Tom Gilson wants to challenge the tunnel vision of our insular ambitions. At his site Reclaim the High Ground he writes, “[As apologists and worldview ministry leaders], most of us are still aiming for too small a result. We’re focused on the engagement: the question we’re addressing in this article or that, or the crowd we’re speaking to, or the debate we hope to win. What we want out of each engagement is good: to equip, to encourage, or to persuade in the name of Christ. But the engagement isn’t enough. We need to be about turning around Christian intellectual culture, to the end that every church can engage its own people or its own community from a position of strength.”

To read the open letter in full, click here.

Dr William Lane Craig offers a brief response to the challenge often posited by atheist Christopher Hitchens, and others: “Name a moral action that a religious person can do, that a non-religious person cannot.”

I found this gem in a Sydney newspaper a couple of days ago. The article by Nina Funnell generated many comments, but it was the responses to Ms Funnell by one person in particular (Adrian) that I wanted to isolate here to highlight the bankruptcy of the pro-abortion view. I encourage you to read the article first, it’s not very long. 

The following exchange has been edited for clarity only (e.g. spelling, formatting, etc): 

Reproductive rights? Just because you give something a name it doesn’t mean it brings a concept into existence. You just made that rubbish up. And it’s a total nonsense. 

It’s just like a bloke who doesn’t want to pay child support simply claiming he is exercising his financial rights! It’s his money and he should be able to do what he wants with it. 

Or someone swearing and carrying on in a public place simply claiming that they are exercising their vocal rights. It’s their voice and they should be allowed to do what they want with it. 

Or someone going around breaking shop windows simply claiming they are exercising their physical rights to put their own fist wherever they see fit. It’s their fist and they should be allowed to do what they want with it. 

The concept of reproductive rights is as [ludicrous] as those three examples, and on par in its level of stupidity. 

Does the word “responsibility” mean anything to you? 

Nina, a philosopher you’re not. Stop trying. You really are failing quite miserably, even if your cheer squad think you’re a big thinker with big ideas!! Go on, make me laugh… 

Adrian | Adelaide – May 05, 2010, 11:06AM 

… Finally I think the best post here is the one that clearly articulates that abortion is first and foremost a MEDICAL issue. 

Nina Funnell | Sydney – May 05, 2010, 1:44PM 

[Nina Wrote:] “Finally I think the best post here is the one that clearly articulates that abortion is first and foremost a MEDICAL issue.” 

LOL!! Me dying from laughter is a medical issue much more so than abortion is. 

I’d love to know how you managed to reach that conclusion? My retort is quite simple – pregnancy isn’t a disease!! 

Dehumanise it if it makes you feel better. But remember that history [has shown] that dehumanisation is a standard pre-requisite to genocide. 

Abortion is a human rights issue Nina – encompassing rights of parents as well as children, born or unborn. That’s the philosophical spectrum that it falls into. 

If you can’t see that, then it’s no wonder that all your conclusions on this issue are so wrong. 

Adrian | Adelaide – May 05, 2010, 2:19PM 

Read the rest of this entry

There is little doubt in my mind that the pro-choicer today doesn’t have much of an argument that he can hang his hat on. When flailing and pontificating about abortion as a “choice”, his only real avenue is to resort to a discussion of rights. He cannot say that the unborn are not human – it is a medical fact that they are – and therefore that abortion doesn’t kill human beings. No – the pro-choicer must resort to other arguments; in fact, in advocating abortion he attempts to rationalize for the legal killing of an innocent human being by advocating for women’s rights. Hence, while his argument may concede that the unborn are indeed human beings he then declares that that ought to have no bearing on a pregnant woman’s rights to her bodily autonomy. But does the woman really have the right to kill her own offspring? Does the bodily autonomy argument hold up under close scrutiny? Well, if a recent discussion I had on the topic is anything to go by, I really do think the argument is left wanting. And if so, then surely the pro-choicer has no choice but to abandon his ill-fated position.

It Started at the End

I had been reading Ravi Zacharias’s book, The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists, which was written in response to the vitriol published by Sam Harris in his book, Letter to a Christian Nation. There was one particular discussion in Zacharias’s book that I took a liking to – not at all related to Harris’s book when taken out of its context, but one which served effectively well as a conversation starter on the topic of abortion and morality. Read the rest of this entry

Over at his blog, Dr. James Anderson recently announced a 50% discount being offered for a very limited time by P&R Publishing on the festschrift in honour of John Frame, Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John M. Frame (2009), with expository and analytical essays from 36 contributors on Frame’s own work in the fields of theology, apologetics, ethics, etc. (including Wayne Grudem, Paul Helm, Vern Poythress, James Anderson and more). The discount expires 31 March 2010, so get your copy soon. See the Table of Contents and a sample chapter (PDF).

(HT: Chris Bolt at Choosing Hats.)

The truth of the phrase “a picture tells a thousand words” holds much persuasive power. The media has long used a variety of images to convey the truth and reality of situations far removed from the every day viewer; we use images to provoke, to emotionally stir and to captivate people’s attention. We are, by and large, a visually stimulated people. The success of the movie industry and of TV programming is testament to that. Yet can we intentionally use graphically disturbing pictures to promote a cause or to bring awareness of an issue to the uninitiated? Can we use images to sway our opponents on the abortion issue? If they’re used appropriately, then the answer is an emphatic, “yes”.

The use of pictures does have its place; the use of factual pictures entomb the truths of an event for future generations. One man who understood this in totality was General Eisenhower who, on visiting the Nazi concentration camp at Ohrdruf on April 12th, 1945, ordered that every citizen of the nearby town of Gotha visit the camp; that media personnel make full documentation; and that military cameras be sure to capture the horrific scene, immortalizing in photographs the barbarity and cruelty.

Said Eisenhower, “I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’”^[1] Eisenhower envisaged that the documentation was necessary because, at point in the future, he believed there would be people who would deny that such astrocities ever took place, perhaps thinking them some elaborate conspiracy to stir the hearts and cloud the minds of a gullible people. Yet there are groups who deny the holocaust; I’m sure Eisenhower would not be surprised.

Read the rest of this entry

With regard to my following reasoning, I address some questions raised.

(1) To affirm that Gratuitous Evil has a probability greater than zero is to affirm that Gratuitous Evil is possible, by definition.

(2) To affirm that Gratuitous Evil is possible is to affirm that the Biblical God is impossible, by definition.

(3) To affirm that the Biblical God is impossible (implicitly or explicitly) within a premise of an argument against the existence thereof commits the fallacy of begging the question.

Well then the problem is that, under Christian presuppositions, gratuitous evil doesn’t exist; and your argument is sound under such presuppositions.

That being the case—and it is—one might notice that he forgot to mention who it is a ‘problem’ for. And if I may point out the obvious: “Not for Christians.” As a matter of fact, that is substantively the basis upon which the Christian can trust in the loving providence of God through painful or troubled times; i.e., given the God in whom we place our love, trust, and obedience, no evil that befalls us could ever be gratuitous (Eccl. 7:14; Rom. 8:28; Ps. 71:20; Heb. 12:7-11; 1 Pet. 5:7-10; and so forth).

However, in reality there are gratuitous evils—such as natural disasters.

Pointing to some natural disaster and asserting that it is a gratuitous evil is just that: an assertion; and according to generally accepted standards of sound reasoning, bare assertions are not rationally decisive. To possess rational merit, his assertion must be turned into a conclusion with premises that at least validly support it. We have his assertion that natural disasters are gratuitous evils but not any reason to think that is true, while under the Christian view we have an abundance of reason to think it false.

I have no sufficient reason to believe that [natural disasters] are the result of rebellion against God (cf. definition of evil). That being so, the Christian God then isn’t consistent with reality.

It is a stark error in reasoning to go from “I have no sufficient reason to believe X” and conclude that “therefore X is false” (i.e., contrary to reality). The fact that you do not have sufficient reason to believe X says something about your research diet but it says nothing about the truth or falsehood of X itself—for thinking that something is false or contrary to reality on the basis that it has not been proven true is the argumentum ad ignorantiam error. Remember, an absence of sufficient reason is good support for your not believing X, but it is bad support for you thinking that X is false (“isn’t consistent with reality”).

And perhaps just as important to note: the fact that you don’t have sufficient reason is a rather different matter from whether or not sufficient reason exists to be had. Do you have good reason? It seems not, if we take your word. Does that mean good reason does not exist? Non-sequitur; i.e., the one does not follow from the other. I can sympathize that you don’t have good reason, but remember: that’s autobiographical information. It does not mean that good reason doesn’t exist to be had. So then this is an opportune time to ask the easily neglected question: “Exactly what have you done to acquire that sufficient reason you need?” If little or nothing, then it would make sense why you do not have it.

Do you have evidence that natural disasters happen because of rebellions against God?

A fair amount, actually, yes. For example, the rebellion of Korah and his men, plus several thousand Israelites who had taken their side: an earthquake and fire destroyed Korah and his men, and a plague killed those who sided with their rebellion.

By having defined morality in reference to the nature and character of God, Ryft effectively precluded any possible existence of evil (by implying that everything God does is non-evil by definition). So then if God is the standard of morality, no evil can exist—gratuitous or otherwise.

Incorrect. The character and commands of God does not preclude the existence of evil by definition; on the contrary, it allows for and explains evil. However, it does preclude gratuitous evil by definition; given the God of Christian theism, it is impossible for any evil to be unwarranted or purposeless.

The other day I was accused of being something that, to be honest, I hadn’t heard of before (and I’ve heard a lot different accusations!). It’s a seemingly innocuous term and at first I puzzled at what it meant. The term and accusation that was levelled at me was that I was pro-birth. Notice I wasn’t accused of being pro-life – which is ordinarily how I would label myself and am quite comfortable to be accused of being – but pro-birth. This arose out of a discussion that had developed over the course of a few of days (via Twitter) on the subject of abortion – a discussion which has been interesting and which I will go into further in a separate post (soon to be published) – but on the branding of the term pro-birth, I had to pause.

Shortly, it occurred to me that the term was to mean a world view which would hold that – under every circumstance of pregnancy – the mother must bear the child to full term; that the mother must birth the child, no matter what. It then occurred to me that the term is used as a euphemism for someone who forces their view onto others (namely, in this instance, that a pregnant woman must give birth), effectively making (forcing) an un-welcomed decision onto another, inhibiting their freedom of choice. In a nut shell, being pro-birth “robs” women of their choice.

I’d like to think that I’m open to the criticisms that come my way (I try to look at them as opportunities for self-evaluation and improvement; I also think this is a biblically sound manner in which to live a Christian life and certainly appears to be the psalmist’s approach (Ps 139:24)), hence, I pondered the pro-birth label for a while and searched inward to see if there was truth to it.

Read the rest of this entry

“Baby killer’s day out from prison to go shopping”

“Baby killer let out to visit mall”

Just two of the many headlines from several pages of The Daily Telegraph’s (DT) diatribe on Friday 26th June 2009 rallying against the supervised shopping trip of one Phillip King, who was imprisoned after he “killed his own baby son in a fit of rage when he punched and kicked Kylie Flick’s stomach after she refused to have an abortion”, the DT reports.

“He didn’t steal a car, he stole a life”, was one expression used by Kylie Flick to express her anguish over the memory of the birth of her stillborn son, whom she Christened Jonathan.

The DT also point out that Ms Flick’s son “never drew breath” – a seemingly redundant piece of information – and that King’s “horrific 2002 crime led to a new law with a maximum 25-year jail term for people for people who kill a foetus…”

This attack by the media you might say is fair game. He did take the life of a defenseless human being after all, and injured several others both physically and emotionally in the process. So why shouldn’t the media have their pound of flesh? Well it’s the inconsistent way that they go about it that irks me. Here are some more of the headlines and comments from the same articles.

Read the rest of this entry