Right Reason

China’s communist state has reached new heights in totalitarianism.

Apparently if you’re a Buddhist you can still look forward to the next stage of your reincarnation – if the government approves your request! From the source:

In one of history’s more absurd acts of totalitarianism, China has banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission. According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, the law, which goes into effect next month and strictly stipulates the procedures by which one is to reincarnate, is “an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation.”

I can see it now, sitting on death row for being reborn without permission…

From this page:

Alister McGrath Swept off the Cutting Room Floor
William Dembski

Last year I described how Richard Dawkins interviewed Alister McGrath for the BBC production THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL and then decided to leave him on the cutting room. Go here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/scien…isive-critics/

That interview, I’ve learned, is now available at Google Video here:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc…78760369344626.

In watching it, ask yourself if it would have made for a less biased program if Dawkins had dropped Ted Haggard and substituted Alister McGrath.

Note: Dawkins interviewed Alister McGrath for his video. McGrath is eminently qualified in both theology and the natural sciences, and is the most widely published and competent critic of Dawkins out there. And what a surprise, McGrath gets cut from the video, but Ted Haggard’s comment is sooo important that it just has to stay.

Just a wild guess, but I think someone’s covering himself very well. I guess when you’re the moderator of your own debate you get to choose only the best (read: worst) arguments against your position to interact with. I guess the key is here: Christians who don’t share Dawkins views on science are irrational and generally unintelligent people, often with questionable character (obviously). So pick Haggard, and ignore anyone who might seriously challenge that presentation.

In a previous blog entry here, I reproduced a vent from me, expressing frustrations that I was repeatedly having in discussions with people of an Eastern Orthodox church background.

I had meant to add something, which I’ve just now found. So here goes. See if you can figure out what, in this discussion could lead a man to tear out every hair on his body:

Orthodox person: “Since we are the Apostolic Church, we can tell you what the Apostles said on any matter, and you cannot tell us.”

Me: “But please sir, may we have some Apostolic evidence that this is what they taught?

“Well, we are the Apostolic Church. What more evidence would you want than that?”

“Just some evidence that this is the Apostolic view.”

“But we’re the Apostolic Church. How much more Apostolic could this evidence be?”

“Well, can you show me where the Apostles said this. I’m holding in my hand an Apostolic writing which says-”

“You don’t know what it says, because you’re not part of the Apostolic Church.”

“Are you the Apostolic Church because the Apostles passed thes doctrines down the line to you?”

“Among other things, yes.”

“So couldn’t you just settle this by showing that the Apostles did pass these things on?”

“I have proven it! We believe these things, and we’re the Apostolic Church! So the things we teach must have been passed on by the Apostles.”

“Well, even this church Father, and this one, and this one – they don’t think the doctrine is Apostolic.”

“Oh, so now YOU are making yourself the infallible never-wrong arbiter of all truth and the pillar of the faith, are you?”

“No, I never said that. I’m just saying that the eviden-”

“Oh pish! You aren’t able to listen to the evidence because you’re so proud that you think you don’t need Christ and His Church. Bless you.”

Up until yesterday, I was familiar with the title “The Dawkins Delusion.” It is the title of an excellent book by Alister McGrath.

However, yesterday I was introduced to this little Gem. it’s a fantastic parody of Dawkins, using all his tact, style and wisdom to show that belief in not simply God, but in Richard Dawkins himself is, well, a delusion. This is satire at its finest. This guy, “Dr Terry Tommyrot,” has the act down flawlessly. if you’ve ever actually seen or heard Dawkins speak on this subject, you’ll appreciate this one.

Today was ANZAC day in New Zealand and Australia.

For those of you who don’t know what that is, ANZAC stands for Australia and New Zealand Army Corps. The Kiwis and Aussies fought together in World War I, and they gained the nickname “ANZACs,” a label that came to be worn with pride.

ANZAC day commemorates the sacrifice that those soldiers made, especially in World War I, and more especially still in the campaign in Gallipoli, Turkey. The place where they landed on the shore has been dubbed “Anzac Cove” (read about it at http://www.anzacday.org.au/spirit/hero/chp07.html)

As a Christian, the idea of commemorating the voluntary self-sacrifice of another for the benefit of others is familiar territory. Every time the church meets, and more importantly every time we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, we remember the supreme sacrifice of Jesus for us. He came into enemy territory and laid down His life to save those who rally to His cause.
ANZAC day is one of the few public holidays that I genuinely believe in. It teaches us to be thankful for the sacrifices that have made for us by others. That’s a vital lesson for Christians to take on board and to present to the world. Christians more than many people should attach a special significance to the phrase so often heard on ANZAC Day, “lest we forget.”

From something I was writing today (well, not word for word, but the idea is the same).

One version of a divine command theory of ethics is the causal version, where God’s will or command causes acts to be right or wrong. One objection to this is that this makes morality arbitrary, since God has no reason to command as He does. After all, if He did – so the objection goes – then His command wouldn’t be the reason things were wrong. His reasons would be the reason that things were wrong, and God would no longer be the source of moral value.

This is a mistaken objection. Actually, this has been pointed out for a long time now. Baruch Brody dealt with it in the mid-seventies, but let’s face it – a lot of the critics of divine command ethics don’t read much of the literature on the subject, or else they ignore it when voicing their criticisms. So here we go. The objection is as follows:

Read More

Modern philosophy of religion has ably defended Classical theism against the traditional ‘problem of evil.’ The final and insurmountable blow, however, will undoubtedly be the formidable question of why an all powerful good God would allow the existence of Internet Explorer. Indeed, the ‘problem of Internet Explorer’ may be the death-knell of theism as we know it.

This message has been brought to you by my recent coding attempts.

Every Easter there’s something. A skeptical sideshow of some sort to excite the excitable. This year it’s “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.” Discovery Channel is putting on a production by James Cameron (producer of Titanic) claiming that the Tomb of Jesus has been found, along with his remains, and the remains of His family, which includes his wife Mary Magdalene and their son.

OK, it’s a familiar type of claim, but this time it’s on Discovery Channel. Not that Discovery Channel is the place where finds like this, if they are defensible, are first aired, but the point is, for some people the fact that it’s on TV will validate it. But in case anyone is interested in an informed response to what has been released thus far, check out Ben Witherington, a scholar on the historical Jesus. He has offered some revealing replies here.

For example, the movie makers made much of the fact that the tomb contained an ossuary of “Jesus, son of Jospeph.” For those who don’t know, “Jesus” is the same as “Joshuah” in Hebrew or Aramaic. But notice the frequency of these names, according to Richard Bauckham:

Out of a total number of 2625 males, these are the figures for the ten most popular male names among Palestinioan Jews. the first figure is the total number of occurrences (from this number, with 2625 as the total for all names, you could calculate percentages), while the second is the number of occurrences specifically on ossuraies.

1 Simon/Simeon 243 59
2 Joseph 218 45
3 Eleazar 166 29
4 Judah 164 44
5 John/Yohanan 122 25
6 Jesus 99 22
7 Hananiah 82 18
8 Jonathan 71 14
9 Matthew 62 17
10 Manaen/Menahem 42 4

Check out more interesting replies at Witherington’s blog.

This caught my eye today. Apparently more Americans are killed by illegal immigrants than in Iraq.

Why is it that those who are soft on immigration are – stereotypically, the very same ones who are harsh on Iraq?

If American picketers and full time protesters are concerned about tackling the issues that protect Americans, and if Illegal immigration results in more American deaths than the war in Iraq, then surely those same people should be complaining about illegal immigration just as loudly as they are about Iraq. Unless, of course, their complaints about Iraq serve a political purpose that complaining about illegal immigration wouldn’t have…. Surely not!