Fundamental Astuteness

The Essence of Astuteness: Non-Partisan Intellectual Honesty

Archive for the ‘Worldview’ Category

No posts in awhile

with 2 comments

Its been too long since I’ve posted. I didn’t know a senior year in high school could be so busy. A couple of quick thoughts:

  1. I hope to get back to writing regularly. I would like the theme of my next few posts to be about some theological issues, specifically addressing the problem of omnipotence (can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?) and I’d also like to write about Abortion. Its a huge issue that should have been on the forefront of the presidential election. But, like most controversial issues, it gets put on the back burner by mutual consent, for no candidate wants to be appear to be too intractable and unreasonable by taking a monolithic stance on a moral issues; thus the business of politics sustains and deepens its tendency to disconnect the voters and disgust them with politics, especially on the Republican side.
  2. John McCain will lose big. I may be about to sacrifice my entire future political fortune by making a prediction, but I”ll go ahead and say that the Republicans are in for a bigger swatting than they anticipate. Everyone knows that they’ll get beat, but I predict they will get crushed beyond the most depressing expectations. So for the prediction: McCain will get 200 or few electoral votes. There it is. I might delete that in hopes of saving my future political credibility, but I doubt it. If my political potential dies by the inaccuracy of my prediction, so be it, and may I calmly kiss my political aspirations goodbye.
  3. I’m going to launch a campaign. I’m officially campaigning for politics. No official party yet. That will come later. For now, I’m going to espouse a few major policy issues, like abortion, taxes, and regulation. The rest of the time, I”ll be speaking out on hypocrisy in the Washington System in both parties, the senseless frills and privileges that accompany those who are unfortunate enough to be called “politicians” and so on.
  4. I think if Ron Paul were the candidate on the Republican ticket, the party wouldn’t be losing so badly.
  5. I think if Ron Paul were a little more polished as a speaker and communicator, then he would’ve have been on the ticket.
  6. I’ll develop more thoughts later.

Written by Astuteness

November 4, 2008 at 4:30 pm makes CNN and Hannity and Colmes!

leave a comment » was noticed by the CNN Political Ticker yesterday, and generated 222 comments before commenting was disabled. Some of the comments really intrigued me. A lot of sad assumptions about the unborn:

“My Body, My Choice !!”

“I am not a woman, so I cannot partake in this thread.”

“Obama’s opponents just keep shooting blindly hoping that eventually, something’ll hit. It’s a pitiful strategy.”

“So, you want women to raise kids resulting from a rape or incest? Where are their rights? You love to see those women victimized the 2nd times??”

“Abortion is a fundamental right of liberty. What other rights will the Republicans take from us?”

So lets face it: There’s a lot of bunk.

You can read the article here.

Gianna Jesson also appeared on Hannity and Colmes two days ago. Of course, Sean Hannity was all for Jesson, and Colmes tried to put in a word about how Obama doesn’t support “infanticide”. Jesson and Hannity had some strong points in return. Check it out:

Written by Astuteness

September 17, 2008 at 7:25 am

Michael Shermer on the Problem of Evil

leave a comment »

My favorite skeptic, Michael Shermer, has written a book titled “How We Believe: The Search for God in the Age of Science”. I’m enjoying it so far. The critics seem to like it too. “Well researched, comprehensive, and persuasive” “This is an important book” “Great read…!”

I’ve always been fascinated by the problem of evil. I assume at least most of my small readership is familiar with the issue. The question basically is: “How can an all good God and all powerful God allow evil in this world and still be sinless?”

I’m still thinking and reading on the topic, and I hope to write more about it soon. What I have concluded is that despite the apparent conundrums inolved with the problem, I am not yet convinced that the existence of pain and suffering justifies the rejection of God. Nevertheless, I’m still intruiged by other people’s reasoning and justifications for their worldview, and I now present an excerpt from page five of his book mentioned above:

“To this day I have not heard an answer to the Problem of Evil that seems satisfactory. As with the Problem of Free Will, most answers involve complicated twists and turns of logic and semantic wordplay. One answer, for example, is based on the fundamental assumption of a stone so heavy he cannot lift it. Likewise, God cannot be encompassed in the in the subset of evil. Evil, like heavy stones, exist independently of the larger set of God, even though remaining in that set. Another riposte involves explaining specific historical evils, like the Holocaust, where one answer is that “humans committed these evil acts, not God.” But this avoids the problem altogether: Either God allowed Nazis to kill Jews, in which case He is not omnibenevolent, or God could not prevent Nazis from killing Jews, in which case he is not omnipotent.”

Others have found the answer. I hope to find it too.

Written by Astuteness

September 11, 2008 at 5:01 pm

On Faithful Skepticism and Rational Faith

with 5 comments

It is my observation that the mainstream media and academia stigmatize faith as something intellectually inferior and antithetical to both science and reason. This is not always true of every respected scientist. Some, like Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic Magazine and the one to whom I also like to refer to as “my favorite skeptic”) have a less villifying take on faith in general, and the Christian Faith in particular. Still, atheists like George H. Smith boldy assert that “Christian theism must be rejected by any person with even a shred of respect for reason”. Websites too, like Importance of Philosophy make assertions such as “The result of using faith consistently is the complete inability to think.” Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

I disagree.

To either replace their faith and justify their rejection of it, skeptics turn to other pinnicles on which to view truth and analyze the world. Some go all out in support of Science. Its all about science. What do emperical experiments tell us. What’s happening in the labratory. Others are all about reason. “This is rational.” “That is not.” “If God created everything, then God created evil. And since evil exists, and acording to the principle that our works define who we are, the we can assume God is evil.”

Media and acadamia potray these alternatives to faith (reason, science, etc) as exclusive to faith. “Science and Faith are not compatible” or “Reason and Faith cannot be reconciled”. The implication is that if you have faith, then you are not rational. You are not scientific. You wonder in the wastelands of stupidity and cluelessnes. Such implications are used, particuarly in our college campuses, as tools by which to destroy people’s religious faith.

And it works. The Christian Church doesn’t do very well educating its people on how to defend the faith. The de-conversion rate of college students is at an all time high. So when our young people go to college, who wants to be called “irrational” “stupid” “clueless” etc? And so people fall away from the faith or cower from the mighty intellecutals in fear because someone convinced them that faith is inherently exclusive to the other faculties of reason, science, and so on.

Part of the problem may be that we let our opponents define what faith is. And when that happens, they are more than happy to define it in the negative. “Faith is the opposite of reason” or “Faith is antithetical to science”.

But is faith merely a dictionary antonym for intellectual glory?

I think not.

I propose that we as Christians take our definition of faith from the 19th book of the New Testament, the Book of Hebrews, the 11th chapter, and the first verse, which says: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

In other words, strictly speaking, faith is merely the belief in something that we have not directly seen or experienced firsthand. That’s it.

If this is the case, then it has far reaching implications into whether or not faith should be stigmatized as something inherently irrational. Because if it is true that faith is merely belief in something not directly experienced, then everyone has faith.

I have not been to England. But I have strong faith that it exists. I haven’t seen it first hand, but Rick Steves has apparantly been there and made a movie about it. The name appears in my history books and all of them agree on the general size and location of the country on the map. Its a well grounded faith too, because there is good evidence for it.

Scientists have not actually seen macro-evolution happen. No one has gone to the zoo for a few million years and watched a monkey turn from ape to homo-sapien. Its a matter of faith because they’re believing in something that they have not actually seen.

In light of this, the argument in our culture ought not to be about whether faith is inherently dangerous or evil; everyone has faith; the argument ought to be over who has the best faith supported by experience, reason, science, and logic.

As a historical faith, Christianity has, in my experience, been able to meet the burden of proof to my satisfaction such that I am convinced that, while theism and christianity are not proveable with mathmatical certainty, the archeological, scientific, philosophical, and historical evidences make faith in God and the Bible a reasonable state of existence not outside the realms of science and rationality.

The evidence that makes this so will be explored on this blog as time goes on. But for now, remember: Faith is not irrational in and of itself. Everyone has to one varying degree or another in various fields of thought and persuasion. The debate ought to be over which faith is best supported by our deductions and observations.

I conclude as I often like to do with the great quote from the great Voddie Baucham:

“Is that your final answer? I hope its not. voddie-baucham.jpgLet me give you an answer to that question that I believe is better than ‘I was raised that way’ or its better than “Well I’m Southern Baptist and that’s the way we believe’ or its better than “I tried it, and it worked for me” Let me tell you why I choose to believe the Bible. I don’t believe the Bible because I was raised that way—because I wasn’t. I don’t choose to believe the Bible because I tried it and it worked for me. My mother’s Buddhism worked for her—that’s why she was a Buddhist! I need something more than just ‘because it works’. Here’s the answer—I’ll give it to you and unpack it for you:

I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report [of] supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claimed that their writing are divine rather than human in origin.”



Starting Points…

with 2 comments

As I mentioned quite a few weeks ago, I’ll be blogging about Christian issues, specifically on the defense of the Christian faith with a focus on the intellectual side of Apologetics.

Hopefully, this blog will not merely be a stump for methodically proclaiming religious dogma from centuries past. In addition to discussing the Christian side of things, I hope to give voice to some of my favorite skeptics  as well. I guess it would be correct to say that I try to be open minded, although I do think “tolerance” is overvalued in the our culture. But that is for a different discussion.

I thought it might be good lay out a couple of my positions on things related to what I’ll be blogging about for a while; some basic hypothesis that will be examined and critiqued as the blogging goes on.

  • The Bible: The Bible is the authoritative Word of God. It was written by over 40 authors over a span of approximately 1500 years. It appears there is good evidence that the Bible is a reliable collection of documents that is attested by historical, archaeological, and scientific data and appears to bear markings of divine inspiration. Many Christians believe the Bible for the wrong reasons that depend on illogical circular reasoning. Voddie Baucham said it best: ”

    “Is that your final answer? I hope its not. voddie-baucham.jpgLet me give you an answer to that question that I believe is better than ‘I was raised that way’ or its better than “Well I’m Southern Baptist and that’s the way we believe’ or its better than “I tried it, and it worked for me” Let me tell you why I choose to believe the Bible. I don’t believe the Bible because I was raised that way—because I wasn’t. I don’t choose to believe the Bible because I tried it and it worked for me. My mother’s Buddhism worked for her—that’s why she was a Buddhist! I need something more than just ‘because it works’. Here’s the answer—I’ll give it to you and unpack it for you:

    I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report [of] supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claimed that their writing are divine rather than human in origin.”

  • The Resurrection: For reasons to be elaborated on a later date, I find the evidence for the bodily Resurrection of Christ to be compelling.
  • The Problem of Evil: The problem of evil is indeed one of the strongest arguments against rational theism. Yet, after considering the matter for over a year, and continuing to do so, I do not find the existence of evil and suffering to be a rational reason to reject theism. My reasons for this will be explained later.
  • Theism: The existence of God cannot  be proven with mathematical certainty. But the same is true for a variety of other things we intellectually  take for granted. However, I do believe it is reasonable to believe in God because there is good evidence and good arguments for His existence.
  • Origin: After some consideration of the evidence, my position is that God created the Universe a finite time ago ex-nihilo (out of nothing). As far as evolution is concerned, I find a lot of holes in the theory, and am disturbed that it is taught as fact in our schools. This has consequences far beyond mere scientific knowledge.

These and many other thesis I hope to examine in the coming months on Fundamental Astuteness. Your thoughts, insights, criticisms, and questions are welcome.

Written by Astuteness

August 30, 2008 at 9:20 pm

I’ve got it…

with 5 comments

My small readership may recall that some time ago, I wrote an article outlining some needed changed to the astuteness domain. One of those changes needed to be a shift from blogging about whatever crossed my mind to something more specific. A central theme. A main topic or area of discussion.

A couple of things have come to mind since then, and I narrowed it down to three main choices:

1) Blog about being a good blogger. It sounds ridiculous, but I think it could be done. Blog about what is needed to have a famous, visited blog, and that itself will generate traffic. Reminds me of my friend Shaun who makes money online by maintaining a website about…making money online. Cool.

2) Blog about politics. Be a political critic. Like John Stossel. If you haven’t read his books, do it. Get them at your local library today. “GIve me a Break” and “Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Why everything you know is wrong”. But I decided this just wasn’t for me…yet. Maybe another time.

3) Blog about Theology, Christian Apologetics, and Skepticism. Find answers for the Christian Faith. Find the strengths and weaknesses. Why do I believe the Bible? What about the Trinity? The Problem of Evil? Does God exist? Is it reasonable to believe in God? Are skeptics any more rational than believers? Why is Michael Shermer my favorite skeptic?

After much thought, I’ve decided to go for the last option. I’m young yet, and I can do politics another time. If Christianity is real, now is the time to find out.

So for now, its category three. That will be the current and near term future for Astuteness. If I find something irresistable going on in politics, I’ll mention it. But for the most part, Apologetics is on!

Written by Astuteness

August 1, 2008 at 8:33 am

Clarification regarding commentary on liberty…

with one comment

Insightful questioning and commentary by my good friend Will at WillsPerspective has been well placed and has persuaded me that a clarification is order.

At some point during our exchange in commentary over my previous post, I proposed that “I don’t know exactly what parts of the bible to enforce. But I think that discussion [should] take place. My inclination right now is to say that the Government today cannot take any more power than the civil government of the Old Testament. Church issues should then be left to the church, and family issues to the family.”

And in response, Will made an appropriate observation and suggestion: “The Old Testament government was extremely powerful (stoning girls for fornication, etc) and I don’t think we would want to take our New Testament model of liberty that far, so I would encourage you to re-think that standard.”

Let me say here and now that I hate death and glory in its absence. Capital punishment is a serious matter,  and by no means do I propose we expand it to crimes other than murder. Nor do I propose that we follow every single statue of Levitical law to the letter. Especially when it comes to matters of capital crime. It seems to me (and I welcome any alternative view on this for consideration) that there is room for grace and mercy in light of New Testament principles. The story of Jesus forgiving the adulteress woman and saving her from stoning comes to mind.

What then did I mean by my statement reproduced above?

Aside from the fact that I never actually said or intended to imply that we should expand capital crimes to Old Testament levels but rather simply stated that the modern civil government should not expand its jurisdiction beyond Old Testament jurisdiction, my point was primarily not that we should necessarily re-install every single mandate from the Old Testament, but rather, we should view the seperation of powers and jurisdiction in the Bible as a foundation for government today.

Here are two examples of what this would look like:

Capital Punishment: Capital punishment should remain in the hands of civil government if it is to be practiced at all. Churches and families should not hold this power (the Catholic church tried to do this in the Dark Ages). Since the pattern from the Bible seems to hold that the civil magistrates should administer the death penalty, it should stay that way. What is a capital crime in today’s world is very much very much debatable. Personally, The farthest I would go in allowing capital punishment is only in cases of willful murder. Even so, serious discussion should be given to whether capital cases are tried correctly and in a consistent mannerl, in light of the recent spate of DNA exonerations. But this particular matter is for another discussion.

Welfare/Providing for the needy: Those who are in need in the absence of laziness should be cared for, as demonstrated by the Levitical law and by the pattern of the early church in the Book of Acts. There is no Biblically sanctioned pattern where civil magistrates are involved in the wholesale redistribution of wealth. Rather, this task was given to the individuals, churches, and, in the modern times, charitable/voluntary organizations. There are other reasons to oppose welfare as well, but for the purpose of biblical pattern, we see no precedent that endorses the civil government being involved in this matter.

Again, the goal here is to observe patterns and principles of the separation of powers and duties in the Old Testament, not necessarily adopt every statute to the “letter of the law”. There are separate and distinct roles that are best carried out by various entities in society, and I propose, that as Christians, we take our pattern of separated powers and jurisdiction from the Word of God.

Written by Astuteness

June 6, 2008 at 3:34 pm