Monthly Archives: January 2013

Religion has an ego?

Here is a statement a friend of mine posted recently.  I decided to engage him in dialogue.  Here is what ensued. 

 

“Science is not egotistical, unlike religion it has no problem with being proven wrong.”

 

I respect your opinion; however, you make a few assumptions in this statement which if you are a naturalist, contradict such a position.  First, you state that science is not egotistical.  Ok, that’s fair.  There is nothing self-evidently egotistical in a field of study itself.  However, you are juxtaposing it with religion.  Is religion as an entity really self-evidently egotistical?  Do you have empirical evidence to make such a claim?  You and I have talked before—concerning evidence—I’m holding you to the same standard.

This is a tough position to take.  Essentially, one is taking a position of saying, a discipline is egotistical.  For example, science is humble, but architecture is egotistical.  How can one prove such a claim?  Science is the study of how the universe works, and architecture is the discipline of building shapes.  How in a pure sense are either of these egotistical or not?  How is this any different from an abstract object like a number?  Is the number seven egotistical but the number two isn’t?  Does religion really have a problem with being proved wrong?  Again, here, his statement has assumptions.  Of course, when I point this out—it is met with counter fire.  We will see my other points in a minute.

 

  Secondly, in this statement there are inherent moral judgments you are making.  You are clearly claiming science to be virtuous because it is not egotistical, yet religion is immoral because it IS egotistical.  So you recognize morality.  Can a naturalist recognize morality?  Richard Dawkins has been quoted as saying we are merely “dancing to our DNA.”  In this view, Hitler is no different from Mother Theresa.  They are just results of their DNA.  If this is so, how can morality be a topic of conversation?  Further, if one is a self-proclaimed atheist, surely he/she will respect the works of Nietzsche.  Nietzsche himself is quoted as saying morality “has truth only if God is the truth—it stands or falls with faith in God.”  We also see Nietzsches Parable of the Madman:

“Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!” — As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? — Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him — you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

“How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us — for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.”

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars — and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: “What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?”[1]

 So, if one holds to a view of Nietzsche’s philosophy, and yet makes moral assumptions like this—a syllogism could easily follow

 

  1. If God does not exist, neither do objective morals
  2. objective morals DO exist
  3. Therefore, God exists

 

 Finally, I examine your use of the law of parsimony; or David Hume’s verification test:  simply put, propositions are either true by definition, or they are true by empirical verification. If a proposition cannot satisfy either criteria, then it is meaningless. Since God does not exist by definition, the naturalist would insist, and since we cannot verify His presence empirically, clearly God has been refuted by the Principle of Parsimony.  God is disproved, right?  Well, no.

I would like to apply this two-fold test to the Principle of Parsimony itself. Is it true by definition? No. Well, can it be verified empirically? Again, no.  So, should we throw out the principle altogether?  Again, no.  This is absurd.

 

Though my syllogism above works—I do not claim to be able to prove God’s existence.  Science likewise cannot prove that He does not exist.  However, in every statement or question, there are always assumptions.  More times than not, when one questions God, there are always “moral” or judgmental implications—see Dawkins torrent of incendiary remarks about God in “God Delusion”—

 Here is the rub, The question the skeptic asks is usually something like “if a good God existed, there wouldn’t be as much evil.  There is much evil, so God must not exist.”  Well I argue  that if you believe there is such a thing as good and evil, you must then posit a moral law on the basis of which to distinguish such.  If there is a moral law, then there must be a moral law-giver (that being God) and you end up affirming the existence of God when you initially set out to deny His existence.[2]

 Now one may wonder: why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued. And that person can only be God.[3]

Now I have to say, after my friend and I talked…perhaps the original post he made wasn’t exactly implying what he wanted it to imply.  Like I say, it DOES have assumptions.  Whether one recognizes this or not, they are there.  His position is that religion is dogmatic in its views and science is open to new findings–basically. 

Is that true?  Here is what eminent athiest philosopher Thomas Nagel has to say on the subject: 

“I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.  It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief.  It’s that I hope there is no God!  I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.  My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism in our time.  One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind.”

Well, that sounds objective.  I would say there…a man of science is truly looking to find a better way.  Hardly!  He is closed to anything but HIS way. 

I close with a few quotes.  CS Lewis, the prominent atheist-turned Christian writer said, “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they beleived in a lawgiver.” 

Kepler said “The cheif aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics.”

Finally–a contradiction to poonder:  Oxford chemist Peter Atkins said of the widespread view that religion and science essentially conflict with each other, “Science and religion cannot be reconciled.”  Well, if this is so, one would expect all serious scientists to be atheists–and this is not true!  A 1996 survey showed that 40% of scientists believe in the person of Christ.  Further, scientists at the HIGHEST level are beleivers.  This includes scientists like Nobel Prize winner Bill Phillips and Human Genome Project director Francis Collins.

Something to think about!

 

 


[2] Ravi Zacharias, Beyond Opinion, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 2007.

[3] Ibid

Advertisements

Moral Relativism is bankrupt

“Stop cramming your morals down my throat!”  “What is right for you may not be right for me.”  Have you ever heard statements like this?  Or most recently,  “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle.”  Well if you have, chances are you have dealt with someone who claims to be a moral relativist.  Lets look at this worldview.  Philosophically, relativism has some fatal problems.

  1. Relativism is self—defeating.

Those who argue against objective morality usually make two statements:

    1. There is no absolute truth
    2. There are no absolute values

The first claim has some obvious philosophical issues.  If this statement is true, “there is no absolute truth,” then that statement itself is not true.  This is essentially what is called a self-defeating statement.  It holds no philosophical or logical power.  It is akin to saying, “I can’t express myself in words.”  What does this mean?  Didn’t the person just express themselves with words?  Another statement you may hear is, “Just because its true for you, doesn’t mean its true for me.”  Well, ask them simply, “is that statement true?”  They may even say something as bankrupt as, “There is no such thing as truth.”  To that, I reply: “Is that statement true?”  The moral relativist cannot hold a philosophically sound position.  They end up affirming the very thing they are denying exists.

Norman Geisler points out in his book, Legislating Morality, that Joseph Fletcher, the father of situational ethics, falls into this trap.  In Fletcher’s book, Situational Ethics, he insists that “The situationalist avoids words like never and perfect and always…as he avoids the plague, as he avoids absolutely.”   Fletcher goes on to say that “One should never say never, or we should always avoid using the word always.”  The problem is, these statements do not avoid what they are instructing the reader to avoid.  Relativists are ABSOLUTELY sure that there are no absolutes.

That is absolute truth.  What about absolute values?  These are also undeniable.  Imagine for a moment having an intense discussion with a friend who disagrees with you.  This friend tells you that there are no moral absolutes and each person must determine what is right or wrong to them.  How do you think your friend would react if you told him or her to shut up, and that they had no right to express their opinion?  I am sure they would reject your attack and would point out that you failed to respect what everyone knows to be true—the fact that they DO have the right to express their opinion.

Geisler shares a scenario in which he was talking to a group of affluent, well educated Chicago suburbanites.  After suggesting there are such things as objective moral values to which we all have an obligation, one woman stood up and protested loudly:  “There are no real values.  It’s all a matter of taste or opinion!”  He says he resisted the urge to make his point clear by shouting back, “Sit down and shut up, you egghead!  Who wants to hear your opinion?”  Of course, if Geisler would have done such a thing, she would have rightly complained that he had violated her right to opinion and her right to express it.  To this, Geisler could have responded, “You have no such right—you just told me those rights do not exist!”

The late Allan Bloom, whose book on the decline of American education, The Closing of the American Mind, used to confront University of Chicago students with an ethical dilemma.

In India, the cultural custom was to burn the widow of a deceased husband at the husband’s funeral.  So Bloom, trying to get his students to admit that such a practice was absolutely wrong, asked them this question:  “If you had been a British administrator in India, would you have let the natives under your governance burn the widow at the funeral of a man (her husband) who had died?”  It is obvious that burning the living among the dead is absolutely wrong, and it would be the duty of the British to outlaw such a practice.  However, this left Bloom’s students with a dilemma.  If they said they would not have stopped it, they would have been an accomplice to murder.  But if they said they would have stopped it, then they would be admitting that relativism is false.  What did his relativistic students do?  Instead of dealing with the dilemma, they skirted the issue.  A typical response would be diversionary such as, “The British shouldn’t have been there in the first place,” or just a stunned silence.

  1. We wouldn’t know injustice unless there was an objective standard of justice.

Several years ago, a professor of ethics at Indiana University, assigned a term paper to his students.  He allowed them to write on any topic they wanted, only requiring to properly back up their thesis with documented sources.  One student, a relativist, wrote a convincing paper on the merits of relativism and demonstrated how it was in his opinion philosophically valid.  He argued, “All morals are relative; it’s a matter of opinion; I like chocolate, you like vanilla,” etc.  His paper was well written, properly documented, the right length, and turned in on time.  It was presented in a stylish blue folder.  The professor read the entire paper and then wrote on the front cover, “F.  I don’t like blue folders.”

When the student got his paper back, he was irate.  He stormed into the professors office and declared, “’F, I don’t like blue folders!’  That’s not fair, that’s not right, that’s not just!  You didn’t grade the paper on its merits!”

Raising his hand to quiet the bombastic student, the professor calmly retorted, “Wait a minute, hold on.  What’s this you say about being fair, right, and just?  Didn’t your paper argue that its all a matter of taste?  You like chocolate, I like vanilla?”

The student replied, “Yes, that’s my view.”

The professor responded, “Fine, then.  I don’t like blue.  You get an F!”

At this point the light bulb went off in the students head.  He actually did believe in absolutes:  at least he believed in fairness, rightness, and justice.  He realized that he was charging his professor with injustice by appealing to an objective standard of justice.  This simple fact defeated his entire case for relativism.

What can we learn here?  There are absolute morals.  To get the self-proclaimed relativist to admit it, all you have to do is treat them unfairly.  Their reaction will reveal the Moral Law written on their hearts and minds.

  1. Measurement is only possible with an objective standard

Quite simply, how do we know Hitler was evil and Mother Theresa was good?  If one holds to a relativistic framework, they cannot distinguish.  Another way of saying this is to simply as the question, “Relative to what?”

Picture yourself sitting in your car at a traffic light and the car next to you appears to be moving.  Is it you moving or the other car?  Is there any way to tell who is moving if both you and the other car are actually in motion?  You say, “Look at a tree.”  Suppose the trees are moving too, as well as the buildings, light posts, telephone poles, the road, and everything else?  The fact is, with everything moving, there is no way to measure change.  Something MUST be a stationary, absolute reference point in order to figure out who is moving and who isn’t.

Just like motion, morality makes no sense if there isn’t an unchanging reference point.  If there was no absolute moral point of reference, statements like “Hitler was evil,” “Racism is wrong,” and “You shouldn’t abuse children” have no objective meaning.  They are merely someone’s opinion on par with “Chocolate tastes better than vanilla.”  But we know Hitler was wrong, as is racism and child abuse, because we have an absolute reference point called a Moral Law.

Without the absolute reference point provided by the Moral Law, simple value-packed terms such as “good,” “bad,” “better,” and “worse” would have no meaning.  But, they DO have meaning.  For example, when we say, “Society is getting worse,” we are comparing society to some external standard.  Likewise when we compare Mother Theresa to Hitler, we are implicitly comparing each one of them to some standard beyond both of them.  We recognize Mother Theresa as good because by helping the poor she more closely followed the Moral Law we all intuitively understand.  ON the other hand, it’s obvious to us that Hitler was bad because his actions were contrary to the Moral Law—he didn’t treat people as he would want them to treat him.

4.  Without absolutes, moral disagreements are impossible.

Consider the last time you had an argument with someone.  Why were you two arguing?  Well, namely, because you felt your position was “right” and the other person was “wrong.”  However, this only makes sense if there is a standard by which we can define “right” and “wrong.”  Whenever you argue with someone, you are implicitly admitting that there is such a standard.  The truth is, your argument is based on your belief that you are closer to being objectively “right” than the other person.

Real moral arguments are not possible without moral absolutes.  Without these standards, all disagreements would be nothing more but differences of taste or opinion.  For example, one person would be justified in called Mother Theresa “bad” and Hitler “good.”  Another person would be justified in calling Mother Theresa “good” and Hitler “bad.”  Likewise, another person might argue that the “best” thing anyone could do would be murder, and that there is nothing wrong with child abuse or slavery; rape should be encouraged; kindness to other should be outlawed; there’s no moral difference between the ideals of the KKK and Martin Luther King, etc.  Our morally informed consciences tell us that these confusions are nonsense—they are absolutely wrong.  If these are wrong, then so is relativism.

In other words, we know through the Moral Law that there are things that are absolutely wrong (murder, rape, child abuse, etc.).  So relativism must be false.  To believe in relativism is to believe there are no real moral differences between Mother Theresa and Hitler, freedom and slavery, equality and racism, care and abuse, love and hate, or life and murder.

This is true, but do humans determine right and wrong, or do they discover right and wrong?  If we determine it, then anyone would be right in asserting any of the absurd conclusions listed above.  People don’t create truth, they find it.  Newton didn’t determine the law of gravity, he discovered it.  Likewise, humans haven’t determined that murder is wrong, we have discovered it through our consciences, which reflect the Moral Law.

 The Moral Law must have a source higher than ourselves:  Here is a simple syllogism:

  1.       If God doesn’t exist, neither do objective morals
  2.      Objective morals do exist
  3.      Therefore, God exists

 

The moral prescription that is on the hearts of all people must have been put there by a Moral Prescriber.  So what is manifested through the Moral Law is Gods definition of right and wrong.  And we need Gods definition because without an absolute authority to adjudicate between the opinions of people, we’re left with just that—opinions.  In other words, absolutes are absolutes because they are the final standard by which everything is measured.

I leave you with a logical progression

If you believe in the existence of evil, you must believe in the existence of good.  How you differentiate between the two except by an existing standard called a Moral Law.  If you have a Moral Law, you must posit a Moral Lawgiver. 

 

One might say, why must you jump from Moral Law to Moral Lawgiver?  Why does it have to be a person? 

Here is Ravi Zacharias on that very subject: Now one may wonder: why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued. And that person can only be God”

 

 

 

Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, Legistlating Morality,  Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, MN.  1998.

 

Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994)

Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004

Craig, Wiliam Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.

 

“We cannot mistake absolutism for principle…” intellectual fraud

“We cannot mistake absolutism for principle…”—Barack Obama, Inauguration Speech 2013

With those six words, it is clear that we live in a society in which one can accurately deduce that all definitions are dead.  Now, what absolutism is Mr. Obama referring to?  I wouldn’t hesitate to say he is referring to the idea of moral absolutism.  Here is a definition:  the position that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are either good or evil, regardless of the context of the act

Do moral absolutes exist?  I think we can answer this question; but first, what does he mean by principle?

Here are some definitions from Merriam Webster on principle:

a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption

 b (1) : a rule or code of conduct (2) : habitual devotion to right principles <a man of principle>

 Notice the difference between moral absolute and principle.  The idea of a moral absolute implies a standard against which all things are judged, while a principle is a set of rules.  A standard implies rules, rules imply a standard; albeit, it can either be a divine standard or a human one.

Let us look at a modified syllogism that comes from the moral argument

1. If objective morals do not exist, neither does God.

2. God exists.

3. Therefore, Objective morals exist.

Of course this syllogism can work another way

1. If God does not exist, neither do objective morals.

2.  Objective morals exist.

3.  Therefore, God exists.

Now, this is an interesting use of logic and one that demands an answer.  In the first syllogism, which premise is Mr. Obama willing to deny to make his claim?  Is he willing to deny premise #1?  Is he willing to reject premise #2?

I have asked the same of atheists, and they struggle with the second syllogism.  They cannot easily deny premise #1, because even Nietzsche affirmed this.  Premise #2 is the one they will likely go for.

Can I prove that there are objective morals, that is to say, absolutes?

Do you believe in evil?  Well, if you affirm evil, you have to grant the opposite existence of good.  But, if you affirm both of these, how are you able to differentiate between them?  This implies a moral law.  Only a moral law will allow you to differentiate between good and evil.  A moral law posits a moral law giver.  A moral law giver posits God.

Well, why does a moral law have to culminate in God?  Well, what you will find is all attacks of morality are from a person, about a person, or toward a person.  The idea of personhood is prevalent here.  A person who complains that I am pro-life and argues that a person should be able to make the choice of the fate of an unwanted infant while inside the womb, is also the same person that will point the accusatory finger at God and ask why he is a moral monster when he allows their loved one to go down in a plane crash.

They will play God in one instance and allow the loss of life, yet question God’s moral character in another instance when his plan doesn’t adhere to their idea of morality.

So you see, no God, no moral law giver.  No moral law giver, no moral law.  No moral law, no differentiation between good and evil.  No good—no evil, no reality.  What is your question?

I am reminded of the debate between the Jesuit preist Frederick Copleston and the atheist Bertrand Russell. At one point in the debate, Copleston said, “Mr. Russell, you do believe in good and bad, don’t you?” Russell answered, “Yes I do.” “How do you differentiate between them?” challenged Copleston. Russell shrugged his shoulders as he was wont to do in philosophical dead ends for him and said, “The same way I differentiate between
yellow and blue.” Copleston graciously responded and said, “But Mr. Russell, you
differentiate between yellow and blue by seeing, don’t you? How do you
differentiate between good and bad?” Russell, with all of his genius still
within reach, gave the most vapid answer he could have given: “On the basis of
feeling-what else?” I must confess, Mr. Copleston was a kindlier gentleman than
many others. The appropriate “logical kill” for the moment would have been, Mr.
Russell, in some cultures the love their neighbors; in others they eat them,
both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?”

“We cannot mistake absolutism for principle…

This is intellectual fraud masquerading as lofty rhetoric.  What he means is, we cannot operate within established boundaries, we need new ones.  This begs the question, “which ones?”  “Who will define them?”  If absolute morality is no longer acceptable, who will write the laws?  Which person, Mother Theresa or Hitler?

Richard Dawkins, the geneticist and famed atheist has said, we are “just dancing to our DNA.”  We cannot be held accountable for our actions.  It is just the random firing of our DNA, chromosomes, and neurons.  In this worldview of the naturalist, there is no such thing as morality.  Rape, murder, and genocide are on the same playing field as selling Lemonade.

Maybe we should let him establish the boundaries.  Even Hitler would get a pass.  He was just doing what his DNA told him to do.  Take Adam Lanza for example.  Why is everyone down on him?  It was just his DNA.

The last point I want to make comes by way of the Bible.  Remember when Pilate was questioning Jesus?  Pilate asked, “what is truth?”  He walked away before Jesus could answer.  All the time, the Truth was standing right there in front of him and he hadnt bothered to see it.  This is the same today.  Absolute truth does exist and it exists in the person of Christ.  No man, legislation, king, ruler, or slogan such as hope, change, or forward can bring men redemption.  It is only found in Christ.  John 14:6 clearly says “..I am the TRUTH and the LIFE…”

Maybe Obama is right.  Let’s adopt his principles.  They are the example to follow.  Just call George Obama in Africa.  Ask if his own brother has been his keeper lately.

The Law of Non-Contradiction–Gun Control and Abortion!

Think with me for a moment as I logically play this out.

1.  If guns were abolished, less crime would take place.

2.  Crime takes place.

3.  Guns should be abolished.

This is a summarized form of the basic logic that goes through the mind of many liberal anti-gun citizens in this country.  The common logic is, less guns–less crime.  Rather than argue this and do a comparative analysis of all the studies that support this (though they are biased), and the studies that show this to be fallacious, I instead would like to follow the idea of total disarmament to its logical conclusion.

If mankind were disarmed, what would happen?  If President Obama could wave his magic wand and have what he wanted, what would the world look like?  Well, for starters, no one would oppose him.  This is the ideology of the dictatorial ruler.  Secondly, there would be no guns.  There would be countless other effects, but let us focus on the gun issue.

A world without guns.  In fact, let us take that a step further–a world without weapons (now the liberal will say, “but only guns are being talked about currently.”  Yes, but once this has been banned, the next logical step is whatever weapon poses a threat besides guns).  Can you imagine this?  Peace on earth right?  A world that does not have weapons.  I am instantly reminded of the scene from the beginning of 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Is it the bone in the hand of the ape that made him dangerous?  No.  It was the idea that he was given by the monolith–The knowledge (even the Strauss tune in the background gives us a glimpse into Nietzsches philosophy of the superman–ideas and knowledge as power). Understanding that guns in and of themselves arent the issue, we can understand more about what the liberals are after.  At the end of all arguments about gun control, one must understand that this is about control period.

If all men were disarmed–No guns, no nuclear bombs, no knives, etc.  Who would be the enemy?  Well, frankly–the man with the knowledge to make a weapon.   Think about that.  In a world without nuclear explosives  the man who is the most dangerous.  There is a joke in the Middle East:  “What does a dictator call a dictaor with a nuclear bomb?”  Answer:  Sir.

The real danger in a weapon free world is the one who knows HOW to make weapons.  Knowledge becomes more powerful than any inanimate object.  Listen to Mr. Colion Noir second my thoughts here:

Liberals love to project their “idea” of evil onto plastic and metal, rather than place the blame on a person.  They love to remove the sacred idea of person-hood when it is convenient for them.  We see it in abortion as well.  However, they conveniently apply person-hood when it comes to paying taxes–fair share.  How can one reject person-hood and affirm it at the same time?  Answer is–you cant.  This is a violation of the law of non-contradiction.  Simply stated, you cannot be both A and not A at the same time.  You cannot be a married bachelor….here is an anecdote:  If my wife and I were taking a walk and someone asked us, “are you having a baby?”  And we both responded simultaneously, “No” and “Yes,”  this would render our answers invalid.  This is a violation.  In the same way, liberals violate this by defining person-hood as they see fit.  You cannot have it both ways.  They are not prepared to give person-hood to an unborn child, but they will assign it in theory to an inanimate object.

Of all philosophies, liberalism must be among the most bigoted.

Why am I saying this?  Well quite frankly, because the left honestly feels that removing guns will end evil–or do they?  I think this is a pose for something more sinister.  They cannot honestly hope to stop here.  If you remove guns, the ability to make guns and the knowledge to design them still remains; so, what do they do about that?

Can you justify extermination of those who hold these ideas?  Who are these people?

To sum up:  Is it reasonable to assume that disarming men will solve problems?  Well, no.  If you are going to go that route, you have to follow it through to the end-game.  You have to eventually destroy the ideas and the knowledge.  Who is prepared to do this?  Well, Hitler certainly and Stalin.  It cant stop with guns.  If guns are truly as evil as the liberals claim–they very KNOWLEDGE of building them must be annihilated.

Liberals are absolutists though they claim not to be.  They reject “conservative Christian” values because they are exclusionary and objective; yet, when their own views of morality aren’t agreed with they are up in arms.  When one makes an absolute claim about another whom they accuse of being an absolutist, their argument is self-defeating, for they have become an absolutist themselves.

No matter how hard you try to clobber the law of non-contradiction, it will clobber you, and clobber you with vengeance.

Richard Dawkins (stick to test tubes and microscopes)

Richard Dawkins has continued to make vociferous remarks about Christianity, and has recently unleashed a torrent of syntax that edges on being absolutely absurd.