CADRE Comments

Oxford Mathematician John Lennox uses an example in his lectures to illustrate the fact that an event can have more than one explanation without creating a contradiction. He asks why does water boil? I might answer that heat energy is transferred to the molecules of water, which begin to move more quickly. Eventually, the molecules have too much energy to stay connected as a liquid. When this occurs, they form gaseous molecules of water vapor, which float to the surface as bubbles and travel into the air. (HT: Wonderopolis.com for that wording). Alternatively, I might answer that the water boils because I want a cup of tea. Both answers are correct. The first answer is scientific in that it explains the physics that leads water to boil. It is what Aristotle would have called the "material cause" for the water boiling. The second is just as correct, but it isn’t a scientific explanation at all; rather, it provides an explanation in terms of purpose or end, i.e., that ...

On July 9, 2019, Public Discourse published an insightful article (which was apparently either earlier or later delivered as a speech) by Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput entitled, “ Building A Culture of Religious Freedom .” Early in the article, Archbishop Chaput made three points that deserve to be repeated. This is the second of three blogposts on Archbishop Chaput’s comments ( the first can be found here .) Having made the point that a Christian’s life is a public life, and that it is impossible for a Christian to separate the public aspects of his life from the private aspects and still submit wholly to the Lordship of Jesus, he continues by emphasizing the positive impact religious faith has on society. He writes: Religious faith sincerely believed and humbly lived serves human dignity. It fosters virtue, not conflict. Therefore, it’s vital in building a humane society. This should be too obvious to mention. If I have one concern about Archbishop Chaput’s artic...

It is a common misconception: In a religious worldview, morality is dictated by a god who has whimsically decided that X is good and Y is bad, therefore this god mandates that we humans follow his dictates or be punished eternally. If this god or these gods decree(s) murder is wrong then murder is wrong because the god(s) have the power to punish those who commit murder. The god or the gods could just as easily have decreed that helping widows or loving puppies is wrong, and while we might object that we cannot see any negatives to doing so, we would all need to fall into line because the god or gods have decreed it to be wrong and will punish us if we don't follow his decree. While I cannot speak for all religious views that may be out there, when applying this common view to the God of the Bible, the view is false. But saying it is false and explaining why it is false is not always easy -- not because the reason isn't clear, but because in many cases people have to come to ...

The last time I blogged , I mentioned the Humanist Ten Commandments (HTC) which have been proposed on the American Humanist Association (AHA) website by Christian Hagen, the communications assistant for the AHA. As I noted, the AHA through Mr. Hagen has proposed the HTC allegedly as an opening for discussions which "might bridge the gap" between evangelicals and nonbelievers over “universal values.” Of course, I don’t believe that many secularists would accept the idea that there is a commandment of any sort concerning morality or universal values. After all, the word "commandment" suggests the existence of someone giving the command which runs counter to their view that no universal lawgiver exists, i.e., God. Even Mr. Hagen’s article notes that when the idea of the HTC was initially floated by Lech Walesa, some secularists correctly questioned what would guide the decision as to what constitutes these universal values. Undeterred, Mr. Hagen suggests Thus ...

A couple of days ago, I received the Humanist newsletter. It links to an article on the American Humanist Association  website entitled “ The Humanist Ten Commandments ” by the inappropriately named Christian Hagen who is the communications assistant for the American Humanist Association.  Mr. Hagen (for I cannot call him “Christian”) has decided to propose a new set of commandments (complete with the use of the archaic “Thou Shalt” at the outset of most of the commandments to give them gravitas) to take the place of what he apparently views to be those poor, outdated Judeo-Christian commandments. Why? Well, according to the introduction to the article, At a summit of Nobel Peace award winners in Warsaw, Polish Nobel Peace laureate Lech Walesa called for a “secular Ten Commandments,” a guide for universal values that transcend religious beliefs. The response has been a heated debate among secularists about what could constitute such a guide. And while some have criticized...

Bill's topic from a few days ago is something that Christians (and other theists of all stripes) have been chewing over for thousands of years. It might seem like the answer is a simple yes or no; but there are concepts which supernaturalistic theists are (in principle) committed to, which introduce difficulties. I spent several hundred pages in Sword to the Heart ( which can be found for free in some different formats, including first here on the Cadre Journal ) slowly and carefully working up those concepts, but I'll summarize them below in a progressing topical order relevant to the question of God's responsibility. ( Click here on the jump to proceed. )

Common misconceptions about the statement “Objective morality cannot be grounded without a transcendent reality” The idea of morality finding no 'grounding' without a transcendent reality (i.e. a reality that is more than just the natural, physical world, such as that which is postulated by theism) depends on what 'grounding' refers to. Defining it correctly changes the meaning of the statement drastically; I suggest that 'grounded' could be defined as 'made objectively true'. 'Objectively true' then refers to the idea that to say something like 'racism is wrong' is to make a statement about reality, which can be considered either 'true' or 'false' for all times and places, independent of what any contingent, physical mind believes about the matter. To say a moral maxim such as 'racism is wrong' is 'objectively true', is to say that it is true in the same way that the statement 'the moon exists' i...

[Note: the contents page for this series can be found here. The previous entry, starting Chapter 44, can be found here. ] [This entry concludes Chapter 44, "The Fall".] I can look at two different sets of data and infer my next conclusion independently from either of them. If I was in total harmony with God originally, then I think my relationship to this Nature would have been significantly different than what I find it to be now. Yet, I don't ever remember being in that relationship with Nature. As far as my own memory goes, I seem to have been born in this condition. But perhaps that is an illusion. However, I also have access to plenty of examples of other entities similar to my own type--other human persons, such as you, my reader--in all stages of life from cradle to the grave. All of them, or virtually all, are in the same relationship with Nature I am. There are some interesting hints of an improved relation here and there, among a few individuals or at partic...

[Note: the contents page for this series can be found here. The previous entry, Chapter 43, can be found here. ] [This entry begins Chapter 44, "The Fall".] In my previous chapter, I probably sounded as if I was waxing rhapsodic about death, and how great it was, and how much I need it. In a way, I was doing precisely that. But I agree it seems specious for me to sit here in my comfortable chair, sniffling over whatever puny sins I have committed in my life and trying to resolve myself to Face Death Like A Man; when all across our planet tonight vicious rapes and murders and grotesque physical and psychological violations are being performed by human fiends upon people whom I cannot possibly have definite grounds for saying 'the victims deserved that'. No, I refuse to argue that each and every victim of atrocity is receiving the just deserts of their own sins. There is no way I can possibly know that, and I staunchly insist that it certainly doesn't look that wa...

[Note: the contents page for this series can be found here. The previous entry, concluding Chapter 42, can be found here. ] [This entry constitutes Chapter 43, "Death".] I have previously decided that the consequences of my sin must logically, ethically entail that I shall certainly die. And I have been discussing what kinds of death should take place in me as a consequence of my sin. I decided that my utter annihilation was a technical possibility, but that it would be inconsistent with the hope of the fulfillment of God's love to me if He allowed the total fulfillment of the consequences of my wishful, willfully chosen intransigence. So although that type of death is possible for me--and even remains possible for God Himself, although He never has and never shall choose it--I think I can deductively conclude it shall never happen to me. My physical dissolution makes no difference: I, me, myself, shall by God's grace somehow continue. And, perhaps I will continue re...

[Note: the contents page for this series can be found here. The previous entry, starting Chapter 42, can be found here. ] [This entry concludes Chapter 42, "Death". Incidentally, this would be another good time to read that disclaimer over there to the right, about how not every journal entry necessarily reflects the beliefs of every Cadre member. Some of us may now, or in the future, be annihilationists, and are free to post defenses of that insofar as they can see to do so (or may have done so already). Links to annihilation defenses are also welcome in the comments below. One popular internet-accessible defense of annihilationism can be found here in a chapter from Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi's Immortality or Resurrection? While I could engage in a exegetical analysis of the topic, too, my series is designed to proceed along a different route.] Part 2 of 2 (Incidentally, this would be another good time to read that disclaimer over there to the right, about how not every...