Katrina Kills Philosophy

This really isn't the time to be philosophical. When you see the destruction that Katrina layed on the Gulf Coast, it seems like the only response is silent awe. What can you say when the living are so concerned with staying alive that dealing with the dead is the very last thing on anyone's mind? What good is a carefully constructed philosophical argument at this time?

I watched in rapt horror last weekend and early Monday as Katrina took aim at New Orleans. Even now, I don't think I was doing much deep contemplation of theodicy or the nature of God's love. I am not even thinking about "Why?" this would happen. It's just too overwhelming at the moment. As with the horrors of last year's tsunami, it's easy enough for me to just be content feeling absolutely insignificant in the face of such uncontrollable forces. For me, this is a time to shut up, stop thinking and pray. Of course, there are more practical expressions of my compassion, contributing to the Red Cross and helping a neighbor head down to Texas as part of the relief effort, but words seem absolutely ineffectual.

To answer my second question (what good is a carefully constructed philosophical argument at this time?), I would say this: while talking theodicy at the time of such a disaster seems petty and foolish, having a strong sense of the world that includes unreasoning disasters before they occur is the only way to effectively deal with them. For example, it struck me as odd when people would ask after 9/11: "Where was God?" To me, this only showed that they had not considered the possibility that God could be some place awful . . . at any rate, I grow philosophical here . . .

Religious Feelings

I was encouraged to write about this by Kris Barger's comment on his blog: Pass the Salt Please, when he asked Do Feelings Matter? Does the way you feel about God, about the Church, about people in general or yourself really matter in terms of how, why or when (or if) you choose to worship God?

For anyone that knows me, I'm a rather emotional person . . . for a man, that is. I struggle with depression on a weekly basis. For the most part, I know this is a chemical issue rather than a true emotional one, but it feels emotional nonetheless. I try to nurture my emotions though; God gave them to me for a reason, I'm assuming. But on the other hand, quite often I do not feel like being a Christian, or worshipping God or even loving my fellow man (they can be so annoying, right?). It's all too much sometimes to feel like doing the right thing. I'd much rather do my own thing.

That said, sometimes my "religious feelings" are all I have. I can't logically tell you why I believe in God, at least not to a high degree of certainty. Philosophy fails all too often to bring real meaning to my life. It's the subjective, emotional reality of God's presence that is often more compelling. When I'm playing my little guitar chords or simple bass lines and I'm feeling connected with the other musicians and the rest of the congregation, that's when God seems most real. When I see something on TV that really tugs on my heart, that's when I feel God the most. God is there when my compassion and love (which have strong emotional components) are most active.

Sunday Sermon

Today Ron gave the sermon and he encouraged us to do a couple of things:

Take some time each day to reflect on who God is and what he is doing.
Tell someone a truth about God sometime this week.

Ethical Alternatives to Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Biologists have made a major breakthrough in stem cell research. Apparently, they can "reprogram" normal, adult skin cells, fusing them with an "existing, laboratory-grown embryonic stem cell." While the new cells are not, technically speaking, stem cells, they do behave in most respects just as any other undifferentiated stem cell. In theory, this should eliminate the need to destroy existing embryos and avoiding certain ethical questions.

At this stage though, viable embryos are still required for further research. "Although the embryonic stem cells that we made contain the patient's genes, they also contain the embryonic stem cell genes that we started with," research team member Kevin Eggan said. "And for the time being that's going to interfere with the usefulness of this."

It's also going to interfere with the much anticipated ethical clean slate. National Geographic wonders: No More Need to Destroy Embryos? "Maybe" in the "future."

Evolution and the Myth of Creationism

Since being involved in a number of evolutionary debates over the past few weeks, I decided to pull out Evolution and the Myth of Creationism by Tim M. Berra and give it a thorough and open-minded reading. This is one of those books I skimmed through when it was assigned (I believe it was for my mini-semester upper division evolution cram-class) but I didn't have time enough to really sink my teeth into.

The subtitle, "A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate", is a good way of describing the book. It's a fairly short book, only 198 pages, including a couple very nice appendixes and gives plenty of detail needed for Berra's argument:

This book has three related purposes. First, it is an attempt to explain evolution to people who are genuinely confused by the claims of creationists, who try to present fundamentalist Christian beliefs as science. Second, it sees to provide useful ammunition to the high school biology teacher or school board member who finds himself or herself under attack by creationists. Third, it should be a useful supplemental text for introductory college-level classes in biology, zoology, botany, or anthropology. These three purposes can all be served by answering the following question: What should an educated person know about the theory of evolution?

Berra does a good job in all three areas. If you can get past the author's obvious distaste for anyone who finds creationism--in any form whatsoever--even mildly acceptable, any reader should come away with the beginnings of an answer to his question.

It's when Berra gets to his third chapter, The Explanatory Power of Evolution, that his argument begins to loose steam. Because Berra dismisses "creationism" or anything that doesn't quite fit his worldview, he misses those points of commonality where just maybe Intelligent Design or creationism at large isn't as lacking as he assumes. For example, the Peppered Moth and the case of English air pollution. What Berra fails to note is that Intelligent Design and other creation models would make the same prediction as evolution concerning the return of a larger number of light colored moths when the environment lightens up due to a reduction in soot.

It's the assumptive power of evolution that bothers me, more than a simple recitation of biological facts. The presumption that only evolution can explain the evidence also gets a little annoying. While Berra does a good job refuting some of the silly arguments that can be heard on TBN's Creation in the 21st Century, both Dr. Baugh and Dr. Berra parade out philosophic arguments masquerading as science. In Berra's case, he assumes that, because small changes can be seen, large changes can be explained because of those small changes. It's a very logical deduction. Unfortunately, it's a bit of a hasty conclusion that explains everything.

That's not to say that I dispute the basic facts of "evolution", read biology: there were some pretty strange creatures running around (Archaeopteryx to Australopithecus) and there are some pretty amazing biological adaptations (Sickle Cell Anemia and its relationship with Malaria, for example). I'm also pretty sure the earth is more than 6,000 years old. These are the facts that should be taught in school. "Education," Berra says, "does not exist to confirm people's superstitions, and children do not learn to think when the are fed only dogma" (p. 139). While I heartily agree, I find it odd that the author does not see the dogmatics in his own writings.

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

ABC News reported on Dec 9, 2004, that "One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence". Yeah, this is an old story, and it turns out to be false (Flew still claims to be a non-theist), but I've been hanging onto it for a while. Mostly, I was struck with the fact that I've always enjoyed Flew's writings--even if I didn't always agree with them even when I, myself, was an atheist. What struck me is the parallel in my own story.

For years, I believed Christianity was intellectually bankrupt. How could anyone choose to ignore the facts of science and history, lay down all valid philosophical tools and accept a mythical and mind-numbing religion? It simply made no sense to me based on my past experience and what I "knew" about humanity.

My New Year's resolution for 1986 was to re-examine my atheism and my anti-religious preconceptions. I started listening to Dr. J. Vernon McGee, watching Jimmy Swaggart (in the midst of Swaggart's hounding of Marvin Gorman and only 2 years before his own "moral failure") and a variety of other preachers I could catch on the radio and on TV. I also spent quite a bit of time looking over my "bibles", works by Marx, Russell, Paine, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and even Flew himself, as well as dabbling in other religions, particularly European Paganism and Native American religions. The details are now pretty sketchy in my mind, but I did more reading at that time than I think I ever did in my life. I wish I still had all those notes too; I think I filled up two college rule spiral binders with scribbles. Some very long talks with the Pastor of my local Presbyterian community church, really helped to answer some burning questions as well. (Mind you, this was ten or more years before studying these subjects in an "accredited" way at Portland State University.)

It was just before Easter of 1986, that I committed my life to Jesus after a long winter of struggling with the hypocrisy of Swaggart and my early experiences with the Church and the growing dissatisfaction with radical materialism. It goes without saying that I'm still a bit of a "free-thinker" (I still have a tendency to annoy my fellow Christians from time to time!), but I have yet to find a fully developed philosophical reason to abandon my faith despite the many problems associated with that faith.

Why People Leave the Church

I had an interesting conversation today at church and it got me thinking about why people leave the church. The person we were discussing believed that the Church (with a capital "C") was corrupt and that the world should be "fair". In the end, this person decided to leave the church because it no longer had a valid view of the world. This put me in mind of something one of the panelists from Genesis : A Living Conversation (PBS Series)had to say:

It's an interesting fact that until now, there's never been another civilization in which people have left religion because they see evil in the world. The traditional religions remember the word of Christ--that only God the One is good. Therefore, this world, not being God, cannot be good. The imperfection of the world was accepted as part of human existence. Then in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with Marx, Hegel, and others, the idea of progress began to take hold. People began to think that this world was meant for happiness and goodness, and if there was not sufficient happiness or goodness in life, then there must be something wrong with God rather than with the nature of the world. (p. 246)

One could, I suppose, make the case that God is some how lacking based on the condition of the world. After all, He did create it, right? Often though an argument like this is constructed, not to accurately portray reality but, to avoid our own failures. If we can somehow shift blame for our own species' gross immorality and our own personal shortcomings, then we don't have to be a part of anything that is "corrupted" by the notion that God is a good God.

Brothers, Let Us Query the Text

Making sense of the Bible can be a daunting task. At first blush, the Bible appears to be full of contradictions and inconsistencies. We must be patient, spending as much time as necessary to understand what it is trying to tell us. We must go against the hyper-skepticism of our time by avoiding the temptation to assume nonsense where there is, indeed, sense. Finally, we must be brave enough to ask tough questions; God has no fear of our probing. What exactly is the Bible trying to say in the contradictions, "hard sayings" and difficult to resolve theological, ethical and metaphysical issues that crop up in its pages. As Pastor John Piper puts it:

There are hundreds and hundreds of such seeming discrepancies in the Holy Scripture, and we dishonor the text not to see them and think them through. God is not a God of confusion. His tongue is not forked. There are profound and wonderful resolutions to all problems. He has called us to an eternity of discovery so that every morning for ages to come we might break forth in new songs of praise.

In Second Timothy 2:7, Paul promises that if we seriously reflect on what he is saying, the Bible, God will give us understanding. Essentially, what Paul is promising is this: we are blessed and given understanding by God through the hard intellectual work involved in working out exactly what the Bible is about.

Informed, but not Transformed

It's an odd paradox that the more Christians seem to know about God, the Bible, and the history of Christianity, the further they seem to be from being truly Christ-like. They are deeply informed, but not transformed. As Brian MacLaren points out:

Too often there seems to be a direct correlation between knowledge about theology on the one hand and arrogance, contentiousness, and an uncharitable spirit on the other.

No one is in favor of ignorance, but mere knowledge that "puffs up," as Paul points out, isn't much better.

I am no better sometimes than anyone else in this regard; it's sometimes difficult to resist the spirit of arrogance when faced with other Christians "simple faith" when measured against my "knowledge". Knowledge is a good thing (Proverbs 2:10) but, as Jesus pointed out, knowledge can be used for great evil (Luke 11:52) as well. Don't get me wrong: I maintain that the Christian life requires a great deal of learning--learning about God, the Bible and the history of Christianity--but that knowledge is useless unless it is put into practice or better yet used as a corrective force rather than points scored in my honor.

Dobson likened embryonic stem cell research to Nazi experiments

On August 3rd, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family was discussing the current debate over the use of embryonic stem cells. In one statement, he likened embryonic stem cell research to Nazi experiments, saying:

You know, the thing that means so much to me here on this issue [embryonic stem cell research] is that people talk about the potential for good that can come from destroying these little embryos and how we might be able to solve the problem of juvenile diabetes. There's no indication yet that they're gonna do that, but people say that, or spinal cord injuries or such things. But I have to ask this question: In World War II, the Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind. You know, if you take a utilitarian approach, that if something results in good, then it is good. But that's obviously not true. We condemn what the Nazis did because there are some things that we always could do but we haven't done, because science always has to be guided by ethics and by morality. And you remove ethics and morality, and you get what happened in Nazi Germany. That's why to Senator [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist [R-TN] and the others who are saying, "Look what may be accomplished." Yeah, but there's another issue, there's a higher order of ethics here.

While I heartily agree that embryonic stem cell research represents a serious moral failure, Dobson's analogy breaks down. This may seem a small thing, but worth pointing out. The horrors of the Holocaust were only the final step, the "Die Endlösung"; embryonic stem cell research only represents one small step toward something worse. (Which, of course, is not to suggest that is not bad on it's own merits.)

The experiments done by Dr. Josef Mengelle, Friedrich Mennecke, etc., had very little to do with causing any "good". Almost none of these so-called experiments were designed in any real way to gain scientific knowledge beneficial to mankind as a whole. They were designed to see how best to kill someone and what the effects of particular death-dealing procedures would be. Secondly, embryonic stem cell research (and the procedures designed to gather the cells in the first place) are nothing like Auschwitz or even Hadamar where the goal was to kill as quickly as possible rather than do legitimate research.

Bear in mind, I am a firm believer in the slippery-slope theory; what happened in Germany in the 1920's, 30's and 40's happened because small, unsound "wedges" were inserted into otherwise sound moral reasoning. People in Weimar Germany allowed many small steps toward Auschwitz, without really examining the path they were on. True, they always felt that they were heading in the right direction, but never really understood. History is full of people who honestly believed they were doing good but, come to find out, their struggle only allowed for evil. This is where Dr. Dobson is correct; while the Nazis never committed moral outrages because they wanted to help mankind (well, if you follow their logic they did, but that's another story), they did commit horrors on a grand scale because of the smaller steps which lead up to Auschwitz. He is also correct, in my view, in stating that embryonic stem cell research represents a "wedge" in our culture. When we get to point where helpless humans, or, more accurately, humans that have a very small political voice of their own, can be sacrificed to potentially help other humans with a stronger political voice, we should always worry. I'll leave you with the words of another fine researcher, Harold Kaplan, from his book, Conscience and Memory: Meditations in a Museum of the Holocaust:

When people say "never again" as their chief lesson from the Holocaust, we are at a loss. What is to be never again? And then to treat the Holocaust as some indecipherable horror and mystery . . . is to put "never again" at a total impasse. Those who say "never again" speak of the final result, the "solution." That comes too late for such a vow. The question is, Where, at what point in the Nazi series of crimes, does the "never again" begin to apply?

The first sin was not the gas chambers, of course. . . . We understand that all human rights are connected that a Holocaust is only the last stage of their loss. (pp. 9-10)

Faith-based Evolution

Apparently this "Evolution Week" on Lee's Walk!

Evolution is a tricky subject. While I am no expert in biology, I can make reasonable assessments of any argument. Evolution is a theory, an argument in the philosophical sense, that can be evaluated on it's logical merit. That said, does the acceptance of evolution require "faith"?

I wouldn't go so far as to call evolution a religion, but I don't see how some people argue that evolution requires no faith at all to accept. I'm guessing that the vast majority of people in the United States couldn't succinctly define "evolution" much less logically defend it with strong factual evidence. My suspicion is that of those people most believe that the theory is an accurate descriptor of reality. That leads me to the conclusion that most people have faith in the theory or, barring that, faith in experts who believe the theory.

That's fine and good; most of us take as a matter of fact that the earth revolves around the sun even though we have no direct proof (we have to defer to cosmologists, physicists and mathematicians for that). We have faith in a lot of things that are, in reality, fact simply because we, as independent observers, cannot confirm or deny in a purely scientific manner. On a logical level, it may be justifiable to believe in evolution based on all available facts, but not to make fallacious appeals to belief (i.e., "evolution is true because I believe it to be") or appeals to authority (i.e., "Charles Darwin and Stephen Jay Gould believed in evolution, therefore I do").

So, what are we left with?

We are left with several facts about human evolution. Simply put, we possess the following facts about human origins (taken primarily from my old college text books, Reconstructing Human Origins, The Human Evolution Sourcebook, The Human Evulotion Sourcebook and Early Human Phylogeny, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History):

1. There were several species of creatures who possessed anatomical similarities with modern humans and apes
2. These species had a geologic life span and then died off
3. Fully human (homo sapien sapien) appeared at a specific time in the past

You can infer several things from this in a logical way. Either, these species were related chronologically, one giving rise to another with various branches and dead ends, or, these creatures had similar design properties but are not directly related. Either conclusion is inductive; there's merely a probability that either is correct.

In addition the idea of a "missing link" or transitional form is purely subjective. You are free to interpret the data in a way which makes it likely that there is a genetic line between Australopithecus through to the Homo genus to modern man, but you have to admit that this is an interpretation of the facts, not the facts. (If Darwinian evolution is true, I'd expect to see no distinct species in the past, rather a blur of characteristics that defy classification.)

So back to the point: does evolution require faith? Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama apparently does. I'd say that in general he is correct. Evolutionists believe in the unseen truth (untestable connections between Australopithecus and us today. There may indeed be connections there, but they are logical artifacts rather than concrete facts.

Some Reviews of "Ape to Man"

Here's a few reviews of "Ape to Man":

Social Studies for Kids says:

This show is an excellent introduction to the topic for teens and younger viewers and a good refresher course for adults who might have heard about Piltdown Man and 'Lucy' but forgotten relevant details. Check it out!

The show is a pretty good brief introduction to the subject as a matter of history, but still doesn't help anyone understand evolution in any concrete ways.

Underground Online:

It must be noted that Ape to Man does not address the current Creationism debate. Perhaps they do not wish to offend anyone by either taking a side or even not taking a side. There is nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, this laissez-faire attitude has forced them to avoid some topics that inevitably will cause uninformed people to question things that are not answered in the program. For instance, how species actually evolve from one species to another is not really addressed. Is this a plot hole of the show or evolutionary theory itself? Also, some of the assertions boldly proposed by the program as little less than fact, such as the coexisting of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, are apparently still in debate by anthropologists. The show doesn't mention this debate, but it is addressed in the Funk and Wagnall encyclopedia entries on the History Channel's own website! Was there no time to present differing anthropological views or did the writers fear that presenting a difference of opinion in the scientific community would be used by Creationists as a sign of weakness in the whole evolutionary theory?

This is exactly my problem with "Ape to Man"; the main issue of what evolution is never addressed. Once again, the show was a historical representation of the advances of anthropology over the past two centuries, so it can safely avoid in depth biology.

Pharyngula writes:

Conclusion: the show was interesting when it discussed the recent history of the discoveries, and rather aggravating when it tried to portray the lives of ancient hominids. It definitely did not pander to creationists, though, so I'll give it a passing grade.

Yeah, I tend to agree, the show wasn't bad, just OK for what it was. Indeed, it didn't pander to Creationists, but, as the writer points out, it didn't necessarily help the "other side" that much either.

Apologetics Press opines about the "alleged confrontation between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens":

So, we have conquered and eliminated all other hominid species. Or could it simply be--there were no other species? That from the very beginning, there has only been men and apes? While arguably retaining some entertainment value, this expensive production was anything but history. In fact, this type of Hollywood propaganda would be better suited for the Cartoon Network, or the Sci-Fi channel. If a channel purports to convey actual history, and names itself accordingly, then speculation and misinformation should be left on the editing-room floor. That's where this production belonged.

A little harsh but not without merit. As has been pointed out, the show never really presented a clear picture of it's message; if it was really about the history of evolution, not evolution itself, it failed to address some major issues, and if it was really about the science of evolution, then it left gapingng holes in it's argument.

"Ape to Man"

History warns us that it is the customary fate of new truths is to begin as heresies and end as superstitions.
Thomas Henry Huxley, 1880

Even though I’ve taken well over a 2 years of college biology, especially genetics and evolution, I have yet to be convinced by the “evidence”. Despite my education, I am still hardily skeptical about evolution. Honestly, I’d rather just believe in evolution and call it a day—it certainly would be easier—but I find that the common portrayal of it leaving me with too many questions.

Sunday night, the History Channel aired it’s much lauded “Ape to Man” program and, as per usual, I spent most of the two hours asking: “Now, how in the world do they know that?” There are reasons for their assertions (aren’t there?). Unfortunately, the program never even attempted to explain HOW evolution worked; Evolution was merely assumed to be true. How did the scientists know whether or not H. habilis had hair, whether it had “evolved” sweat glands? In the end, the biology in the show was great story-telling, filled with drama and plausibility. I personally enjoyed it, but I recognized it for what it was: fiction.

OK granted the show was not an attempt to teach biology but rather it was designed to teach history (while masking as an attempt to teach biology). One of my main concern along these lines is that the show spent no time at all on Charles Darwin. The narrator made several statements to the effect that Darwin had nothing to say about human origins. Umm did someone forget his 1871 book entitled, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex? Maybe the book wasn’t as exciting as the 1856 discovery of Neanderthal bones, but that’s no reason to misrepresent Darwin’s contribution to anthropology. Unless the authors didn’t want to expose Darwin’s “social” agenda. I’ll leave you with a couple choice quote from that book:

With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would have formerly succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 168, vol. I.)

Hmm so there are "worse breeds" of people, people who should be allowed to die off because they are "weak". Vaccination is bad because it lets weak people live when they should not!

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphus apes, as Professor Schaffhausen [one of many German social Darwinists] has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
(Darwin, Descent, p. 201, vol. I.)

Sounds familiar, no? You thought that was something Hitler would say, right?

Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. He is impelled by nearly the same motives as are the lower animals who left to their free choice, though he is in so far superior to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the other hand he is strongly-attracted by mere wealth or rank. Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realized until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. All do good service who aid towards this end. When the principles of breeding and of inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining by an easy method whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man.
(Darwin, Descent, pp. 402-403, vol. II.)

I can't wait until we understand all the "principles of breeding and of inheritance", then life will be grand! Oh wait, the History Channel just said we now know all . . . hrmm.

A Just War?

Ein großer Krieg läßt dem Land mit drei Armeen: eine Armee der Krüppel, eine Armee von Trauernder und eine Armee der Dieben. ("A great war leaves the country with three armies - an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves") German proverb

It doesn’t take much imagination or serious contemplation to recognize that war is an awful, wasteful and stupid method of resolving conflicts of interest. It makes a mockery of the best efforts of humanity, turning libraries, science labs and hospitals into little shops of horror. Needless to say, it destroys countless lives.

“War is politics by other means,” the warrior-philosopher Carl von Clausewitz wrote. In one sense, this is a tautology: of course war represents the extension of power (politics are simply a struggle for power) from “peaceful” means. But as the Libertarian author, David Friedman, points out: “The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.” War really is the gross break down of rational communication, and represents the basest emotionalism human beings can muster. It is also a colossal waste of resources, not only the prosecution of war, but in it’s preparation. As Dwight Eisenhower said in a 1953 speech:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.

In other words, war is purely an act of sin. Fortunately enough, most people can quickly see this to be the case. Unfortunately, it doesn’t remove the fact that there are people who don’t and often these are the people who seem to end up with their fingers on the “button”. This, of course, is the complicating factor; if everyone saw war as something entirely without merit, there’d be no need to talk about when war is justifiable.

So, can there be just wars?

My simple answer is no. I posit that war is always evidence of man’s fallen state and almost never engenders or encourages any of humanity’s redeeming qualities. While war can have “good” results, I grant you that (for example, new technologies and feelings of national unity and brotherhood), the costs for this "advancement" is high indeed.

There are things that may be worse than war, though: slavery, oppression, wanton destruction, among others. I don’t often agree with John Stuart Mill, but he does make a point when he says:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

So, while there are no just wars, there may be just causes in war. I use the Aquinas/Augustine criteria for determining whether participation in war can be ruled just, and throw in one of unknown origination. The warring faction must:

1. have a just cause, in a fully rational, philosophical sense


2. declare war through proper channels and with proper authority


3. fight with openly-disclosed and morally justifiable intentions


4. enter the war as a last resort


5. minimize the misery and destruction inflicted on the enemy, especially non-combatants


6. calculate a reasonable probability of success


7. (I would add): only enter the fight to re-establish peace

Obviously, I would need another essay to explain what my view of the meaning of each of these points, but suffice it to say, I posit that all of these points must be fulfilled with reasonable diligence before war is entered. My standards for evaluating a just war are very high; there simply has to be overwhelming evidence to support the justification for war.

In the end, there are things worth fighting for, even dying for. There are many examples of just causes in wartime (but I hold that to be a fairly uncommon thing). As a Christian, though, I wonder if there are things worth killing for.

The Supernatural Universe

Chapter Five of True Spirituality, by Francis A. Schaeffer brings out an important point about a Christian's faith: we must recognize, not just in a far-off, by and by sort of way, that the world we live intersects and is infused with a supernatural world. The moment we, as Christians, forget this, we loose the full meaning of Scripture and a life in Christ.

A few excepts are in order:

The Bible insists that we live in reality in a supernatural universe. But if we remove the objective reality of the supernatural universe in any area, this great reality of Christ the bridegroom bringing forth fruit through us immediately falls to the floor, and all that Christianity is at such a point is a psychological and sociological aid, a mere tool. . . . The true Bible-believing Christian is the one who lives in practice in this supernatural world. I am not saying that no one can be saved and go to heaven unless he lives in practice in this supernatural world. Happily, this is not so, or none of us would go to heaven, because none of us lives this way consistently. What I am saying is that the true Bible-believing Christian is one who does so. I am not a Bible-believing Christian in the fullest sense simply by believing the right doctrines, but as I live in practice in this supernatural world. (p. 56)

In the end, being Christian is not about what place we worship, our music styles or even the tithes with give to God. Nor does it rest on the ability to recite the Apostles' Creed or quote from memory a laundry list of Biblical "promises". It is about the fact that we accept the reality of a personal God who cares for us enough to enter this naturalistic world. It is a difficult battle to stay on task, as it were, or to remember that the supernatural is something close by. We've all felt the scorn of skeptics and faithless Christians who find the supernatural implausible at best.

When one refers to the supernatural, immediately the naturalistic man is determined to get rid of it. He is determined to argue that is it not there. That is why liberal theology--which is naturalistic--tries to make a theology that will stand when there is nothing left but anthropology. This is really where the battle of truth is being fought throughout the world. But if we see this, then we have thrust upon us the necessity, the high calling and the duty, to live in the light of the existence of the two parts of the universe, the seen and the unseen parts, in the realization that the heavenlies are not far off. They are about us here. (p. 60)

For me, this is the most difficult part of being a Christian and convincing others that Christianity has merit.

Should I choose, I can see the world as being "in my head" in a classic Anti-realistic sort of way. Unfortunately, that is how many folks look at the supernatural elements of Christianity: God, redemption and supernatural strength are realities created by our need for comfort or explanation of ("as of yet") unexplainable phenomena. There is very little, logically speaking, I can do to convince anyone that what the Bible says about this supernatural world is true; certain truths have to be accepted, witnessed and/or experienced before one can truly see this world for what it is. This, then, is a hallmark of a true Christian: one who operated in the power and reality of the supernatural world.

Hiroshima, 60th Anniversary

It's been 60 years since the first nuclear weapon was used in "combat" and the debate still continues.

Let me just state my position on war right off the bat: I believe that war is never morally justifiable. I understand that we live in a fallen world and that there are people and countries that are lead by evil people with less than perfect motives. It's a dangerous world we live in, for sure, and it behooves every nation to be prepared to defend themselves or help defend others. But in the end, I do not believe any war is ever inevitable or unavoidable.

That said, the United States, Great Britain, Australia, China and a variety of allies were at war against the aggressor nation of Imperial Japan in August of 1945. Justifiable or not, we were engaged in a life and death struggle. The Allies were winning a slow and costly campaign that would have meant slogging it out in insane house-to-house fighting in the streets of Tokyo. But could the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be judged as morally or pragmatically necessary?

As stated before, war is never a moral option; the prosecution of war always involves choosing to behave like an animal, always causes more harm than good and always brings out the worst in people. To answer the question: it is my judgment that the use of atomic weapons on Japan was not morally necessary, but it may have been pragmatically necessary.

Conventional wisdom says that we needed to use the bomb in order to preserve lives, the lives of American soldiers who were to invade the islands of Japan and the defenders alike who certainly would have put up considerable resistance. The facts though do not support this assertion. Russia was transferring thousands of troops from the fight against Nazi Germany (which ended two months before the dropping of the bombs) to take on the Japanese. Japan could no longer effectively defend itself from the air or sea. Japanese officials knew the war was lost, and, it seems likely now, that they would have surrendered (atomic bomb or not) by the end of the summer of 1945.

Now, whether President Truman knew what the Japanese knew is another issue all together. Let's give Harry the benefit of the doubt and say that he actually felt the Japanese were going follow the Nazi example and fight to the death. He felt (obviously) justified in ignoring his advisors on the subject, because he believed there would be no surrender without a massive and costly invasion. Maybe he just wanted to test the bomb's effectiveness. Maybe he wanted to use it as a deterrent against Soviet aggression. Maybe he simply wanted to avoid another million casualties (by one contemporaneous estimate) and force the Japanese to surrender as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, not much is present in the historical record concerning the decision to drop the bombs, but we can make reasonable assumptions.

As a historian, I was trained not to make moral judgments about the subjects I study; historical figures and actions should be explained not judged. So, all of Truman's reasons strike me as extremely pragmatic and justifiable in it's historical context. To kill between 130,000 to 150,000 people (that's just Hiroshima and that's just within the first few days after the bombing) in exchange for the lives of an unknown number of American, Russian, Chinese, Australian, British and Japanese casualties or for mere political gain (stopping Stalin from turning northern Japan into another Poland for example) may have seemed reasonable. The bomb may have had enormous practical use (we may never know). Whatever "good" reasons Harry Truman had for doing so does not hide the monstrous immorality of the decision.

Hiroshima After Sixty Years: The Debate Continues

Gospel Errors in Timing

As a trained historian, I always find it odd that Christians claim that the Bible should be viewed as a historical document. It's clear to me that the Bible was written in a historical context, and there are endless points of historical correlation, but the Bible is a spiritual book, not a book of pure history. As pointed out in this "Gospel Errors in Timing", there are clear inconsistencies in the historical sequences presented in the four Gospels:

If a prophet is having a vision one might expect the sequence of events to be jumbled up - much like a dream. However if an historical narrative is being given the sequence of events should be in proper order. The Gospel of John is written from a different perspective than the synoptic gospels so it might be expected that it would differ in chronological order from the other gospels. The interesting thing is that even among the synoptic gospels there is considerable difference in the order of events.

Does this mean the Gospels are wrong or historically valueless? The simple answer is no. It makes sense though to look at the Gospels as they were intended: not a history with theological implications, but theology with historical implications. Each of the Gospel writers was trying to communicate something beyond the mere chronology of Jesus' life. When things happened were not as important as the fact of their happening. In addition, the placement of certain events into the structure of each book was (probably) meant as a point of emphasis (at least that's how I write about real life events as it relates to a bigger message). Finally, we are dealing with human authors here; I believe that God did play a role in the authorship of the Bible, but that doesn't mean men didn't have the opportunity to mess things up.

In my mind, that does not diminish the message as radical skeptics would argue. Nor does it strengthen the truth of the Gospels. It simply demonstrates that each of the Gospels was written with a slightly different message in mind and that each Gospel was written, not as historical narrative but, rather, as a testimony to the spiritual truths found in the historical person of Jesus Christ.

In the world, not of the world

To live in the world, but not be OF the world? How do we affect the world, without being affected by it? Now, there's quandary. How does one do that? How does one live in a world where war, violence, irrational prejudices, crime and petty backbiting infuse everything and not be affected by all that negativity? Jesus prayed:

I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. (John 17:15)

In other words, we're supposed to be here in the world, but that evil can still take hold of us if we are not careful and prayerful. I've always liked what Schiller had to say:

Live with your own century, but do not be its creature; render to your contemporaries what they need, not what they praise. (Schiller, Ninth Aesthetic Letter)

In other words, we shouldn't be too quick to cave-in to what the world wants or expects of us.

But just how do we do that? The simple answer is to focus on Jesus, which, of course, is easier said than done.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:8)