when experts go bad

Having just received Theodore Dalrymple’s Romancing Opiates, I have already read 1/3 of the book. It is well written, but not the same caliber as Life at the Bottom. Still, my highlighter has not been without use:

I felt increasingly not like a doctor whose clinical experience might be valuable, the starting point of reflection and debate, but like a heretic who had better keep his beliefs to himself for fear of drawing the institutional wrath of orthodoxy down on himself and making himself the object of inquisition.

Increasingly there has been a trend for specialists in most fields of science to become increasingly homogeneous in thought. Kling writes that the marco-economists in power are highly inbred. New methods and thoughts questioning the establishment (and thus the establishment’s power) are increasingly brought down. Heretics are not brought into the inner sanctum, and thus a free market of ideas cannot flourish. This is illustrated perfecting in the ClimateGate scandal in which Phil Jones wrote of studies questioning Man-made Global Warming:

“Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Of course, this suppressing of outside thought, inbred elitists, and demagoguery all lead to an intellectual wasteland. But, fanatics of all religions (the religion of psychiatry, the religion of evolution, the religion of socialism, etc.) would rather have that then have their core beliefs tried in the free market.

Spotting this type of fascism should not be hard. When advocates of certain ideas call for censorship, for violence, when they do not release data, marginalized their opponents, engage in red herrings, or subject their opponents to ad hominem attacks, refuse to engage in debates or bets, these are tell take signs that they are intellectual fascists. Their work should be instantly suspect, and the burden of proof should be theirs.

Posted in Economics, Human Nature | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

answering Calvinists redux

Well, I might as well answer the rest of the questions posted by David Field on this website:

2. Can you conceive of God being unwise?

The problem with this question is that is assumes our “wants” and “desires” can dictate God’s essential attributes. The only essential attribute of God is the definition of who/what God is: “the creator of the universe”. There is no further “essential” characteristics than that, despite what we perceive as the “best” god we can conjure up. Luckily, the true God (the God of the Bible) is wise.

3. Where in Scripture did you get the idea that a certain formulation of ‘freedom’ is the paramount value to God?

Rephrased: where in the Bible do we get the idea that God values a love relationship over all things? Try the central message of the Bible:

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

If God knows the future, that means the future is set. Before the beginning of the world, each man’s actions have been known. Man can no more choose to love God than a robot can choose to violate its coding. For love to work it needs a give and take relationship. God laments throughout the Bible that people reject him. God is hurt by our rejection. He asks, “what more could I do?”. These are not the actions of a stone idol that never changes, these are the actions of a living God:

Isa 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

God wants a love relationship with man.

4. How do you decide on interpretation?

Above all, common sense should trump. The interpretation should be consistent with the character of God and the nature of God, while controlling for speakers, audiences, and figures of speech. So, quoting Job’s “friends” on the nature of God, as I have seen Calvinists do, is not valid. When Norman Geisler quotes Exo 3:14 “I AM WHO I AM”, and then claims this shows God’s “aseity”, he should be ignored for pulling nonsense out of thin air. I am sure Moses took that to mean obscure Greek metaphysical concepts.

5. Where in Scripture did you get your definition of ‘relationship’? …That is a far cry from demonstrating that the relationship between one who is the infinite creator of time and one of his time-bound creatures must necessarily take the same form.

There are a lot of things in the Bible that the Bible does not self-define (even if the Bible did self-define everything it would be cyclical thinking because the words in the definitions would have to be defined as well). Calvinists think that they alone are the soul arbitragers of words in the Bible. If God repents, they say he did the exact opposite (he didn’t repent), even through when humans repent (using the same Hebrew word), they claim us as flawed creatures.

Due to the fact that “creator of time” is a non-concept, similar to a “square circle”, the question borders on absurdity. He should rephrase it: “Why should Christians not scrap in total, everything we know about relationships and instead claim that a relationship can be held with a static (“dead”) god?”

If God is a liar, and Calvinists often portray him as such, then when he speaks to us in our language he might mean something, not only radically different, but often completely opposite of the words he uses. God is not a liar and his words are true.

Instead God consistently defines himself by his relationships (relationships he describes in detail). He is the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. He talked to them, debated with them, led them through character tests. God is not a static and dead god of the pagans.

6. Do you think that God is in time and will one day have more knowledge, greater wisdom and fewer disappointments than he does now? So that God is not now what once he was, not now what he one day will be, does not have the entirety of his life now and is dependent upon his relationship with creation to arrive at fullness of Godhood?

This is another loaded and inane question. One of the major problems with Calvinists is that they see themselves as some sort of initiated seers (much like the Greek Mystery cults that Calvinism is based on). As such, they like to assume disputed propositions to be true before the debate begins. Their questions read like self-praising and snobbish rubbish.

Ask the Calvinist: Will Jesus reach his full Godhood potential when he learns when the end of times will be? (Mar 13:32)

Calvinism is so utterly foreign to the Bible, that it boggles the mind. Jesus was God. Jesus did not know everything. Having “complete” knowledge is not the pinnacle of being, but something to be despised (see my previous post).

7. How do you know that God won’t ‘take a turn for the worse’?

In response, how do you know God is not a master liar? How do you know that reality is not an elaborate trick and all your concepts of God are not a God-made cosmic joke. I guess we will just have to take God’s word for it.

8. Were the Greek fathers unbiblical?

I will have to defer until I post an extended thesis on the matter. The Fathers of the Christian Church were demonstratively ingrained in Greek platonic/mystery thinking, a thinking Paul mocks (see Col).

9. What is your relationship between theology and culture? Why… are you so uncritical of the relationship between your theological endeavour and the culture of your own day?

The question being asked is another loaded question with no real answer. The reason Open Theists care more about what the Church Fathers’ pagan views, is because that is what shaped the modern Church.

I want to be intellectually honest. To do so, I must take the Bible at face value. Why would I do this when modern most Christians/Atheists/etc discount me as a radical nut job (aka modern culture rejects me) unless I am in pursuit of the truth? If anything, modern culture pushes for the static god of Plato.

10. Who keeps moving?

A lot of truck drivers keep moving. Astronauts and other pilot types keep moving. David Field has run out of questions and instead wants to be nutty.

He seems to want to make a point in the guise of a question. He asks about Clark Pinnock. Although I own one of Pinnock’s books, I have never cracked it open. I know practically nothing about the man. I wish Calvinists would be more forthright in their points and actually ask questions instead of taking cheap shots.

11. The best language? Do you regret the language in which you describe the God whom countless brethren of yours claim to adore and serve

Human language is an odd phenomenon. Words easily become perverted when used by the evil. “Liberal” and “gay” do not mean what they used to, neither does “predestination“, “foreknowledge”, and “almighty”.

Do I regret that evil people have hijacked the Church and daily profane God? Yes.

12. Can God deliver on his promises?

When God says he will save those who believe, how can anyone possibly thwart him? When God makes a promise, partially based on human behavior and capibility (such as when God told Nebuchadnezzar he would take Tyre), it might no pan out. But if God really wanted to fulfill his non-dependent promises, who could stop Him?

13. Has God withdrawn from a part of life?

God no longer has a priest nation, whose destiny he is actively seeking to sculpt. If that means he withdrew, then yes.

14. How do you care pastorally for those in pain?

I tell them God is not a sadist and he did not inflict pain on you so you could learn some unidentifiable thing that would be unnecessary if he never inflicted pain on anyone.

15. What is your teaching about prayer? How do you know, when God doesn’t answer your prayers whether this is because he lovingly won’t answer or because he disappointingly can’t answer?

To Calvinists, they see prayer as a medium of getting things, much like a giant vending machine. In reality, prayer is talking to God, our creator. We should pray to praise him, ask for blessings, and thank him for salvation. Asking for our wishes to be granted, especially outrageous wishes, is a foolhardy pursuit.

As to unanswered prayers. When we pray, we need to steer clear of asking for the impossible (eg. asking that God force people to love him) and that for which there is no reasonable expectation that God would fulfill (eg. one million dollars). We should definitely not feel slighted if God does not fulfill a request for which he has no obligation (eg. heal cancer).

Why do Calvinists pray? Is it to fulfill a meaningless gesture that has no relevance to anything? They probably like voting in American elections as well.

That concludes this set of loaded, inane, and generally incomprehensible questions. A strong theme surrounding questions that Calvinists ask is that they do not reference the Bible, ask for answers concerning Bible verses, or have anything to do with the written word of God. It is almost like Calvinism is a pagan religion.

Posted in Open Theism, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

answering Calvinists

Calvinists generally like asking long lists of usually biased (“Have you stopped beating your wife”) and absurd (“How can evil be absorbed into the nature of God?” (see Geisler)) questions. This is because they are, by and large, intellectually dishonest. Even their less pointed questions have pains of bias to them.

I ran across one website today that asks:

1. Does God know everything?

A seemingly straightforward question, but it reeks with bias. If one were to answer “no”, that implies a character defect in God (oh no’es, God can improve himself!) because the question assumes that knowledge is a real measure of value.

The Open Theist should respond to this question with one/several of their own:

Can I control God? Can I force him to know things? Can I dictate his knowledge? If I wave my hand in a silly manner, is God forced to see that and remember it for all eternity. Was God forced from time eternal to log that silly gesture in his mind, always and forever contemplating on that action? Can God’s creature force thoughts onto God?

Of course, Calvinists believe we are puppets, predestined to do these actions from time eternal, but Armenians would quickly see the failure in their image of a perfect God. They will be taken aback at first, realizing their God is the one in the box. He is the static idol that is not living. God hates stone idols (Lev 26:1) and is consistently described as living (Jer 10:10).

The truth is that God is not a slave. He is not forced to watch every homosexual act throughout history (Gen 18:21). He is not forced to remember every molecule of fecal matter flushed down the tiolet and the location in 50 years. God is not a bureaucratic slave.

The straightforward answer to the question “does God knows everything” is: No, God can know what he wants to know. He is not a slave to mankind.

If you really want to drive the point home, respond with the following:

Was Jesus God? (they will say yes on pains of being a heretic)
Did Jesus know everything? (the Bible is clear he did not (Mar 13:32))

Perfect knowledge is not a pre-requisite for being God. It is not even something desirable. Unlike Calvinists, I believe God is free to do what he wants and that he is not a liar. When God says he will forget my sins and remember them no more, I believe him:

Isa 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

Posted in Open Theism, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , | 8 Comments

channel your inner Szasz

The latest EconTalk features Gary Greenberg, who espouses a view much like the psychiatrist Thomas Szasz. The basic premise is that there are large incentives for doctors and psychologists to label things as diseases, although there is a surprising lack of clinical evidence that can test for these diseases.

I just ordered two books on this topic: The Myth of Mental Illness and Romancing Opiates. A free, yet excellent alternative to these books is, of course, Brain Caplan’s essay on the topic.

Posted in Economics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

is it immoral for God to kill people?

What is death? The clinical definition might reference the heart muscle or brain functionality, but what about it makes death so central to human law. It is criminal in most countries to commit murder in some fashion, but why?

Atheists really cannot explain why. They think human kind is the byproduct of random chemical reactions. Our existence is neither special (self-serving identification is no identification at all; assume a character in the video game “The Sims” identified themselves as having value), nor is it of any objective worth (as opposed to subjective worth). Why then, does the atheist oppose murder, besides a theistic hangover?

Regardless, Christians have their own view of death. The Bible describes death as a transition between this life and the next, not to be feared by Christians:

1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

But then why is it wrong to murder someone?

We are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27), giving us inherent value. Destroying the image of God, without justification, is wrong. We generally do not have the authority to transition people between states of existence. God alone reserves that right, which he delegates to the government (Rom 13:4) in certain situations (executions, war) and even to individuals in certain situations (self defense, blood-revenge killings). Otherwise, we have no right to transition other people from the various states of existence.

One Christian publication described it as if someone owned a bike. It is ok for him to disassemble it, but not other people. It is all about authority.

As a Christian, I do not fear death, but I recognize that mass murder (Stalin: 60 million, Hitler: 20 million, Mao: 80 million) is evil because human beings have inherent value and those murderers had no authority to ruin those people’s lives, transitioning them into eternity.

Posted in Morality, Theology | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

paper-rock-God

Pretend you were playing a paper-rock-scissors game, but instead of “paper” you were using “Israel”, instead of “rock” you were using “iron chariots”, and instead of “scissors” you were using “God”. To a Calvinist, “God” (scissors) would be a trump card that defeats everything including “Israel” and “iron chariots”. “Iron chariots” might defeat Israel, but certainly not “God”. The Bible says otherwise. Observe the following verse:

Jdg 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.*

Calvinists are at a loss here. This is a situation in which “iron chariots” trump God. To a Calvinist who believes God controls all things and knows all things, this verse presents a major problem. As such, Calvinists often respond to this verse by ignoring it. Try to find it highlighted in any major Calvinist work. It does not exist.

To those who believe in the God of the Bible, this hardly presents any challenge. God’s modus operandi is to work through natural means to accomplish his works. God very rarely accomplishes his objectives through miracles (such as drowning the Egyptian army). Instead he prefers to act through his creation, maybe giving his followers a strength buff (such as when Moses lifted his arms to win a battle (Exo 17)). Needless to say that many Israelites died because God did not use a miracle to defeat all Israel’s enemies in the manner reminiscent of the drowned Egyptians. But God prefers human actors, he prefers allowing free agents to act for him, he prefers not to force himself on his creation.

This requires a trust from God, not only in the motivations of God’s agents, but also a trust in their capabilities. Sometime this does not pan out too well. And sometimes, like in the case of the naming of John the Baptist, requires a little bit of arm twisting (Luk 1:20).

*Maybe the Calvinist might claim this is figurative. But then: 1. God does not control everything. 2. Why are other Calvinist favorite verses about God’s actions not figurative as well?

Posted in Human Nature, Open Theism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

within the last ten years

I spent my teen years in a town with the population of about 20,000. The closest Best Buy or Barnes & Noble was 1.5 hours away. Traveling there was a treat for me and my siblings, something for which we became greatly excited. Visiting a large mall carried the same vibe. We would walk through these places and our eyes would fill with wonder at the new and unique items that could not be found at our home town. Video game specialty stores were particularly exciting. Racks of games, especially unknown games (like Privateer 2) were offered en masse. I would save my measly dishwashing income for those items. With little or no competition available, I would easily pay $50-60 for a N64 game that I knew little to nothing about or $10-20 for a music cd by an obscure artist. Sometimes it was a bad investment.

But then something wondrous came along. Initially, it was just the internet. Fairly novel and useless at first, the internet quickly became a place I could navigate to gather information only available before by books, the history channel, and word-of-mouth. I spent hours after school in the lab searching the web for information (my home connection was practically non-existent). I would manually print volumes of paper to retain this scarce information. Compared to now, this was the dark ages of computing.

Then the real breakthrough came: Amazon.com. Barnes & Noble fast found that they could not charge ridiculous prices for books and Best Buy found they could no longer charge ridiculous prices for electronics. Buyers had options.

Even music artists started feeling pressure. Singles now can be downloaded for less than a $1 from Amazon and users can preview songs before purchase. No longer can bands with one good song sucker mass amounts of money from naive buyers. New bands no longer need labels to promote them. And record companies can no longer decide what will be the approved music. In short, archaic and autocratic radio stations began to die. Now Amazon.com is moving to offer digital versions of movies, and YouTube is hosting independent movies for free. It is only a matter of time before movies escape captivity as well.

Recently Steam and Direct2Drive started offering electronic versions of video games. Specialty game stores have started focusing on PlayStation, Nintendo, and Xbox games (hardcopy games that cannot be had instantly at bargain prices), and instantaneous pressure was placed on those stores to lower hard copy game prices as well. Obscure titles now have distributors, and consumers now have options.

As the older store-going generation starts dying off, prices will continue to plummet with advances in distribution media. The internet brings information to buyers and brings competition to sellers.

While I have since moved from that dying town of 20,000 people and can now drive to Best Buy within 5 minutes, I usually choose to instead stay home, flip open my Touchsmart laptop (bought on HP.com), and then navigate to Amazon.com to place orders. Shipping is usually free, the items come straight to my door, and my money is saved in troves (ex. saved over $200 buying a Rebel camera from Amazon oppossed to Best Buy).

Do I wish I was born 10 years sooner such as to live longer in the “good old days”? I think not. I wish I was born 10+ years later.

Posted in Economics, History | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

why Socialism is evil

It is good v. evil time.

1a. Good or evil? A man giving some of his money to a needy person.

1b. Good or evil? A man taking some of his neighbor’s money at the point of a gun to give to a the same person.

2a. Good or evil? Giving a medic some of your own money to treat an injured stranger.

2b. Good or evil? Forcing a medic to not treat anyone unless he treats a paticular stranger for free.

3a. Good or evil? Telling someone potential benifits and harms of a potentially lifesaving drug before letting them choose whether to take it.

3b. Good or evil? Telling someone they cannot have a potentially lifesaving drug because you deamed the risks too great.

4a. Good or evil? Allowing people who made risky loans to fail when their investment proved too risky.

4b. Good or evil? Reimberssing people who carelessly invested their money in risky assets with the money of those who did not.

Socialism is not evil because it “doesn’t work”. It is evil because it is evil.

Posted in Economics, Morality | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

the violinist hypothetical

In a recent article by Barton Hinkle he references Judith Jarvis Thomson’s famous-violinst hypothetical (in “A Defense of Abortion”). Hinkle describes the hypothetical as such:

Imagine you wake up one morning “back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours . . . .To unplug you would be to kill him . . . Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it?”

Of course, the professor Thomson is making a parallel to finding a new little baby growing inside a woman. The claim is that the person has no right to leach off of you for support. The baby is equated to the violinist (why a famous violinist when an analogy to any innocent human should suffice?), and both are labeled as leaches. Answering the hypothetical, I would argue the violinist has no right to leach off of you for support. With that being said, abortion is still evil.

Here is another hypothetical: Pretend a woman has a newborn child (as a father of three, I know more than anyone that newborns are entirely helpless). Pretend she looks at her baby and decides that she does not want the responsibility of caring for a newborn. Pretend also that no one else in society wants to take care of that child, or pretend she is on a deserted island. She could have ample supplies or not, it does not matter. Would that mother be evil for abandoning her child?*

Ignoring that most pregnancies are the result of consenting sexual relations, and that when engaging in these relations people are acknowledging responsibility for potential children (similar to when people sign a contract to adopt children), the special cases still do not warrant exception. Parents have a moral obligation to their children, whether they want it or not. An unborn baby is no different.

When a mother or father takes active steps to kill their own children (pretend in the violinist hypothetical that upon waking the patient decided to disconnect the violinist by chopping off the violinist’s arms and legs) this is decidedly more evil.

The violinist hypothetical is a shallow attempt to blindside Christians with a novel argument.

*If this is answered “yes, because she accepted responsibility initially.” The Christian should ask why that backsliding is different than backsliding on what type of ice cream to have for desert. When debating atheists, remember that all morality is subjective to them, and, therefore, their positions are inherently inconsistent and arbitrary. Why is life valuable? Why is their concept of morality to be valued over Jeffery Dahmer’s? What makes our lives more valuable than other animals? They will never answer the “why’s” to their beliefs.

Posted in Morality | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

on Christian irrationality

From Brian Caplan on a poll showing most self-identified Christians are ignorant of their own religion as well as others:

If people sincerely believed that their eternal fates hinged on their knowledge of religion, their ignorance wouldn’t be rational. If you could save your soul with 40 hours of your time, you’d be mad to watch t.v. instead. Unfortunately for religious believers, this leaves them with two unpalatable options:

1. Option #1: Deep-down, most religious believers believe that death is the end…

2. Option #2: Most religious believers are so stupid and/or impulsive that they’ll knowingly give up eternal bliss for trivial mortal pleasures…

It is interesting that Caplan only offers these two options. I think a third option is more true:

Option #3: Most people make up what they want their religion to be in their own heads and think they are going to heaven. People generally think that the way they view the world mirrors reality (right and wrong, justice and injustice, ect). They cannot imagine a God that would send them to hell or people like them, so have no motivation to identify what is true.

Although Caplan misidentifies Christians and possible options and explanations, the main point of Caplan’s post stands: Christian ignorance of religion in general. I would agree that most, although less than what the poll revealed due to the self identification of the participants, real Christians are generally ignorant of other religions as well as their own, but I see it as less of a problem than what Caplan indicates. While Christian ignorance is a problem to people who are not really Christian (I remember visiting big churches in D.C. where maybe the smallest fraction actually believed in the life, death and physical resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God), ignorance is not really a problem to those who actually are saved.

Caplan’s claims are reminiscent of Celsus circa 100-200 AD, to whom Origen gives answer:

[Celsus] next proceeds to recommend, that in adopting opinions we should follow reason and a rational guide… And he asserts that certain persons [Christians] who do not wish either to give or receive a reason for their belief, keep repeating, “Do not examine, but believe!” and, “Your faith will save you!” And he alleges that such also say, “The wisdom of this life is bad, but that foolishness is a good thing!” To which we have to answer, that if it were possible for all to leave the business of life, and devote themselves to philosophy, no other method ought to be adopted by any one, but this alone… But since the course alluded to is impossible, partly on account of the necessities of life, partly on account of the weakness of men, as only a very few individuals devote themselves earnestly to study, what better method could be devised with a view of assisting the multitude, than that which was delivered by Jesus to the heathen?

Origen answers claims of Christian ignorance with the truth: that people really do not have to know the deepest theology or rationality and they are all the better for it. If you believe the street will not collapse when you walk on it, and proceeding to walk on the street proves your assertion, you are better off than the philosopher who tests endlessly the street to see if it is an illusion in a attempt to save his own life from a possible imminent falling death.

I readily acknowledge that the average Christian might have a lower IQ and a higher tolerance for irrational thinking than the average atheist, but I find comfort in the fact that our smartest can easily defeat their smartest.

Posted in Christian Maxim, History, Human Nature, Theology | Tagged | 2 Comments