April 27, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

I want to be sure my readers are not only aware of books
like Bondage of the Mind., but of who promotes such books. I do not recommend the
review linked above, but to give you a flavor for its position, the sixth paragraph begins,
"Gold [the author] begins his book with a series of chapters detailing the Old
Testament’s failure to live up to the Orthodox claim that it is the word of God
rather than the writings of men." In other words, before convincing the reader
that belief in the the Bible is bondage, the author must convince the reader
that the Bible is rubbish. This is good. No, not that he thinks the Bible is
rubbish, that he thinks it important to begin with that. Some "thinkers" today
would dispense with the truth position as irrelevant. Regardless of what you or
I think of his truth arguments, at least he has not gone off that deep end.

If you will scroll up the page from the above-mentioned
link, you will find that the commentary is provided by the Skeptics Society.
Interestingly enough, the Skeptics Society does not completely live up to its
name. Its most recent magazine issue presents articles on both sides of the global warming argument, but in
its issue on religion v. atheism, even in its article
against Dawkin’s atheistic position, they cannot bring themselves to seriously
question evolution. I defend that observation by how the article objects to
Dawkins. He does not object to evolution in general. Indeed, "Darwin’s theory
was enormously bolstered" by the discoveries of genetics, the author says (no
evidence provided). He merely
objects that Dawkins thinks randomness leads to evolution. So the alternative is
God, right? Wrong. The author’s argument
is not that there is an Intelligent Agent behind the universe, but that the
universe itself possesses intelligence: "The universe evolved along intelligent
lines." (Personally, I’d translate that as pantheism.)

Lest you think this is an out-of-touch organization, please
note that their positive review of Bondage of the Mind is promoted in the
Arts & Letters Daily, a publication of the Chronicle of Higher Education, the
most recognized publisher in the American education world. Does that sadden anyone besides me.

———-

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »

April 22, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

I hope I don’t get spiritual here for some of my readers,
but this serves as a very applicable example of the "selfish generosity" anomaly
discussed in my
April 6 blog. A couple of days ago I realized that I had underpaid a
contractor for a fence installation on my property. I called him up and
explained that I owed him more money, and he quickly came to my door for the
difference. He thanked me profusely, understanding that I already had my receipt
and my fence. I just smiled. Get ready: Here’s the spiritual part. Once before I
remember correcting a cashier by giving her back some change. When she thanked
me, I said, something like, "It’s a God thing;" she replied something like,
"Yeah, it’s not worth going to Hell for." She didn’t get it, and I wasn’t going
to try to explain it to the contractor. May I try here?

According to my understanding of the Bible, my
salvation is free. That means that I cannot earn it, and I’m required to pay
no installments to keep it. The Bible says
God is just, so He should enjoy my restitution of the money. My sole
motivation was gratitude: I did it
for God’s pleasure, not my gain. Might I have done it to gain some reward in
Heaven? The Bible suggests that there might be such rewards, but it also says
that if I do my giving before other people (as I am doing by telling you this
story), then I have my reward already. So I did it so I could tell you and get your
admiration! No, I did it before I thought of telling you. And I wouldn’t tell
you afterwards if I wanted to protect some reward in Heaven. Whatever reward I’m
forfeiting here, I consider nothing for the sake of giving you this example..
so, I really did it for no other reason than gratitude, in this case, to give God pleasure. If one
really believes there is a God
Who offers free salvation, then this is not only how one should act, but
also why one should act. Can this really work? Most people don’t believe it can,
and that’s why they keep coming up with religions that offer rewards and
punishments for behaviors. But there are some people who really do believe the
Bible, and those who don’t, really can’t believe them.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

April 10, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

The movie "Expelled" opens in theaters around the country April 18. To find a theater near you, go to http://www.expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php and type in your zip. Then notify your church groups! This is a great opportunity to get the message out in terms that anyone can understand.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

April 6, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Last month the New Your Times Magazine carried

this article discussing why humans might do good deeds toward others with
seemingly no payback. This is not an isolated article, but an
ongoing debate among behavioral scientists. The condition is an anomaly for the ubiquitous
buy-in to Darwinian theory, and this article is no exception. If one accepts
Darwinian theory as the "universal acid" that replaces all other foundations of thought, then everything must
ultimately be explained in terms of survival of the fittest. All altruism must
be somehow the result of something that benefits the doer (or else the gene that
causes the behavior will not be passes on). There is no way around it; believers
don’t have to like it–If Darwinian theory is true, then all human tendencies,
no matter how loving, patriotic, ethical, of otherwise giving they may appear,
must ultimately be motivated by selfishness.

Evolutionary psychologists have worked hard to come up with
selfish explanations for altruism, pro-social behavior, or whatever
they want to call it, but the gaps are blatant. The Times Magazine
article introduces four major contenders for Darwinian explanation, and then
shoots each down as not quite adequate to explain the philanthropy of
Bill and Melinda Gates.

May I suggest another possibility–not necessarily a
religious one? What about cognitive dissonance–the human need to make sense of
all things together and create balance in one’s own mind?
Cognitive dissonance
posits that humans will be motivated toward equality simply to balance their own
thinking about themselves and the world around them. For instance, if I am paid
less than the person next to me for doing the same job, all else being equal, I
will have a tendency to produce less than that person, just to balance what
aught to be. By this same logic, if one receives much, one would tend to feel a
responsibility to give or share with others. My two examples fit cognitive
dissonance as expressed in equity theory.This is not a religious concept,
and it can easily be explained as a capacity
that would contribute toward survival, so why is it not a contender to explain
altruism? Because it recognizes that humans alone possess the capacity for
cognitive dissonance. Regardless of its survivability, Darwinian thinking cannot
acknowledge that humans possess any quality that is not simply a matter of
degree in difference from the rest of the animal kingdom. (Darwin said that if
there are no degrees, his theory would "absolutely break down.")

This last example might also fit the concept of guilt,
which is hard pressed to find its place in Darwinian thinking. 
But consider an even larger step away from
Darwinism–gratitude. We have this word in English because we hold this concept
as viable. Gratitude informs my giving behavior when I expect neither return
(reciprocity) nor balance (equity), when I perceive that I am either incapable
of or not required to pay back. The concept implies that one can give post gain
(when there is nothing left to gain) and post obligation (when free from any
obligation at all). This can in no way be reconciled in Darwinian theory, and
yet we all hold this concept. Either gratitude exists, or Darwinian theory is a
universal truth. If you hold Darwinian theory as a universal truth, this could
cause you some cognitive dissonance.

Posted in Science and faith | 1 Comment »

April 3, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

I regret that my travel schedule will prevent me from
attending either presentation by Dinesh D’Souza in Birmingham, AL on April 17th,
but perhaps some readers are within driving distance. He is speaking at the
Latimer House Luncheon, 11:30-12:30 PM ($10 lunch) on his new book

What’s So Great about Christianity, and at Reid Chapel, Samford University at 7 PM
(free admission) on "Christianity, Islam, and the War on Terror." Neither event
requires reservation. I was not familiar with Mr. D’Souza’s work before hearing
of these events, but I am intrigued by his

Washington Post article in response to his other writings. Anyone who is
that criticized must have something to say! If you can’t attend, at least read
the article.

I can’t say at this point if I buy his total view (I
haven’t heard his total view), but in the article he well defends the following
argument: "The thrust of the radical Muslim critique of America is that
Islam is under attack from the global forces of atheism and immorality — and
that the United States is leading that attack."

The man warrants a hearing.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics | No Comments »