacifism. However, someone could argue as follows.

1. The use of deadly force should be used only as a last resort.
2. In the case of captured criminals, deadly force is never a last resort. It is always possible to lock these people up and throw away the key.
3. Therefore, the need to protect society may require the preparedness to kill in some cases, but does not require the preparedness to execute.

It could further be argued that if we have the capacity to imprison for life, this is preferable, because of the possibility that always exists that exculpatory evidence may subsequently emerge.

C. S. Lewis's critique of the raw divine command theory

I asked what refutation might be available for what I called the raw divine command theory. This critique, for Lewis's A Grief Observed, is the closest I've seen to a refutation.

And so what? This, for all practical (and speculative) purposes
sponges God off the slate. The word good, as applied to him, becomes
meaningless: like abracadabra. We have no motive for obeying Him.
Not even fear. It is true that we have His threats and promises. But why
should we believe them? If cruelty is from His point of view “good,”
telling lies may be “good” too. Even if they are true, what then? If His
ideas of good are so very different from ours, what He calls “Heaven”
might well be what we should call Hell, and vice versa. Finally, if reality
at its very root is so meaningless to us—or, putting it the other way
round, if we are such total imbeciles—what is the point of trying to
think either about God or about anything else? The knot comes undone
when you try to pull it tight.

Abortion: The Only Truly Infallible Method of Evangelism?

According to some theologies, killing someone in infancy guarantees their eternal salvation. On the other hand, if the kid grows up, he might reach the age of accountability and refuse God's saving grace, which means they will be lost. Is this an argument for abortion and infanticide, on the grounds that it is the only truly foolproof method of evangelism available???

The rebuttal to this argument is often that humans shouldn't play God. But what does that do to the argument above that a good God would not order the death of the Amalekite children? You can't criticize God for playing God.

I would just point out that it could turn out that God's having people killed may give the people who are killed the best chance of salvation. If there is an eternal life, then it may be that God is aware of eternal consequences that humans are not. Of course, on the thesis that "a tree lies as it falls," the Amalekite adults would be ushered immediately into eternal damnation.

I do think the Amalekite case, and cases like it, are somewhat more complex than ordinary human cases of genocide or infanticide.

Also, we ought to reflect a little bit on the phrase "human beings shouldn't play God." Should a thoroughgoing utilitarian who believes in God be deterred by this argument?

The Raw, Naked, Divine Command Theory

Here is a moral theory.

Good = In accordance with the will of the most powerful being.

Why is infanticide wrong for humans? Because the most powerful being forbids it.

Why is the infanticide of the Amalekites justified? Because the most powerful being commanded it.

Why is God justified in predestining people for hell? Because he is the most powerful being.

Why are humans not justified in making the lives of others a living hell? Because the most powerful being has commanded them not to do it.

I find this position morally repugnant, of course. But is there an actual refutation available?

Bill Craig still wants to debate Dawkins

I find WLC-style debates do have some limits with respect to scholarly discussion, though they are entertaining. The best reason for someone not to debate Craig would be that one's work is to scholarly and complex to present in a debate format. Dawkins doesn't have this excuse.

Is oil a good enough reason to start a war?

Is it morally acceptable to start a war in order to further one's country's economic instance. Whenever I ask "Why Iraq and not Darfur" the answer keeps coming up "Black Gold. Texas Tea." I'm starting to hear commentators defend this motivation, as opposed to denying it.