All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
Mentoring

What are some popular philosophical objections to Christian theism?

Leave a comment

Since we’ve been looking at history and science so much recently, I decided to list some philosophical objections to Christian theism.

Here are a few of the most common objections:

Let me just comment on the first two briefly.

First, the problem of evil. You should definitely start by making the atheist define what evil is, ontologically. This is, of course, impossible on an atheistic worldview, since there is no such thing as an objective moral standard or objective moral duties, on atheism. On atheism, there are only two possible sources of moral values and moral duties: 1) individual personal preferences and 2) arbitrary cultural conventions. Neither of these is adequate to ground a robust notion of evil.

Second, for the problem of suffering. People today are pretty sure that God, if he exists at all, would want humans to make themselves happy in any way that they want. This is, of course, a pretty self-serving concept of God. The purpose of life on Christian theism is to know God, and suffering may be necessary to help us do that. Even Jesus suffered. My own view is that suffering is necessary to cause people to desire God more than they desire earthly happiness and comforts.

Third, the hiddenness of God. Check if your objector is already familiar with the standard scientific arguments for the existence of a Creator and Designer, as well as the minimal facts case for the resurrection. There is a lot of evidence available, but it takes a little digging to find it. God is not interested in coercing people’s will by dazzling displays of his power. He is interested in having a relationship with people who are interested in him, and that means people must seek him.

You can find some less common or less interesting objections in my list of arguments for and against Christian theism.

News

Has political correctness made the FBI impotent against real terrorist threats?

1 Comment

I am a huge fan of FBI, or at least I was, until I read this story from the Weekly Standard. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

On Monday, ABC News first reported that Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had reached out to al Qaeda associates prior to his attack. There were good reasons to speculate that one of these al Qaeda figures is Anwar al Awlaki — an al Qaeda recruiter who acted as a “spiritual advisor” to two of the 9/11 hijackers. Awlaki preached at a mosque Hasan attended in 2001 and praised Hasan’s attack on his web site Monday morning.

It turns out that informed speculation was correct, according to the Associated Press and the New York Times. Beginning in December of last year, authorities found that Hasan communicated with Awlaki “10 to 20 times.” But no formal investigation was ever launched. Why?

Well, because the FBI thought that talking to an Al-Quaeda recruiter isn’t really such a big deal.

The WS article notes that the FBI investigated Awlaki TWICE:

…Awlaki and his mosques had substantive ties to three of the 9/11 hijackers and the terrorist who was responsible for coordinating their activities.

[…]The FBI investigated Awlaki again after the September 11 attacks and found there was a lot of “smoke,” but told the 9/11 Commission and the Congressional Joint Inquiry that they did not have enough evidence to detain him.

[…]Now we have a third failure. Despite the fact that Hasan had reached out to Awlaki, who had been investigated twice before because of his ties to al Qaeda, “no formal investigation” into the Hasan-Awlaki connection was ever launched.

Remember the DHS report about the threat of terrorism from conservatives? If you favored immigration law enforcement, small government, personal responsibility, responsible firearm ownership, and right to life, then the DHS report said that you were a potential terrorist. Refresh your memory here. But what does DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano do when actual terrorism occurs?

According to the Associated Press: (H/T Dinocrat via ECM)

The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas. Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday’s rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The shootings left 13 people dead and 29 wounded.

Actually, if you count the unborn child that one woman who died was carrying, it’s FOURTEEN dead.

Is it any wonder that Michele Bachmann has called on Napolitano to resign?

Can Democrats be trusted to keep America safe from threats? They seem to think that actual terrorists are victims, and that conservatives are the real terrorists.

News

Residents of New York and California flee high taxes and regulations

6 Comments

Here’s a funny story from the New York Post. (H/T National Review via ECM)

Excerpt:

On top of the city and state payroll tax, Social Security and Medicare [small-business owner John Logue] pays for employees, Logue said the city also hits him with a slew of permit fees. He recently had to pay $50 to obtain a certificate to collect sales taxes for the city and the state. In the past, it was free. He also pays the city to have a restaurant certificate, an exhaust-system permit and an illuminated-sign permit.

Logue said his [government-issued] water bills have also increased by nearly 50 percent in the last three years. Currently, he pays $1,600 every three months to the city.

“I’m getting to the point where I’m thinking about leaving New York,” he said.

And Kevin D. Williamson adds:

If you want to know where the future is headed, look where the people are going. And if you want to know where the people are going, check with U-Haul. Here’s an interesting indicator, first noted by the legendary economist Arthur Laffer: Renting a 26-foot U-Haul truck to go from Austin to San Francisco this July would cost you about $900.

Renting the same truck to go from San Francisco to Austin? About $3,000. In the great balance of supply and demand, California has a large supply of people who are demanding to move to Texas. There’s a reason for this.

Yes, prices rise when there is a high demand and supply is the same.

I once had a job interview at Fidelity in Boston, MA, and I remember going up the elevator with someone who commuted in every day from New Hampshire to avoid the taxes. And I remember thinking – this guy probably votes Democrat like everyone else in Boston.And shortly thereafter, New Hampshire turned blue and is now somewhere down in the gutter.

Why do Democrats do this to themselves? Anyway, the whole country will be like New York and California if more of these crappy bills pass, and where will we run to then? We’ll be stuck until the next election, and it serves us right. I think a good long period of suffering under Obama is just what we need to learn the importance of economics – the hard way.