Right Reason

The blog of Dr Glenn Andrew Peoples on Theology, Philosophy, and Social Issues

Leaving On a Jet Plane…

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

I haven’t posted much lately, and I won’t be doing so for a little while longer. I’m preparing a paper called “Theo Ethical Equilibrium?” for presentation at the annual conference of the Evangelical Theological Society next week in Washington DC.

The theme of the conference is “Christians in the Public Square,” and since my recently completed PhD thesis was on the subject of religion in the public square, it caught my eye. It’s the biggest conference I’ve spoken at thus far, so I’m looking forward to it. Right now I’m trying to cut the paper down to size) as in theory I’m supposed to be able to present the whole thing in just 30 minutes) and making last minute arrangements (like airport shuttles etc).

So on Tuesday the 14th of November I get on the plane, and return in six days. I’ll have more to say then, and before too long I imagine I’ll be putting a version of the paper online.

Ugly Crims?

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Apparently it’s official, ugly people are more likely to commit some crimes than the rest of us (yes, I AM part of “the rest of us”). At least, that’s according to research at Georgia State University.

According to Professor Erdal Tekin, “We found that unattractive individuals commit more crime in comparison to average-looking ones, and very attractive individuals commit less crime in comparison to those who are average-looking.” Let’s just hope for Erdal Tekin’s sake that the same doesn’t apply to ugly names!

On Being Protestant: Authority and Intellectual Evasion

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

I recently made these comments over at Theologyweb (which is worth checking out if you haven’t already – see my links page). I thought some people might find them worthwhile here.

I’m a Protestant. That means many things. Some Protestants are more Protestant than others, but at very least, they have this in common: We aren’t Roman Catholic, and we aren’t part of the Orthodox Church – by which I mean the church of that name, I don’t mean that we’re “unorthodox,” although some might think we are. There are a lot of differences between Protestants and Catholics (and the Orthodox). I’m not going to say anything about most of those differences here, but that’s not because I think they’re minor. Different views on divine grace, on justification, on the sacraments and the nature of the church, on Mary the mother of Jesus, and a whole host of other things, are very important as far as I’m concerned. But here I’m going to talk about one thing (well, perhaps two): Authority and intellectual evasion.

This problem – and I really think it is a problem – was impressed upon me by a couple of recent discussions with Catholic and Orthodox believers on the subjects of the place of Mary the mother of Jesus, and the doctrine of the afterlife (from this point on I’ll use the term “Catholic” to refer to both Catholic and Orthodox, for convenience). The details of the arguments prior to this point don’t matter here, but – and I’m simplifying here – the arguments ended in much the same way. After I had given the historical and/or biblical reasons in each case for why I held my view, the responses were given, not in the form of the same kind of evidence, but rather in the form of “well, I accept that my view is the Apostolic view because my church teaches it – and my church is, after all, the Apostolic one.” In one case, involving questions about Catholic doctrines like the immaculate conception of Mary or the claim that she was bodily assumed into heaven and made “Queen of heaven,” this response (or one very much like it) came after I had repeatedly asked for evidence that the Apostles taught anything like this. None was ever given, apart from the claim that this man’s church was the repository of the Apostolic faith, and so what they taught was Apostolic, and that was that. In the other case, the final line was along the lines of “well, I prefer to believe the Apostolic Church,” by which the additional claim “my view is the Apostles’ view” was implied.

What is particularly frustrating about at least one of these responses is that it came after the issue has been debated in terms of actual Apostolic evidence, and when my partner in dialogue realised that the well was dry, this unbeatable reply came. So here’s the difference between Catholics and Protestants that I have had thrust into the foreground recently: When a Catholic seeks evidence that a belief is Apostolic, he looks to what his church currently teaches. He is then satisfied that the doctrine is an Apostolic one, since it is, after all, taught by the Apostolic Church. When a Protestant seeks evidence that a belief is Apostolic, he looks for evidence in the writings of the Apostles, or he looks for the claim that the Apostles taught it when that claim is made by someone who knew the Apostles. He then calls a belief Apostolic to the extent that it can be demonstrated that the Apostles taught it.

What follows from these two methods is fairly self-evident. If anyone believes that the Apostles taught something contrary to what the Catholic churches teach, then they are relying on their own opinion, while the Catholic believer needs no such unsafe foundation – he has the Apostles. But, how does he know that his view is the view of the Apostles? Because his church teaches it, and his church is the Apostolic one, which settles the matter. But how does he know that the view taught by his church really is Apostolic? Did the Apostles actually teach it? Well they must have, otherwise the Apostolic Church would never teach it! “But I can read the Apostles’ teaching, and there’s nowhere in their writing where they do teach that,” a Protestant might say. And he’d get a reply along the lines of “Oh, and who are you, Mr Johnny-come lately? I don’t care how much you think you know about the Apostles, it’s not the Apostolic view because it’s not taught by the Apostolic Church!” You can see how such a discussion is going to end. It isn’t.

All I’m doing is making the meek suggestion that the way to examine what the Apostles taught is to read what they wrote. It’s not like their writings were destroyed, and their teaching was passed on orally because there was no other way to keep the flame alive. Sure, if that were the case then we’d have to ask the heir of this knowledge what the Apostles taught. But the abundance in manuscript records of what the Apostles themselves taught is simply huge. Nobody can say that we don’t have access to the primary sources. Appealing to the Apostolicity of ones own church to settle an argument when the evidence is still readily available for all to say is like saying “Don’t bother watching that crystal clear security camera footage, shot from multiple angles which show the bank robber’s face in full colour and in close detail. My friend John said that his friend Cyril said that his friend Marty said that his friend Sam …. (insert a few hundred names here) … said that her friend Karen was at the bank, and she saw the face of the robber, so I am the only one who can tell you who did it!” Well Click here for securityinfo who install this kind of better security cameras and system as well which helped to caught robber’s face.

To my Catholic and Orthodox friends: I’m sure that not all of you do this. But if you are ever tempted to do so, please don’t. Opinions do not pop randomly into my head about what the Apostles taught. I have access to every single piece of historical textual evidence that you have. Neither one of us is in a privileged position in that regard. So here’s a suggestion: When you and I come to a disagreement about what the Apostles taught, don’t appeal to what you church says the Apostles taught. Appeal to the Apostles. Anything else would be a circular argument.

Glenn Peoples

New article: On Tithing

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

There’s a new article in the theology section. It’s a bit different, nothing terribly technical at all. I ask the question: Are Christians morally required to tithe to their church? Actually I don’t so much ask the question as answer it. Check it out here.

Ah yes, what better use for law?

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Apparently, Vegemite is banned from the United States!

When University Admin Systems Attack

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

When Animals Attack? Kid’s Stuff! When Stunts go wrong? Kindergarten! These shows have nothing on When University Admin Systems Attack!

As I announced here back on the 13th of September, I have handed in my PhD Thesis in Philosophy at the University of Otago. Here’s what was supposed to happen next: I applied (via my supervisor – who I have to say at the start, has been great, none of this is his fault or directed at him) for what’s known as a bridging stipend. It’s three month’s worth of income while I prepare work for publication, including a presentation at a conference in Washington DC in mid November. This application would have been completed, and I would go about my work for three months. Now, of course I won’t have a job in three months. Well, not a job in philosophy anyway. Those things don’t start until the academic year of a University starts. But anyway, this is the deal with the University.

Here’s what actually happened: After I handed over my PhD, it sat in a box in an office for a month. Since the University people who deal with bridging stipends didn’t know it was submitted (it was, after all, in a box in an office), they hadn’t approved the application for the stipend. So we’ve been sitting here on a grand income of zilch, wondering when I’ll get paid. I phoned them up the other day: “Any idea when this is going to happen?” The answer: “We can’t approve it until you submit your thesis.” Uh oh.

Now that the thesis has been passed on to the right people, the application process is about to get underway. Problem #1: I have about 60 copies of my dossier to print out for job applications, and I have to then send them away with application letters for jobs. Printing costs money (especially 32 pages per copy, x 50 copies, as does international postage (these are not little envelopes, they are thick and A4 size). None of this can be done until we get paid, which will probably not be until late November. Further problem: Most of the academic jobs I am applying for have application deadlines of mid November. Why is this a problem? It wouldn’t have been if we had an income. Was this my fault? Not at all. Is there anything I can do about it? Apparently not. How many employment opportunities am I missing out on? Oh, about 60. But how many more vacancies are still open after that deadline? Very few.

Problem #2. I’m flying to Washington DC in mid November. The Airfare is taken care of, fortunately. Accomodation is booked, but not yet paid for. I’ll be paying for the room, and then splitting the cost with my roommate from England when I get there. But not to worry, now that I’m on this bridging stipend because the University did what it was supposed to, I’ll have the money by the time I get there, as well as transport costs and meals- Oh wait, no I won’t. I’ve prepared this paper, made all the travel arrangements, made sure that my thesis was submitted in time, made sure that all the right applications were filled out, gone through numerous hotels until I could find one with vacancies, and now – Oh woops, while you were waiting after you did everything you were supposed to do, we left your thesis sitting in a box in an office for a month, so you won’t be paid until after the conference is over. But don’t worry, your current income of $0 will get you through!

Oh, and it’s even more beautiful. Since my thesis wasn’t noticed for a month, there is another month’s worth of University fees to pay. The joy of admin “systems.” A system doesn’t feel bad, and doesn’t have to compensate you for its mistakes. When University Admin Systems Attack! Too scary for TV.

The Labour Government: Cleaning their own slate?

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Before the last parliamentary election, a number of parties engaged in election spending that was later deemed by the auditor general to be unlawful – see my last entry on politics. By far the worst offender was the Labour Party, the party that won a very close election.

Now Labour and it’s allied parties have had a brilliant idea, an idea that has caused Parliament to go into “urgency” tonight so that a new piece of law can rushed through. A law that retroactively changes the rules on election spending, so that their actions were not against the law at all! Check it out here. Or here. Or better yet, here. The following parties are supporting the move: Labour (duh), United Future, New Zealand First and the Progressives.

This is surely as low as it gets in politics. They broke the law. They were told in no uncertain terms that they had broken the law. Here’s what retroactive legislation does: It propagates the falsehood that because of a law made now, they didn’t break the law back then. There is no worse form of corruption that a government may engage in anywhere. What’s worse is that Labour actually has the support from other parties to do this.

Glenn Peoples

New Article: "A New Euthyphro"

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

I’ve posted a new article in the philosophy section, “A New Euthyphro.” It’s not a particularly technical read, but then, neither was the original Euthyphro by Plato. Here’s the blurb:

“Plato’s Euthyphro is widely thought to contain a knock down argument against theologically grounded ethics – widely thought, that is, outside of the field of philosophy of religion. The so-called Euthyphro dilemma is said to show that moral rightness cannot possibly consist in what God wills, but much of its success lies in the way the author was able to paint Euthyphro as the loser. Had Euthyphro been better informed and quicker on his feet, he would have won hands down – as he does in this version.”

Enjoy!

Presbyterian Church states the obvious, and the media lies about it. Same old.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Today the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand (PCANZ) voted to ban people in sexual unions outside of marriage from entering the ministry.What a shock. What other conclusion could they have come to? This means that a man who is in a sexual relationship with a woman that he is not married to – or to any person that he is not married to for that matter – cannot become a minister in the church. This is not surprising for a Christian Church. The wording of the vote was explicit: People in a sexual relationship outside of marriage cannot be ministers.

Now let’s look at how the media reported it.

Facism is Alive and Well in Germany

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

This is scary stuff. Parents who homeschool their children are being thrown into jail in the facist nation of Germany. Here are the details of one case:

Last Thursday the German police arrested Katharina Plett, a homeschooling mother of twelve. Yesterday her husband fled to Austria with the children. Homeschooling is illegal in Germany since Hitler banned it in 1938. The Plett family belongs to a homeschooling group of seven Baptist families in Paderborn. We wrote about their case last year.

Stefan Sedlaczek of the Catholic website kreuz.net heard about her arrest on Saturday. He reports today that a female plain-clothes police officer rang at Katharina Plett’s house on Thursday around 11:00 am. When she opened the door other police officers, who had hidden themselves, forced their way in. Mrs Plett was allowed to change, but a police officer followed her into her bedroom in case “she would arm herself and shoot us all.” The woman was able to inform her husband by mobile phone before the police brought her to Bielefeld.

The authorities later informed her husband that she has been imprisoned in Gelsenkirchen. Apparently she has been given a ten day prison sentence. When Sedlaczek rang the Gelsenkirchen prison authorities to get confirmation of Katharina Plett’s whereabouts, he was told that no information would be given. A written request for information has so far not been answered either. Unless we are mistaken, the German mainstream media have not written anything about this case yet.

Yesterday, Katharina’s husband fled with their children to a Christian family center in Wolfgangsee in Austria. A homeschooling couple from Hamburg has also fled to Wolfgangsee. Their case was covered in the media. In Austria parents are entitled to homeschool during a one year trial period, after which the authorities decide whether the parents are allowed to continue homeschooling or not.

An underclass being forced to flee to Austria, thrown into prison, and being called on by the police because of their education choices. Google will quickly reveal that this is not the only case like this. Hitler is famous – well, for many things actually – but of relevance here, he is famous for saying to those who woulf not join his side: “We don’t need you; we already have your children.” This is why he banned homeschooling. Hitler’s legacy lives on in the Fatherland.

This is why the classical liberal right of families to make their own eucation choices is so important. When the state literally controls the education of your children and can force you to give up your right to teach them, they become you, and you become all but redundant. Notice that – I didn’t say that if you kids go to school you are redundant, I said that if you have no choice but to hand your kids over to the state on demand so that they can be taught, you are redundant.

This is just one terrifying insight to the glaring, huge, and unmissable difference between the liberal left that dominates Europe, and Christian Classical Liberalism. Christian Classical Liberalism recognises that separation of Church and State is great, but we need a whole lot more. Not only should the state not run our religion, but they shouldn’t run our ideological and educational choices, or our lives.

Page 76 of 78

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén