If only we could disagree

Western society (and I suspect even non-Western societies) has reached such a partisan extreme on controversial issues that we can’t even disagree anymore. Mere disagreement is often reflexively regarded as pure hate, oppression, and any other bad thing one can be accused of.

The Necessity of Revisiting Augustine

Let me address a particular segment of Christianity–those who admired Ravi Zacharias. Among those of you who believed his work was a powerful defense of the faith (as I do), there is now a very different attitude after his death. Many of you in this group are now reluctant to recommend any of Ravi’s work to someone new to the faith. And why is this? Is it because some new revelation indicates his work is wrong on this or that point of doctrine? Did his teachings turn out to be heretical? No. It’s because of the quality of the man’s character. After Ravi’s death, a chronic sin of his was revealed to the public. It is because of this egregious sin that there is a reluctance to engage with his work. That reluctance is indeed understandable. I suggest the need for a similar caution on the teachings of Augustine, and for similar reasons (an egregious sin in the man’s life).

Noah’s Flood – Responding to Gavin Ortlund

I’d like to express my appreciation to Gavin for speaking out on controversial topics, even if I disagree with him. It’s good to discuss such things. The following is a response to his recent video Was Noah’s Flood Local? which I watched in its entirety.

In this video Gavin mentions he’s spent 25 years looking into the types of issues he addresses here (in this case the global flood). Gavin says he’s merely looking for an interpretation of the flood based on the biblical text. Sometimes I think he succeeds at this and sometimes not. I accept that Gavin holds a high view of the Bible so I need not quote Hebrews or 2 Peter at him. I’ll address some concerns as they arose in his video.

A flaw in theological determinism

In observing the endless Calvinism debates one may notice a common pattern of the two sides talking past each other. This may provide some entertainment or frustration (depending on how you believe the discussion is proceeding) but in general, discussions like this tend to be rather fruitless.

The telephone game is a cheat

The telephone game, something many of us experienced as children, is fraudulent. It’s deceptive. It’s not merely a game children play. When I played this game (on multiple occasions) it was always brought up by the adults in the room as an illustration as to why oral tradition is not reliable. The premise is this:

Oral tradition, because it’s not a reliable form of communication such as writing, changes during its historical transmission; thus, the original message is lost cannot be recovered.

To demonstrate this, the participants in the game whisper a message from one person to the next. At the end of the chain, the message is predictably lost.

Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.

My country, and others, found there is no solid evidence supporting the medical transitioning of young people. Why aren’t American clinicians paying attention?

Oct 30, 2023 by Riittakerttu Kaltiala

Double Standards and Conflating Details

On October 7, 2023, Hamas, the governing organization for the Palestine, launched an unannounced attack on Israel, intentionally targeting civilians. This attack included house-to-house slaughter of families, rape, torture, kidnapping, and of course murder. These are war crimes.

The world over, a widespread reaction was solidarity with the Palestinian people. And that’s quite curious, considering the Palestinian people did not attack Israel on October 7; Hamas did. This conflation between a people and their government set up a scenario for purposeful misrepresentation of the entire affair.

If gaslighting is your only tool…

On the drive to work today I went passed a building with a fenced in playground, with children playing. This building is on a busy road, as is the playground. It reminded me of an anecdote sometimes told with the intention of explaining perspectives and how consequences derive from actions rather than intentions.

Does science check bias?

In a previous article on the difference between following evidence vs narrative I addressed several concerns with missing this distinction, and with how Christians sometimes appropriately and sometimes inappropriately allow modern science to alter their interpretation of the Bible. There is often an (at least apparent) uncritical deference to main stream scientific claims.

This article focuses on a collection of confessions of bias (specifically an anti-theistic bias) within the scientific community. As it is often suggested that scientists, as part of their professionalism, keep ideological bias outside of the laboratory, admissions to the contrary are an important piece of our own endeavor to understand the world and to be intellectually careful with our pursuit of knowledge.

Are you following evidence or narrative?

If we were to compile a list of reasons people give for abandoning Christ or not giving him a chance at all, one that should hold a high place on that list is modern science. In the incessant debates between various theories of the creation of reality, a prime candidate for the least respected in the scientific world is Young Earth Creationism (a.k.a. YEC or Biblical Creationism). In this debate there is often derision and mockery with pompous assertions crafted to refute straw man caricatures of creationism. It’s very rare indeed to find a critic of biblical creationism willing to make the effort to actually understand what this school of thought holds to. Quite often, skeptics publicly criticize biblical creation without actually knowing (or caring to know) what it entails, willing to presume more than listen. While biblical creationists are readily accused of willful ignorance of the facts, ironically it’s often the critics (both of a theistic and non-theistic bent) who demonstrate guilt of this charge.