Dennis Prager - How Did Absolom Earn His Father's Love?

Recently, I have had some physical issues, as well as some computer problems in the past week. When the personal waters have assumed a relative calm, I have intended to resurrect my Blog, if in a somewhat altered direction. But still, I have typically listened to Dennis Prager’s often provocative weekday radio program. Today in his weekly “Ultimate Issues” hour, Prager discussed the idea of forgiveness, specifically questioning as he often does, the idea of “unconditional love” as commended in Christianity. Prager insisted as others have that for Christians God’s forgiveness is in fact earned by the act of accepting Christ and his work on your behalf. Indeed, he is correct in the fact that Christians will often affirm that forgiveness is offered but not delivered in the absence of such a an individual decision.

However, while The New Testament affirms that forgiveness is assured for those who DO voluntarily accept the grace offered in Christ, and both OT and NT assert that sin is called to account, NOWHERE does The New Testament specifically say that anyone who does NOT personally confess Jesus Christ is hopelessly lost. Quickly, let me say what I am NOT suggesting: a) I am not at all discounting Prager’s overall observation that from childrens' competitions to an adult’s earning of a living, our society is ever more inclining to reward something for nothing. I entirely agree and join in his lament. But more importantly, as a Christian, b) I am not denying that Jesus Christ is the unique medium of salvation, which I affirm more emphatically.

Christians most often refer to Jesus own words.

In The King James Version familiar to many:
John 14:5-7 (King James Version)
5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

John 14:5-7 (Contemporary English Version)
5Thomas said, "Lord, we don't even know where you are going! How can we know the way?"
6"I am the way, the truth, and the life!" Jesus answered. "Without me, no one can go to the Father. 7If you had known me, you would have known the Father. But from now on, you do know him, and you have seen him."

I intensely believe that all who to attain eternity with God, will do so by virtue of Christ’s work, which was not historically incidental but essential and definitive of the restoration of all of creation. Many Christians may regard the posture as unorthodox, but as to identifying individually who those redeemed humans are, that is WAAAAY above my pay grade. It is OK to say that I don’t know. As I once told a friend who asked about a friend who had died, what I do know is that no injustice will befall him. Christians are charged to tell the good news of Jesus Christ to others, but that is not good news only about a life after death: it is good news about life HERE AND NOW. And, the indispensable surrender to God of human beings is not that of their deeds. It is a humility such that might recognize who is sovereign and certainly who is not: human beings. Prager rightly observed that faith in Christ is subsequently evidenced in the fruit of behavior. But, that is service due an acknowledged master, not recompense for Christ’s work, which is literally the height of a futile idea.

It is more than a mere metaphor when scripture refers to God as father. God doesn’t love us for our deeds. God loves us because we are His children, literally his progeny. Years ago, I explained to our children that we will always love them and care for their welfare because they are our children. As most all lessons have Biblical models, I related to them two Bible accounts: 0ne from The New Testament and one from The Old Testament. There is much to be said with respect to Jesus’ claim that He came not to condemn the law, but to fulfill it. The elements and the prefiguring of Jesus pervade historical Judaism in what Christians now call The Old Testament. The graciousness toward the outsider commended by Christianity is in the instruction to the ancient Israelites of how to treat “the alien.” God gave the son of the promise, as Abraham was spared of doing. Jesus himself is the Passover Lamb. These are only among the tall monuments.

The New Testament account I related to my kids was the well-known tale related by Jesus that is called, “The Prodigal Son.” The son leaves the father’s house and ways, pursuing self-indulgent and wasteful living. But, when that way leads to desolation and despair and he realizes that his father’s servants fare better than he is, the son determines to return home. His father sees him approaching and runs out to meet him and “falls on his neck” and kisses him. The son says that he has sinned and does not deserve to be called his son. But, the father says to bring him the best attire and to prepare the fatted calf for a feast, for “my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.”

The Old Testament account is if anything more stark: David’s son Absolom not only forsook his father the King, but organized a rebellion and plot to overthrow his father’s kingdom. When amid the execution of that plan, Absolem is killed, David cries out, “Oh Absolom, Absolom, my son, my son! Would God that I had died instead of you!” How is that not unconditional love? And, can’t most parents of even the barest character relate to the horror of loss of even the most craven and/or spiteful child? Look at both of these stories in Luke 15 and II Samuel 15 for anything hinting at the son’s earning of the father’s love. Quite to the contrary in both cases, the entire point of both stories is the son’s lack of merit of the father’s expression. In both cases, it is just that aspect that is the moving and compelling point of the story.

Colin Powell Another Well-Meaning Disoriented Republican Counselor

I got a reference to an article at Newsmax: Rush Limbaugh Lashes Out at Colin Powell 'Turncoat'

The article relates that Rush made a simple and obvious point to a lot of rank & file conservatives with whom I rarely engage. Though I once did, I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh for many years. Not always, but I often agree with his conclusions. However, I usually find his approach unproductive. It seems largely the same as it was nearly twenty years ago, when his conservative voice was emerging from dark obscurity. Conservatives were enthusiastic: “At last, someone is speaking for us!” Perhaps he mentions it now, but after much Republican electoral victory, Rush seemed still focused on a posture of victimhood. I sure hope that now, since I stopped listening and a Republican dominated government has spent the United States into oblivion, setting the table for the current economic crisis and facilitating Democrats’ blame of conservatism and attendant Democratic victories, that Limbaugh is expressing a lot of criticism of Republican governance. Though I have points of disagreement with them, my talk-radio listening is largely focused on the more reflective and constructive fare of Dennis Prager (on at the same time as Rush) and Michael Medved.

Along the way, Rush also veers into his longstanding and predictable disparagement of John McCain, including an unnecessary remark on McCain’s failure to endorse Palin for 2012. Hey, I’m a conservative who has often disagreed with McCain. But 1) I concluded it was honest disagreement on McCain’s part. And 2) McCain was not only honest, but extraordinarily solid on a few essentials; the sanctity of life and federal spending. And as for Palin, I like her but she hasn’t even approached declaring, and his declining to endorse is unnecessary because it would be plain stupid for McCain to endorse a 2012 candidate this far out. The article relates Rush’s scorn of Powell’s counsel for conservatives to…basically…become less so, and become less identified with talk-radio hosts like Rush. It finally concludes with Rush’s question of what one is to make of Powell’s counsel to disregard conservatives like he and members of his audience who supported a more moderate McCain and the counsel to moderate of someone like Powell who did not support McCain and endorsed Barack Obama. Basically, most of those who welcome Powell’s counsel to Republicans voted for Obama and were never likely to support a Republican.

Powell’s culprits are like those of Kathleen Parker and Davids Brooks and Frum. It should warn us of the difference between intelligence and wisdom. These are bright people who are provincially constrained from embracing a most critical political reality. It’s called “a base.” Without one, a political party is in deep trouble. And without those conservatives that these people spurn, The Republican Party is in for a long hibernation from power.

Prager & Medved, Powell's Endorsement And Obama's Impervious Liberal Dogma

The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.

Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.

Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.

And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.

Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”

Prager & Medved, Powell's Endorsement And Obama's Impervious Liberal Dogma

The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.

Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.

Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.

And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.

Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”

Dennis Prager - Michael Behe, Flawed Creation, and The Evolution Black Box

Today, Dennis Prager had Lehigh University biology professor Michael Behe on his radio program and discussed his now year-old book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism . I have read Behe’s books and articles and observed him at lectures and other forums. Behe is a microbiologist explorer and writer on “Intelligent Design.” A few things stood out in my mind relative to the discussion.

First, like Prager who was driven to controlled but admitted anger by the nonsense of a caller’s point that science and medicine, for example, depend on a fully Darwinist account of evolution, I quickly dismiss such dogmatically-inspired foolishness. But, the reason it is important to contain your anger and mildly engage such a supposition is precisely what Behe referred to after the break: Many people, both the secularist scientific clerisy and the often young pop-acolytes that populate and flood the Internet, believe exactly that line of thought. And, they hold it with the ardor similar to that of theists who believe that God has set forth moral standards to which we are accountable. That’s why I referred to a “dogma” and a “clerisy”: they say the authority of "science" dictates that it is so. “Authority” is defined as it is in theological discussion: “those who agree with me” on foundational metaphysical axioms. In this case, the only acceptable metaphysical axiom is, “No metaphysical axiom other than this particular one is valid.”

This is a restatement of an absurdity that analytical philosophy confronted long ago: Positivist empiricists insisted that “Only empirically testable assertions are meaningful,” which is not itself, an empirically testable assertion. Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon)still fervently embraces the idea. But, he well knows this justification problem. Dennett thinks that appeals to transcendent powers and principle are superfluous for a rational explanation of reality. Obviously, some of us disagree. But, Dennett’s statement that God or any transcendent principle is ontologically gratuitous is just a restatement of his premise: “I don’t believe…” which is hardly a startling revelation. Another caller complained as many do that the supposed design has flaws. But of course, it’s hardly news to most theists that both creation and people are flawed. That is much of what The Bible is about. What is perfect is our free will, which naturalist atheists are exercising perfectly well. What requires refining is not creation but our choices in challenging circumstances.

Another contemporary apostle of atheism is Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). Hitchens is very historically and literarily well trained. But, he is admittedly thin on scientific scholarship. I believe I read and would not be surprised that he has some awareness of historical philosophy. But, his philosophical standards would be considerably less complete, though similar in kind to Dennett’s, in that his standards are selective according to his a priori postulates.

I am also very familiar with Hitchens. And what is rarely discussed but very striking about Hitchens’ contention is that he brazenly appropriates the language of morality and wields it as a cudgel against “religious” beliefs, institutions, and people. This is arresting because it has traditionally been the challenge of naturalist (no transcendent reality) philosophers to justify the validity and compulsion of moral assertions. You might expect and would be correct that usually their efforts have been less-than-convincing to common-sense.

But, Hitchens, assumedly targeting a philosophically untrained audience, blithely hurdles this matter. Quite to the contrary, Hitchens insists that we know right from wrong independent from religious instruction and it is an audacity for the “religious” (I use the quotes because though it reflects ordinary language and understanding today, particularly as a Christian I do not prefer or use that language) to presume otherwise. He is correct that people have an independent sense of right and wrong outside of tutoring. But in fact, The Bible teaches exactly that: that men are naturally endowed with certain basics of knowledge.

For us, that awareness is the endowment of their creator; of God. At first brush with Hitchens’ polemic, the thoughtful person will ask, “With no God, how does he justify his moral talk?” Well, we can go back to a reference from Behe, here. Behe’s first book, in 1996, was called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution . A black box is a coarsely or inadequately defined element of an account or explanation of some process. Coming from the perspective of a microbiologist, Behe identifies Darwin’s black box as the cell, the basic component of biological structures. Behe points out that in Darwin’s time, he understood the cell to be a sort of basic piece of protoplasm which combined in different arrangements to form the varieties of living things.

However in the context of contemporary biology, we now know that the cell is not simple at all. It is infinitely complex, with a veritable factory of entities and interdependent functions for each particular biological element in the millions of varied biological species. So complex are cells and their interactions that Behe describes then as “irreducibly complex.” In other words, there is too much diversity to have evolved step by step through random and undirected mutations AND the interrelated functions are so interdependent that they could not have arisen and persisted independently of one another. His simple analogy is of a mousetrap: without any single vital element of the mousetrap, the entire contraption does not operate. And needless to say, such a dysfunctional biological organism would not survive, let alone reproduce. So, the black box of “evolution” is precisely a fill-in word for an unexplained or inexplicable process.

Now, in his later book, “The Edge of Evolution” (above), Behe describes his assent to the Darwinian notion of “common descent.” Like Francis Collins who directed the human genome project (but also, incidentally, confesses a faith in God: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology) Behe sees the similarity in DNA sequences and acknowledges an appearance of biological relationship. But, he rejects the idea that this process is unplanned and undirected. Myself, I don’t feel compelled to accept common descent. I’m not prepared to make an argument against it, but the matter is not so vital as to merit intense investigation. Whatever I might conclude, it would minimally affect the conduct of my life. To me it is plainly designed, one way or the other. I’m much more concerned about the relative efficacy of taxation proposals than the question of common descent.

But, much is made over the commonality of DNA. Without it being an obsessive question for me, I will say that prima facie that says little to me. It’s like saying all buildings have blueprints with walls and plumbing and electricity, etc. Yes, so what? All biological organisms are living, ingest, excrete, breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. They say that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are highly similar. Let’s see: two eyes, two ears, two legs, two lungs, etc. If the DNA is the software code to direct development and function, pray, how might it be other than very similar? It’s like saying a Rolls Royce and a Volkswagen are very similar because the blueprints both have four wheels, a horn, headlights, an internal combustion engine…

A few things are different in humans and chimpanzees. But, those few things are a BIIIG deal! Try getting a chimpanzee to appreciate art or literature. See what its favorite ethnic food or style of music is. Take it on a date. Or have a philosophical discussion. How similar are we, now?

Anyway, the astonishing thing about Hitchens is that when he is asked about how morals came about, he says that morality “has evolved.” Forget all of the historical moral obstacles of naturalism. He has stowed away moral imperatives on Darwin’s black box of “evolution.” Surely, he will go for all the gusto and put aesthetics on the ship, too. Why not? It worked for getting God out of biology, which is the prized objective. Perhaps he can appreciate that chimpanzees practice NO religion.

I note that supposedly thoughtful men such as these or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris have declined even to engage someone like David Berlinski who has raised simply rational questions about their rash assertions. Heck, Berlinski’s book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions is not even a year old. Going back a few more years, the longtime atheist philosopher Antony Flew of Britain, who is in terms of both history and reasoning is a relative giant next to Dawkins (even Dennett, who wrote some thoughtful and engaging books before mounting his zealous crusade) has concluded in his age that the evidence indicates that there must be a designer of creation, after all: “There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”
Noting that Flew had been influenced by the evidence presented by people like Behe, Dawkins sniffed that he obviously was no longer credible and may be under the influence of senility’ a shame for a once-great thinker. YouTube video of Dawkins For future reference, you might do well to suspect that there are limits to one’s rational case when one quickly resorts challenges of moral or intellectual defect. Dennett, Hitchens, Sam Harris and others do this readily. It’s a dietary staple. And alas for Dawkins, this seems near to all that he has on the platter.

Dennis Prager - Michael Behe Flawed Creation, and The Evolution Black Box

Today, Dennis Prager had Lehigh University biology professor Michael Behe on his radio program and discussed his now year-old book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism . I have read Behe’s books and articles and observed him at lectures and other forums. Behe is a microbiologist explorer and writer on “Intelligent Design.” A few things stood out in my mind relative to the discussion.

First, like Prager who was driven to controlled but admitted anger by the nonsense of a caller’s point that science and medicine, for example, depend on a fully Darwinist account of evolution, I quickly dismiss such dogmatically-inspired foolishness. But, the reason it is important to contain your anger and mildly engage such a supposition is precisely what Behe referred to after the break: Many people, both the secularist scientific clerisy and the often young pop-acolytes that populate and flood the Internet, believe exactly that line of thought. And, they hold it with the ardor similar to that of theists who believe that God has set forth moral standards to which we are accountable. That’s why I referred to a “dogma” and a “clerisy”: they say the authority of "science" dictates that it is so. “Authority” is defined as it is in theological discussion: “those who agree with me” on foundational metaphysical axioms. In this case, the only acceptable metaphysical axiom is, “No metaphysical axiom other than this particular one is valid.”

This is a restatement of an absurdity that analytical philosophy confronted long ago: Positivist empiricists insisted that “Only empirically testable assertions are meaningful,” which is not itself, an empirically testable assertion. Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon)still fervently embraces the idea. But, he well knows this justification problem. Dennett thinks that appeals to transcendent powers and principle are superfluous for a rational explanation of reality. Obviously, some of us disagree. But, Dennett’s statement that God or any transcendent principle is ontologically gratuitous is just a restatement of his premise: “I don’t believe…” which is hardly a startling revelation. Another caller complained as many do that the supposed design has flaws. But of course, it’s hardly news to most theists that both creation and people are flawed. That is much of what The Bible is about. What is perfect is our free will, which naturalist atheists are exercising perfectly well. What requires refining is not creation but our choices in challenging circumstances.

Another contemporary apostle of atheism is Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). Hitchens is very historically and literarily well trained. But, he is admittedly thin on scientific scholarship. I believe I read and would not be surprised that he has some awareness of historical philosophy. But, his philosophical standards would be considerably less complete, though similar in kind to Dennett’s, in that his standards are selective according to his a priori postulates.

I am also very familiar with Hitchens. And what is rarely discussed but very striking about Hitchens’ contention is that he brazenly appropriates the language of morality and wields it as a cudgel against “religious” beliefs, institutions, and people. This is arresting because it has traditionally been the challenge of naturalist (no transcendent reality) philosophers to justify the validity and compulsion of moral assertions. You might expect and would be correct that usually their efforts have been less-than-convincing to common-sense.

But, Hitchens, assumedly targeting a philosophically untrained audience, blithely hurdles this matter. Quite to the contrary, Hitchens insists that we know right from wrong independent from religious instruction and it is an audacity for the “religious” (I use the quotes because though it reflects ordinary language and understanding today, particularly as a Christian I do not prefer or use that language) to presume otherwise. He is correct that people have an independent sense of right and wrong outside of tutoring. But in fact, The Bible teaches exactly that: that men are naturally endowed with certain basics of knowledge.

For us, that awareness is the endowment of their creator; of God. At first brush with Hitchens’ polemic, the thoughtful person will ask, “With no God, how does he justify his moral talk?” Well, we can go back to a reference from Behe, here. Behe’s first book, in 1996, was called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution . A black box is a coarsely or inadequately defined element of an account or explanation of some process. Coming from the perspective of a microbiologist, Behe identifies Darwin’s black box as the cell, the basic component of biological structures. Behe points out that in Darwin’s time, he understood the cell to be a sort of basic piece of protoplasm which combined in different arrangements to form the varieties of living things.

However in the context of contemporary biology, we now know that the cell is not simple at all. It is infinitely complex, with a veritable factory of entities and interdependent functions for each particular biological element in the millions of varied biological species. So complex are cells and their interactions that Behe describes then as “irreducibly complex.” In other words, there is too much diversity to have evolved step by step through random and undirected mutations AND the interrelated functions are so interdependent that they could not have arisen and persisted independently of one another. His simple analogy is of a mousetrap: without any single vital element of the mousetrap, the entire contraption does not operate. And needless to say, such a dysfunctional biological organism would not survive, let alone reproduce. So, the black box of “evolution” is precisely a fill-in word for an unexplained or inexplicable process.

Now, in his later book, “The Edge of Evolution” (above), Behe describes his assent to the Darwinian notion of “common descent.” Like Francis Collins who directed the human genome project (but also, incidentally, confesses a faith in God: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology) Behe sees the similarity in DNA sequences and acknowledges an appearance of biological relationship. But, he rejects the idea that this process is unplanned and undirected. Myself, I don’t feel compelled to accept common descent. I’m not prepared to make an argument against it, but the matter is not so vital as to merit intense investigation. Whatever I might conclude, it would minimally affect the conduct of my life. To me it is plainly designed, one way or the other. I’m much more concerned about the relative efficacy of taxation proposals than the question of common descent.

But, much is made over the commonality of DNA. Without it being an obsessive question for me, I will say that prima facie that says little to me. It’s like saying all buildings have blueprints with walls and plumbing and electricity, etc. Yes, so what? All biological organisms are living, ingest, excrete, breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. They say that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are highly similar. Let’s see: two eyes, two ears, two legs, two lungs, etc. If the DNA is the software code to direct development and function, pray, how might it be other than very similar? It’s like saying a Rolls Royce and a Volkswagen are very similar because the blueprints both have four wheels, a horn, headlights, an internal combustion engine…

A few things are different in humans and chimpanzees. But, those few things are a BIIIG deal! Try getting a chimpanzee to appreciate art or literature. See what its favorite ethnic food or style of music is. Take it on a date. Or have a philosophical discussion. How similar are we, now?

Anyway, the astonishing thing about Hitchens is that when he is asked about how morals came about, he says that morality “has evolved.” Forget all of the historical moral obstacles of naturalism. He has stowed away moral imperatives on Darwin’s black box of “evolution.” Surely, he will go for all the gusto and put aesthetics on the ship, too. Why not? It worked for getting God out of biology, which is the prized objective. Perhaps he can appreciate that chimpanzees practice NO religion.

I note that supposedly thoughtful men such as these or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris have declined even to engage someone like David Berlinski who has raised simply rational questions about their rash assertions. Heck, Berlinski’s book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions is not even a year old. Going back a few more years, the longtime atheist philosopher Antony Flew of Britain, who is in terms of both history and reasoning is a relative giant next to Dawkins (even Dennett, who wrote some thoughtful and engaging books before mounting his zealous crusade) has concluded in his age that the evidence indicates that there must be a designer of creation, after all: “There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”
Noting that Flew had been influenced by the evidence presented by people like Behe, Dawkins sniffed that he obviously was no longer credible and may be under the influence of senility’ a shame for a once-great thinker. YouTube video of Dawkins For future reference, you might do well to suspect that there are limits to one’s rational case when one quickly resorts challenges of moral or intellectual defect. Dennett, Hitchens, Sam Harris and others do this readily. It’s a dietary staple. And alas for Dawkins, this seems near to all that he has on the platter.

Listen To Dennis Prager: The Age of "Foolishness"

Anyone who has recurrently looked in on this Blog, knows that I often refer to questions and emphases raised by Dennis Prager on his radio program. I emailed for over a decade before beginning it approximately a year ago, and always referred to questions and comments raised on television and radio talk shows. The most marked differences in the case of Prager, are the relative profundity of the questions raised (much of the discussion on other programs is relative pablum, by which I mean simplistic – see note at bottom), and the extent to which I often agree with his conclusions.

There are occasional instances in which I deeply disagree, which often seem rooted in my comprehensive Christianity relative to his Judaism. But, I very much appreciate his focus on moral beyond dogmatic considerations and his oft-stated maxim: “I prefer clarity to agreement,” which more tersely states Ludwig Wittgenstein’s century old definition of the philosopher’s task as that of defining questions more than promoting answers.

Anyway on Tuesday, Prager’s program in his “Ultimate Issues” series was a more focused discussion of his common assertion that his (baby-boomer) generation was the initiation of “the age of stupidity.” He clarified that he didn’t intend to imply unintelligence but a lack of wisdom. As he is an Old Testament student and Hebrew teacher, Prager will be familiar with Proverbs’ juxtaposition of “wisdom” with “foolishness.” I’ve heard him discuss this countless times and tend to agree with the observation and that it arose from the generally unprecedented ease and pampering of that generation’s youth. But, “the age of foolishness” works for me. There are plenty of brilliant people stewed in common errors of this time. I’m slightly younger, but I remember watching it from my youth.

I could discuss some of the details touched upon, but mainly there were just what I see as some low-level misconceptions about human nature that it was easy for a young generation to get swept up in, in an impertinent swirl of mass-culture consensus. But, it’s easier if you can listen to that hour (Hour 3 - The Age of Stupidity) of the program. http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=3&ContentGuid=e9c6008e-6187-4257-950c-24b5e9fd323a

“Pablum” is an interesting word. That’s what leapt to mind as what I wanted to say. But the word-processor identified it as a misspelling. Another online dictionary recognized it and confirmed the definition as trite or simple, but many did not. It is a shortening of the word “pabulum,” which is an infant’s porridge or cereal. The word is used for discussion that requires little in the way of chewing or thought. A more widely used word is simply “pap.”

Dr. David Berlinski and Dennis Prager Interview

This is Tuesday's easy to listen to interview by Dennis Prager of Dr. David Berlinski, whom Ben Stein spoke with in the movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.”

Tuesday April 22, 2008
H3: Ultimate Issues Hour: Atheism and Science With Dennis Prager
Prager H3: Dennis talks to David Berlinski, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and a former fellow at the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques in Paris, France. His new book is The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.
Length: 00:34:14


Dr. David Berlinski is the scholar that Ben Stein visited in Paris in the movie.
Something about him intrigued me. I checked him out and I found out why.

In the late 1950's, a stronghold of positivist empiricism in academic philosophy that had held sway for 50 years was debunked by Harvard philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine. Quine was a mathematician-logician who was not pressing a transcendent reality. He agreed with the status quo academic standard that the empirical data was all that there was to begin our investigation with (I don't agree with that, BTW-I'm a Christian).

However, applying cold logic, he demonstrated that empirical data alone cannot establish and justify a belief system: we must apply certain aesthetic standards and objectives. Dr. David Berlinski is a secular agnostic Jew. But, he is a mathematician and logician. He watched the publication and celebration of authors like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens and felt compelled to speak out against the outrageous presumption that science has debunked important non-scientific “disproved” religious claims. We make and live by many assumed truths that science cannot prove or disprove, including most of the important matters of our life. As with the empiricist philosophers, these have noisily overstated the implications and the capacity of science. These contemporary “science” advocates (their metaphysical claims and curses have nothing to do with real science) are a tardy and relatively vulgar manifestation of an error long ago put to rest. I just love it when a neutral party demonstrates the audacious presumption of a false dogma.

In addition to this a much less turgid interview with radio talk-show host Dennis Prager, I will post links to his discussion on C-SPAN's Book TV, and and a reference to Berlinski's new book, "The Devil's Delusion,".

At C-SPAN’s Book TV page:

Author: David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion

About the Program
David Berlinski, teacher and author of books on mathematics, challenges the fields of science and atheist thought by arguing that science has not been able to prove the inexistence of a God nor explain the start of the universe. This event was hosted by the Discovery Institute in Washington, D.C.
About the Author
David Berlinski is the author of several books, including "A Tour of Calculus," and "Newton's Gift." A former fellow at the Institute for Applied System Analysis, Mr. Berlinksi is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Go to this page and click on "Watch."

The Devil's Delusion

Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement--one that now includes much of the scientific community. "The attack on traditional religious thought," writes David Berlinski in The Devil's Delusion, "marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion." A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community's cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions: Has anyone provided a proof of God's nonexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated. This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be--indeed must be--the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves.

On Huckabee And Conservatives, Dennis Prager And The Fair Tax, And John McCain's Economy Comments

I still have not been posting regularly, though I have been cruising other Blogs. There is much on my mind that I want to get into. But alas, current considerations come to the front.

First of all, I’ll just mention John McCain’s discussion of the economy, yesterday. I still hold out hope that he might be drawn to the cause of The Fair Tax, the economic promise of which I now consider critical. But John McCain expressed once again, his fervor for constraining spending, which must attend any changes or qualifications in our tax system. McCain’s repeated vow to veto earmarks (“I’ll veto them and make the authors famous…”) Is a first step, but essential and paradigmatic of his resolve that must be applied relative to considerations of government and taxes and spending.

As for taxes, McCain proposed a simpler filing method as option for individuals to the detailed filing of exemptions and deductions. Frankly, as often as I disagree with McCain, his resolve on a few things like this and winning against Islamic fundamentalism almost makes me cry.

Also, I had a Blog exchange about Huckabee, who announced HuckPAC today, and opinion among conservative Bloggers. And, Dennis Prager had segments on his radio program with Georgia Rep. John Linder about The Fair Tax and actor/writer Ben Stein about his movie which opens Friday: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” I will see the movie and expect that I will comment. But, today I will write about Prager’s embrace and discussion of The Fair Tax. I will send him a letter about some questions that he asked and why The Fair Tax is more important than just being a good idea, which I will post after the Blog exchange.

As part of today’s post, Adam Graham at Huckabee Alliance wrote:

…John Hawkins of Right Wing News did a poll of the right side of the blogosphere. You’ll recall a recent poll showed Huckabee an 18-15% favorite for the VP Spot in a national poll over Mitt Romney. Hawkins right-of center sample of bloggers chose Mitt Romney. This isn’t a huge deal because it’s within the margin of error nationally. However, Huckabee didn’t even show up with the minimum amount of votes to qualify for standing (5 points) and topped the list of least desired Vice-Presidential candidates. Here are the results in Reverse order from #15-#1:

15) Tom Ridge: Former Governor, Pennsylvania (5.0)
14) Tommy Franks: Former General (5.0)
13) Tim Pawlenty: Governor, Minnesota (5.5)
12) Rudy Giuliani: Former Mayor, New York (7.0)
11) Newt Gingrich: Former Congressman, Georgia (7.5)
10) Elizabeth Dole: Senator, North Carolina (7.5)
9) Mel Martinez: Senator, Florida (10.0) Condi Rice: Secretary of State (16.5)
7) Christie Todd Whitman: Former Governor, New Jersey (19.5)
6) Joe Lieberman: Senator, Connecticut (19.5)
5) Charlie Crist: Governor, Florida (20.0)
4) Colin Powell: Former Secretary of State (23.0)
3) Jeb Bush: Former Governor, Florida (23.5)
2) Lindsey Graham: Senator, South Carolina (26.5)
1) Mike Huckabee: Former Governor, Arkansas (42)
First of all, I don’t know what Tommy Franks did get on somebody’s naughty list. However, among elite conservative bloggers, a McCain-Huckabee ticket would be worse than a ticket with a pro-choicer on it (McCain-Ridge/McCain-Giuliani/McCain-Rice/McCain-Whitman, McCain-Powell), a Democrat (also pro-choice) (McCain-Lieberman), an illegible candidate (McCain-Martinez), and McCain’s co-leader in pushing for amnesty while attacking all amnesty opponents as bigots (McCain-Graham.) It’s shocking, really. Let’s no longer call this group, the rightosphere, let us call them instead the out-of-touchosphere. If there’s a been a reason for good cultural conservative to start and build strong blogs, this is exhibit A.
Larry

This year was very informative for me as a lifelong philosophical conservative, with all the "conservative" criticism of Huckabee. I zeroed in on three elements that inspired that animosity against Huckabee. Firstly, the establishment political commenters, writers and organizers were just culturally uncomfortable with Huckabee's unblushing profession of evangelical faith. A lot of the standard criticisms were cited, but I think at bottom this was just a little gauche in the circles they travel in. Note that many of them embraced the Mormon Romney, whose dogma was even more different. But, he was more duly modest about it, never saying pop-culturally uncouth (never mind that it is very appropriate) things like "My faith not only informs me, it defines me." For example, it animates his respect for life, the poor, justice, freedom, creation...all quite legitimate, as long as God has nothing to do with it.

Secondly, high-dollar economic conservatives didn't like The Fair Tax, which would tax the extravagances usually written off as "business expenses. For example, think of the tax on a corporate jet. When I was a salesman, we and our guests ate very well: it was all "written off."

But, in the case of most of these Bloggers, I think it was just a visceral reaction, confirmed by other critics, against Huckabee's gracious consideration of typically un-Republican issues and populations: what became referred to (largely erroneously) as Huckabee's "populism." He talked about "Main Street." and environmental stewardship, got union endorsements, affirmed the concerns of minorities, etc. In the minds of these people, all of this squared with charges, sincere and political, of "liberalism," which of course made many conservatives' skin crawl.


Dennis Prager:

I’m glad to see you firming up on support for The Fair Tax. I want address three things with regard to your discussion today. First and briefly, as you have before, you questioned why it is named “The Fair Tax.” The answer explains both why it is fair and why many wealthy individuals and traders tend to oppose it. Warren Buffett recently challenged corporate officers that he would give a million dollars if they could prove that they paid taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. Last I heard, there were no takers. Right now, the very wealthy have teams of experts to “write off” every luxury as a “business expense. Heck, salesman of corporations and clients and prospective clients always eat and drink very well. Why not? It’s all “written off.” Now, think of a 23% sales tax on items like jets and yachts and such: EVERYTHING that was heretofore a “write off,” would be taxed at 23% under The Fair Tax. Corporate officers would rather pay their teams of tax preparers and keep their “write offs” than have tax free businesses and capital gains and have to pay 23% on every extravagance. As I say, “people accustomed to privilege aren’t real excited about fairness.”

Secondly and most importantly, The Fair Tax is no longer just a good idea. The economic activity that its implementation would provoke is the only way I can see that America may meet the tsunami of entitlement liability that it has taken on that is now upon us, and hopefully without calamitous tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation, which is taxation by another name. Strangely, there is not enough focus on this. But hyper-inflation and probably both huge tax increases and benefit cuts are inevitable if something dramatic is not done: watch the value of your reserves and investments evaporate.

Thirdly, you asked about what would be problems with The Fair Tax. In short, there will be problems, but they are relatively negligible compared to the current system. My biggest concern has been that, especially in the Internet age, there will be great appeal to saving taxes on expensive items by trying to ship items into the US from tax-free offshore sources. Linder says things will be taxed when brought into the country, and they should be to keep American enterprise on an equal footing. But monitoring smuggling across our borders, and appraising and assessing all items shipped in, which will have to included elaborate scanning and invasion of packages, will be no small endeavor. But the crime of tax-evading smuggling raises the question of other even internal tax-evasion. For one thing, barter will expand dramatically. But goods will also be sold on the street in an expanded “black-market. Think for example, of tax-free jewelry and electronics: a 23% saving will be a huge inducement to this kind of dealing.

Yes, all of these will be HUGE considerations. But, at least, this tax-evasion will be stark and indisputable crime. Under the current system, the “crime” is usually very gray and technical, and conviction involves elaborate and expensive prosecution. Deductions and exemptions are claimed and accepted or denied, and adjudicated in long trials. In truth, we may (and I hope we) find that much more of our commerce and especially our government function should be reigned in to state and local jurisdictions. Wouldn’t you rather see local police and courts restraining and prosecuting the crooks on the street?