December 12, 2013

Why the universe? Only two options

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Cosmological Argument, Theism, Theistic Arguments
[16] Comments 

A or BIf you’re looking for an explanation of the universe, which is a collection of contingent beings, there are only two possibilities: 1) The explanation is found in a necessary being that transcends the universe; 2) There is no explanation.

Regarding 1), every physical entity is a contingent being. The “universe” simply refers to the whole collection of physical, contingent beings.  One cannot explain why the universe exists by appealing to another physical, contingent being because there can be no physical, contingent beings outside of the collection of all physical, contingent beings.  “But,” one might say, “perhaps it could be explained by a prior non-physical, contingent being.  Perhaps, but even if so, as a contingent being, that non-physical, contingent entity would also require an explanation for its existence.  To avoid an infinite regress, one must ultimately arrive at a necessary being that transcends the universe, and explains why the universe exists.

(more…)

 

December 11, 2013

Another example of how same-sex marriage won’t affect anyone, #4

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Homosexuality, Political Incorrectness, Same-sex Marriage
[14] Comments 
Credit: CBS

Credit: CBS

Another cake maker, this time in Colorado, was sued for refusing to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding celebration.  Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop discriminated against the couple based on their sexual orientation, and would be fined in the future if he ever refused to provide a cake to another same-sex couple again. He wrote, “At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses.  This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”  So the law can force a man to violate his conscience just so someone else’s feelings don’t get hurt?  What about Jack Phillips’ feelings?  Should the law protect him from feeling bullied by the government?  Surely his feelings are hurt at the prospect of having to close his business.  I don’t see his feelings being taken into consideration.  And finally, Jack Philips is not denying them service “because of who they are,” but because of what they are doing.  It’s not as if Jack Phillips refuses to make birthday cakes for people who are gay.  He is refusing to provide a cake that will be used to celebrate an action that he considers immoral.  There is a big difference.  But I don’t expect the law to recognize such distinctions anymore.

Just more of the same.

Update 8/24/15: A Colorado Court of Appeals ruled against Jack Phillips on the grounds that he is free to believe whatever he wants, but he is not allowed to act on those beliefs by refusing service to people with a homosexual orientation.  Oddly enough, Mr. Phillips isn’t discriminating against anyone’s sexual orientation.  He has no problem baking cakes for homosexuals.  What he has a problem with is baking cakes for events that promote homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

 

December 6, 2013

Would you shoot a man trapped in a burning car?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Euthanasia
[12] Comments 

burning carImagine with me the following scenario: You are resting peacefully at your home, when all of a sudden you hear a loud bang.  You rush outside to see what happened, and across the street is a wrecked car with a man trapped inside.  As you approach the car to offer help, it becomes engulfed in flames.  The man is fully conscious, but unable to escape.  You’ve called 911, but it will be 15 minutes before they are able to arrive with a fire truck and the jaws of life.  The man is burning before your eyes with no chance of survival, and you hear his blood curdling cries from within the car: “Shoot me, please!  Shoot me!  Ahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!”

You own a gun, and have the means to honor this man’s request.  The choice is yours: Do nothing, and watch this man burn to death in excruciating pain for the next 10 minutes, or get your gun, and shoot the man to hasten his death to avoid the unbearable suffering.  What would you do?

Once you have answered this question, scroll down below for an additional question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Euthanasia is the practice of actively and purposely killing an individual because they are experiencing some form of unbearable suffering.  Think, for example, of the person with terminal bone cancer whose body is wracked with pain.  If you were to meet such a person, and they requested that you kill them to end their suffering, would you do it?

If you would kill the man in the car, but not the man with cancer, please explain what you see as the morally significant distinction between the two scenarios.  Likewise, if you would not kill the man in the car, but would kill the man with cancer, please explain what you see as the morally significant distinction between the two scenarios.

 

December 5, 2013

It’s not that bad…

Posted by Jason Dulle under Hamartiology, Holiness, Theology
[8] Comments 

Christians often disagree regarding matters of personal holiness.  Those defending themselves against the charge of sin for some X will often respond by saying, “It’s not that bad.”  Of course, to say something is “not that bad” is tantamount to saying it’s “not that good” either.  In such cases, we should be honest with ourselves and others and just admit that X is not spiritually advantageous for us, even if it is morally tolerable.  Would we be better off if we abstained?  Perhaps.  Are we sinning if we don’t?  No.

(more…)

 

December 4, 2013

Talk less and ask more questions

Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends
[3] Comments 

talk lessI was thinking the other day how I could be a better conversation partner, and show myself more friendly to others.  I began to think about the kinds of things I find annoying when talking to others: failure to make eye contact, interrupting, dominating the conversation, changing the topic, etc.  Then, I thought of another faux pas that I’m sure most of us are guilty of.  Not only have I observed it so often in others, but I find myself doing it as well, either due to nervousness (particularly when meeting someone new), my desire to demonstrate our commonalities, or in some cases, just pure selfishness.  To what do I refer?

When in conversation with someone, we have the tendency to relate our own experience when it is similar to something the other person is talking about.  The worst thing to do is relate your story while the person is in the midst of telling their own!  But it may be good to withhold your story, even if they have finished theirs.  I don’t know about you, but if, when I finish telling my story to someone, they immediately begin talking about themselves, I get the feeling that they are more interested in their own story than mine.  It almost feels like you have two people competing against one another to share their personal story, each talking past the other.  If we want to be a better conversation partner, and show ourselves more friendly while in conversation, instead of telling our story, how about we seek to know more about their story?  Show them you are listening and you care by asking them to share more.  Not only is this flattering to your conversation partner, but it expresses our genuine interest in them as a person.  Rather than using their story as an opportunity to talk about ourselves, we use it as an opportunity to get to know them better.  We’ll have plenty of opportunities to share our own experience in the future.

 

November 28, 2013

Arrogance is about attitude, not belief

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Thinking
1 Comment 

Arrogance is not descriptive of what you believe, or even the confidence with which you believe it, but rather how you believe it.  Arrogance is an attitude one has about their beliefs; an unwarranted display of superiority over others who do not think as you do.  It is a feature of one’s character and behavior, not one’s beliefs.

 

November 25, 2013

Gender is not a social construction

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Homosexuality, Political Incorrectness
[12] Comments 

Gender Identity ConfusionWe hear more and more about gender identity confusion these days.  Gender identity confusion is when a person thinks s/he is the gender opposite of their biology: a man who believes he is a female trapped in a man’s body, or a woman who believes she is a male trapped in a woman’s body.  Rather than considering this as a mental disorder in need treatment, however, today’s proffered solution is to perform a sex-change operation so that one’s body will match their perceived gender.  I am persuaded that this solution to the problem is wrong-headed.

(more…)

 

November 20, 2013

Future meme change: Gay is a choice

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Homosexuality
[4] Comments 

Gay not choiceThe cultural acceptance of homosexuality as morally benign or morally good has happened at an alarming speed.  While there is a complex of reasons for the shift, one of the most influential is the meme that being gay is not a choice.  Admittedly, for most people who engage in homosex, this is true.  Their same-sex attractions are not chosen.  They come naturally to them, just as opposite-sex attractions come to naturally to a heterosexual.  What is chosen is whether or not the person who experiences same-sex attraction acts on those desires to actually engage in homosex.

The “gay is not a choice” meme has been so important for the acceptance of gay rights that when Sex in the City star, Cynthia Nixon, stated publicly that she simply chooses to be in a lesbian relationship, the gay community was in an uproar.  They feared that her comments would negatively affect their fight for civil rights.

(more…)

 

November 18, 2013

“That’s not science!” Translation: “That’s not naturalism!”

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheistic objections, Cosmological Argument, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Science, Theism, Theistic Arguments
[22] Comments 

Not scienceMany believe science has disproven God.  This is not possible, even in principle.[1]  The truth of the matter is that advances in science are providing more reasons to believe in God, not less.  While scientific discoveries cannot prove God’s existence, they can be used to support premises in arguments that have theistic conclusions/implications. For example, science has discovered that the universe began to exist.  Anything that begins to exist requires an external cause.  Since the universe encompasses all physical reality, the cause of the universe must transcend physical reality.  It cannot be a prior physical event or some natural law, because there was nothing physical prior to the first physical event, and natural laws only come into being once the natural world comes into being.  Whatever caused the universe to come into being must be transcendent, powerful, immaterial, spaceless, eternal, and personal, which is an apt description of God.

(more…)

 

November 14, 2013

Who believes in God, and who doesn’t?: Statistics

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Statistics, Theism
[11] Comments 

religion_check_boxOver at Uncommon Descent, vjtorley reports on a recent survey of 996 adults conducted between October 17-18, 2013 regarding American religious beliefs.  Some of the more notable findings include:

  • 3 out of 4 adults believe in God: 76% believe in God, 14% don’t believe in God, and 10% are not sure.
  • Young adults aged 18-29 are the least likely to believe in God.  Only 63% believe in God.  A full 25% don’t believe in God, and 12% are not sure, for a total of 37% God doubters/deniers.  That’s 2 out of 5!  Compare this to other age groups:
    • 30-44 = 14% atheist
    • 45-64 = 9% atheist
    • 65+ = 6% atheist

(more…)

 

November 9, 2013

Hawaii set to approve same-sex marriage

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Politics, Same-sex Marriage
[7] Comments 

Earlier this week, Hawaii’s senate passed a same-sex marriage bill.  Yesterday, the House approved a similar bill.  It needs to go back to the senate for reconciliation, and then on to the governor for signature (who will sign it).  This will make Hawaii the 15th state (not including D.C.) to approve same-sex marriage.  Same-sex marriages will begin in Hawaii on December 2, 2013.

11/14/13 update: Governor Neil Abercrombie signed the bill into law on Wednesday, November 13, 2013.

 

November 8, 2013

Forced to violate your conscience

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Political Incorrectness, Politics, Same-sex Marriage
[9] Comments 

conscience violateIn recent days, I’ve reported on a florist who was sued for not providing flowers for a same-sex wedding, a baker who was sued for not providing a cake for a same-sex wedding, and a wedding photographer who lost a case in New Mexico’s Supreme Court because she would not photograph a same-sex wedding.  Many who support same-sex marriage applaud this phenomena, reasoning that people should not be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples.  But what about personal liberty?  What about the liberty to follow one’s conscience in these matters?  Why is it ok to require people to violate their conscience, or lose their livelihood?

Can you imagine the outcry if a homosexual printer was forced by the government to either print anti-homosexual propaganda, or get out of the printing industry?  What if a homosexual filmmaker was sued for refusing to direct a film arguing that homosexuality was immoral or harmful, and forced to either direct the film or find a new line of work?  What if a screenplay writer who was also an anti-gun activist was forced to write a script for a movie promoting the use of firearms?  Would this be acceptable?  No!   No one should be forced by the government to lend their services to projects or events they believe to be immoral, and which run contrary to their conscience.  Yet this is exactly what the government is requiring of its citizens when it comes to same-sex marriage, and many same-sex marriage advocates are applauding this.  If you support people being forced by law to violate their conscience, don’t be surprised if one day the government forces you to violate your conscience as well.  It’s ironic that those who argue for more liberty in the case of same-sex marriage are willing to take liberties away from those who disagree.

 

November 6, 2013

Same-sex Marriage is Coming to Illinois

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Politics, Same-sex Marriage
1 Comment 

In 2011 Illinois created civil unions.  Now, just two years later they are on the cusp of creating same-sex marriage.

The IL Senate had approved a bill in February to allow same-sex marriage, and now yesterday, the IL House approved the bill with minor changes.  It’s been sent back to the Senate for reconciliation, and will be signed by the governor.  Illinois will be the 15th state (not including D.C.) to approve same-sex marriage, beginning June 1, 2014.

 

UPDATE: Governor Pat Quinn signed the bill into law on November 20, 2013.

 

November 4, 2013

Science defies common sense?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Epistemology, Logic, Philosophy, Science
Leave a Comment 

science defies common senseI’ve heard science types like Lawrence Krauss claim that science has shown us over and over again that we can’t trust our common sense, and by extension, philosophical reasoning.  One of the go-to illustrations is our solar system.  It’s said that common sense tells us the sun revolves around the Earth, and yet Copernicus, through science, showed common sense was unreliable as a guide to truth.  Only science can tell us what is true.

I think this is a misconstrual of the issue.  Daniel N. Robinson said it best: “What Copernicus said was not hostile to common sense but was inconsistent with common experience.”[1]  Indeed.  While science has discovered physical phenomenon which is weird, to say the least, it does not defy common sense, but our common experience.  Rationality is not at odds with science, and cannot be disproven by science.  Indeed, the task of science presupposes rationality from start to finish.

[1]Daniel N. Robinson, “Neuroscience and the Soul,” Philosophia Christi, Vol. 15, Number 1, 2013, 17.

 

November 4, 2013

Marriage: The anti-poverty solution

Posted by Jason Dulle under Social, Statistics
[6] Comments 

The Heritage Foundation did a study that discovered children raised in a home with married parents are 82% less likely to face poverty.  Only 7% of children living in homes that fall below the poverty line were living with married parents. – Salvo Magazine, Issue 23, Winter 2012, p. 20.

If we truly want to fight poverty, then let’s promote marriage!

 

October 31, 2013

Pro-lifers put their time and money where their mouth is

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Bioethics
Leave a Comment 

According to The New York Times, there are 2500 crisis pregnancy centers in the United States versus 1800 abortion clinics.  For those who think that pro-lifers aren’t doing anything to help women with their babies, think again.

 

October 30, 2013

Quote of the Day: Aberrant feminism

Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends, Political Incorrectness, Quote of the Day
Leave a Comment 

“Although feminism purports to raise the value and status of women, it actually deconstructs femininity, treating it as an illusion or even an aberration.  The male chauvinist of the past identified women as unique and different, but then treated femininity as a lesser thing than masculinity.  The feminist of today, rather than celebrating femininity as a thing of equal worth, dismisses it as a bourgeois construction.  Far from championing femininity as a beautiful, God-created gift, the feminist absorbs femininity into a hyper-masculine world of competition, struggle, and ideology.” – Louis Markos, “Just Brilliant!: Three Things only a PhD Can Believe,” Salvo, Issue 24, Spring 2013, page 16.

 

October 28, 2013

Gay men who oppose same-sex marriage

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Same-sex Marriage
[48] Comments 

I have written in the past of gay men who opposed same-sex marriage (for various reasons).  While it’s old news at this point, I ran across a couple of more recently.  Rupert Everett, a gay British actor, told The Sunday Times magazine he opposed same-sex marriage (and all marriage for that matter) and same-sex parenting because children need mothers and fathers.

At about the same time, Doug Mainwaring, also a gay man, published an opinion article in The Washington Post:

(more…)

 

October 25, 2013

Same-sex marriage is foisted on New Jersey by the judiciary

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Politics, Same-sex Marriage
[8] Comments 

Mary C. JacobsonIn 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the NJ legislature must give same-sex couples all of the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples, but did not demand that the state amend its marriage laws.  The legislature responded by creating civil unions that had identical benefits to marriage.

Fast forward seven years, and Judge Mary C. Jacobson of the State Superior Court ruled on September 27, 2013 that this is not enough – the state must call same-sex unions marriage as well starting Monday, October 21, 2013.  Governor Christie vowed to appeal the decision to the NJ Supreme Court, but when that court refused to block the law while Christie challenged it, and made it clear that they would not rule in his favor, he decided to withdraw his appeal, meaning NJ is now the 14th state to offer same-sex marriage.

 

October 24, 2013

Quote of the day: We must make moral judgments

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Quote of the Day, Relativism
[2] Comments 

“The person who can’t or won’t discern good from evil is destined to be a victim of those who are adept at disguising one as the other.  Thus, abstaining from moral judgments is not a hallmark of nice people, but of foolish ones.  And the person who makes judgments while insisting that he doesn’t or shouldn’t is naïve, if not hypocritical.” – Regis Nicoll, “Speak No Evil,” Salvo, Issue 25, Summer 2013, p. 14.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »