As a philosopher, I like to see people putting together thoughts in a logical sequence. For example:
1. All men are mortal. (This is known as the major premise.)
2. Socrates is a man. (This is known as the minor premise)
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (This is the conclusion)
It is a beautiful thing when scientists use reason and experience to reach a conclusion in this way. For example:
1. Spectral lines shift to red when objects are moving away from us.
2. The spectral lines of most objects in the universe shift to red.
3. Therefore, the universe is probably expanding.
Unfortunately, I do not see people who believe in evolution reasoning in this way.
I recently spoke with the husband of a colleague of mine, an engineer. I mentioned to him my desire to hear a reasonable explanation of evolution, using scientific evidence.
"Animals have analogous structures," he said.
Animals have similar structures. Therefore, higher animals are descended from lower animals. Where is the major premise that would allow one to reach that conclusion? He had no answer.
"E. Coli and fruit flies adapt to their environments in the laboratory," he said.
E. Coli and fruit flied adapt to their environments in the laboratory. Therefore, higher animals are descended from lower animals. Where is the major premise? No answer. (This is besides the fact that, after all their adaptations, e. Coli are still bacteria and fruit flies are still flies.)
"Scientists have discovered fossils of a fish with four limbs," he said.
Scientists have discovered fossils of a fish with four limbs. Therefore, tetrapods that walk on land are descended from fish. Major premise? None. (This is besides the fact that there are four-limbed fish swimming around to this day: they use their limbs to push themselves off the bottom of the sea or swamp.)
This is not logic, it is superstition. ("I wore this sweaty cap three saves in a row," thinks the closer, "so wearing a sweaty cap will help me get the next save.)
Now how might someone, using reason and experience, use the example of homologous structures to reach a different conclusion?
1. In the case of works of art and music, similarities in structure usually indicate a common author.
2. Animals have similarities in structure.
3. Therefore, animals probably have a common author--namely, God.
How about fruit flies and e. Coli?
1. An intelligent Creator would create animals capable of adapting to their environments.
2. Fruit flies and e. Coli adapt to their environments in a laboratory.
3. Therefore, fruit flies and e. Coli probably were probably created by an intelligent Creator.
These are not definitive proofs, but at least they make use of actual observations and take the form of a logical series of statements. That is more than can be said for the ideas of evolutionists, at least in the way that I have seen them presented.
Until someone can do better, I'll need to assume that the theory of evolution is unsupported either by reason or experience.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
A Plea to Social Conservatives
Social conservatives need to stop focusing on social issues and start focusing on constitutional issues. This is not because the social issues are not important. It is because all the social issues that conservatives care about have become constitutional issues. So if social conservatives wish to prevail, they will need to master the constitutional issues first. At the risk of repeating what some may already know, I will first define how the constitution applies to these social issues and then propose a way of advancing toward the goal of a legal arrangment that reflects conservative moral values.
To begin, let us define what a constitution is. In addition to establishing a government, a constitution sets limits on the powers of that government. The capacity of government to harm the citizens it was designed to protect is the essential underlying assumption of the American system of government and the necessity of constitutionally limited government follows from that. The U.S. Constitution primarily sets limits on the power of the Federal government, but in a few places it places limits on the State governments as well. For our purposes, it is the limits on the State governments that concern us and, in particular, the limits that the Fourteenth Amendment places on the State governments. As we will see, the legal status of every social issue that is of concern to social conservatives has to do with Supreme Court rulings based on this amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the three amendments ratified within five years of the end of the civil war and, like the other two, was designed to address problems arising from the end of that war. In particular, all three were designed to address problems having to do with the rights of the African-Americans who had until recently been enslaved. The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolished slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) required States to protect the person and property of the newly freed slaves, and the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to African-American men. Because the Fourteenth Amendment is so critical to our discussion, it will be necessary to consider it at some length, in order to place its meaning beyond any doubt.
The Republican Party held a majority in Congress at the end of the civil war and many Republicans were greatly concerned about the safety and well-being of the newly freed slaves in the southern states. The congressional debates in early 1866 are full of of this time are full of details gathered by the U.S. military as to the condition of the freedmen. A congressional committee also began to gather testimony to provide a basis for appropriate legislation. The testimony is full of stories documenting the vulnerable condition of the freedmen. In Louisiana, for example, they were not permitted to own land. If an employer refused to pay them, they had no recourse because they could not make contracts and were unable to sue. In Virginia, the courts refused to punish whites who committed violence against blacks. In many states, black men received harsher punishments for crimes than whites. Many Republicans in Congress were concerned that the abolition of slavery would be of no benefit to the freedmen unless this situation was addressed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed in March 1866, is the remedy that Congress provided for the freedmen. As this act has a direct bearing on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it will be useful to quote the relevant part of this act in full:
To begin, let us define what a constitution is. In addition to establishing a government, a constitution sets limits on the powers of that government. The capacity of government to harm the citizens it was designed to protect is the essential underlying assumption of the American system of government and the necessity of constitutionally limited government follows from that. The U.S. Constitution primarily sets limits on the power of the Federal government, but in a few places it places limits on the State governments as well. For our purposes, it is the limits on the State governments that concern us and, in particular, the limits that the Fourteenth Amendment places on the State governments. As we will see, the legal status of every social issue that is of concern to social conservatives has to do with Supreme Court rulings based on this amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the three amendments ratified within five years of the end of the civil war and, like the other two, was designed to address problems arising from the end of that war. In particular, all three were designed to address problems having to do with the rights of the African-Americans who had until recently been enslaved. The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolished slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) required States to protect the person and property of the newly freed slaves, and the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to African-American men. Because the Fourteenth Amendment is so critical to our discussion, it will be necessary to consider it at some length, in order to place its meaning beyond any doubt.
The Republican Party held a majority in Congress at the end of the civil war and many Republicans were greatly concerned about the safety and well-being of the newly freed slaves in the southern states. The congressional debates in early 1866 are full of of this time are full of details gathered by the U.S. military as to the condition of the freedmen. A congressional committee also began to gather testimony to provide a basis for appropriate legislation. The testimony is full of stories documenting the vulnerable condition of the freedmen. In Louisiana, for example, they were not permitted to own land. If an employer refused to pay them, they had no recourse because they could not make contracts and were unable to sue. In Virginia, the courts refused to punish whites who committed violence against blacks. In many states, black men received harsher punishments for crimes than whites. Many Republicans in Congress were concerned that the abolition of slavery would be of no benefit to the freedmen unless this situation was addressed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed in March 1866, is the remedy that Congress provided for the freedmen. As this act has a direct bearing on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it will be useful to quote the relevant part of this act in full:
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The Difficulty of Knowing Cause and Effect in the Past and Future
"If, for example," I said, "there is a small child who throws a ball up in the air and is struck in the head. On the next day, if he throws the ball into the air again, his mother might say to him, 'Son, do you remember what happened to you yesterday when you threw the ball into the air? It struck you in the head.' Now, will the child be able to remember what happened the day before and avoid it in the present?"
"Perhaps not, if it is a very small child," he said.
"But if the child is old enough, then he will?"
"Yes," he said.
"Isn't that because it is not too difficult to be able to remember what happened in the past and apply it to the present time" I asked.
"Yes," he said, "that is the reason."
"But what about the future If a boy threw a ball into the air yesterday and it hit him in the head, will it do the same thing a year from now and the year after?"
"I suppose it will," he said.
"Are you as certain of that as you were about the present, that what happened yesterday will happen today as well?" I asked.
"No," he said, "I am not as certain."
"Neither am I," I said. "Perhaps this is because we are accustomed to applying what happened in the past to the present moment, but we are not as used to applying what happened in the past to what will happen in the future."
"Perhaps," he said.
"What, then, about the past?" I asked. "If the boy threw a ball up in the air yesterday and it struck him in the head, would it have done the same thing a year ago and the year before that?"
"I suppose it would have," he said.
"Of which are you more certain, that it would have done so in the past, or in the future?"
"Perhaps not, if it is a very small child," he said.
"But if the child is old enough, then he will?"
"Yes," he said.
"Isn't that because it is not too difficult to be able to remember what happened in the past and apply it to the present time" I asked.
"Yes," he said, "that is the reason."
"But what about the future If a boy threw a ball into the air yesterday and it hit him in the head, will it do the same thing a year from now and the year after?"
"I suppose it will," he said.
"Are you as certain of that as you were about the present, that what happened yesterday will happen today as well?" I asked.
"No," he said, "I am not as certain."
"Neither am I," I said. "Perhaps this is because we are accustomed to applying what happened in the past to the present moment, but we are not as used to applying what happened in the past to what will happen in the future."
"Perhaps," he said.
"What, then, about the past?" I asked. "If the boy threw a ball up in the air yesterday and it struck him in the head, would it have done the same thing a year ago and the year before that?"
"I suppose it would have," he said.
"Of which are you more certain, that it would have done so in the past, or in the future?"
Thursday, September 4, 2008
In Response to Ortberg
A response to "John Ortberg on Religion AND Politics: Why the human race needs an administration of another kind."
In a recent article on "Religion AND Politics," John Ortberg would persuade Christians that we should "vote, be educated, be involved," yet be careful not to take politics too seriously, because politics does not have the power to bring about the "perfection" that is the deepest desire of the human heart. Christians, he says, should also take care not to apply simplistic ideas about right and wrong to politics and, above all, should not presume to think that God favors one political party over another. In saying these things, I would suggest that Ortberg fails to understand the purpose of politics, the value of liberty, and the role that God requires Christians to play in a political system such as ours.
In the first place, the purpose of politics is not to bring about perfection, but simply to make it possible for human beings to live in peace, without being harmed by others or by their own government. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, the reason why "Governments are instituted among men" is to secure "certain unalienable Rights" with which we have been endowed by our Creator. By establishing laws that protect people and by punishing those who harm them, government prevents something that God hates (the misery that wicked human beings would otherwise bring upon their fellow men) and makes possible something that God loves (our enjoyment of the world that He has created).
The Apostle Paul ascribes the same purpose to government. In his letter to the Romans, Paul describes a ruler as "God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (13:4). In "executing wrath," the ruler fulfils the demands of justice and also discourages others from doing harm. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul urges Timothy and his flock to pray "for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence" (1 Timothy 2:2). In this request, Paul acknowledges that it is government that makes it possible for human beings to live out their lives in peace and, in the case of Christians, to live out their lives in a way that is pleasing to God. If governments, as Paul says, are "appointed by God" and a ruler is "God's minister," then Ortberg is wrong to belittle their importance just because they fail to achieve a purpose that God never intended for them.
Yet there is another reason why Christians in the United States need to take politics seriously. In a free society such as ours, Christians share in the exercise of the powers of government and so we ourselves are God's ministers. In the words of the First Continental Congress, “The first grand right, is that of the people having a share in their own government by their representatives chosen by themselves." If, as Paul says, "there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God," then as Americans each one of us is appointed by God to share in the responsibility of government. By our participation in the political process, we do our part to make sure that government fulfils the purpose for which God ordained it. We also do our part to make sure that government itself does not violate the God-given rights that it was established to defend.
Ortberg is also wrong when he suggests that God does not favor any political party. In trying to prove this, Ortberg quotes a passage from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, in which Lincoln observes that the people of the North and the South read the same Bible and pray to the same God. Yet he leaves out the next sentence, in which Lincoln makes it clear that there is little doubt whose side God is on when it comes to the wicked institution of slavery: "If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?" God does take sides in politics: He is on the side of those who want government to secure the rights that He has given to human beings and He is opposed to those who would have government violate those rights. It is not so much that God favors a particular political party; it is that God stands for certain principles and favors the political party that promotes the principles that He Himself approves.
So how does this apply to American politics and the political disagreements of our day? To answer this question, we will need to consider a brief definition of liberty.
The idea of liberty begins with the "self-evident" (and Biblical) truth that God gives all men the three basic rights of personal security, personal liberty, and property--or, in the words of the U.S. Constitution, life, liberty, and property. (In the context of this sacred triangle of rights, the word "liberty" is defined as freedom from physical restraint--that is, not being a slave or being wrongly imprisoned without due process of law.)
This leads to the first requirement of liberty, which is to live under a government that protects the rights of person and property. "Liberty," says Locke, "is to be free from restraint and violence from others." This part of liberty would include the responsibility of the U.S. government to protect the American people from those who would harm us as well as the responsibility of State governments to protect the lives of the unborn.
It leads also to the second requirement of liberty--that of living under a government that does not itself violate the rights of person and property. In the words of James Madison, "you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." This part of liberty would require, among other things, that government refrain from taking the property of a few members of society and giving it to the rest--whether in the form of gas rebates or medical care. “The invasion of private rights," says Madison, "is chiefly to be apprehended...from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents.”
The third requirement of liberty is that of having a large area of personal choice without interference from government. "Civil liberty," as William Blackstone defines it, requires that people refrain from harming others in their person and property, but otherwise "leaves the subject entire master of his own conduct, except in those points wherein the public good requires some direction or restraint." This part of liberty is not, however, a license to do as we please. As Justice Field explains in the Slaughterhouse Cases, "the police power of the State...extends to all regulations affecting the health, good order, morals, peace, and safety of society." Personal liberties do not, therefore, include a personal choice to take the life of an unborn child, engage in sexual behavior that typically leads to health epidemics, or attend a public high school football game without hearing someone pray--recent Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding.
The fourth requirement of liberty is self-government--that is, having input into the laws under which we live through our representatives in a legislature. This right serves two purposes. In the first place, it protects us from our own government. "Security [for our lives and property]," explains Alexander Hamilton, "can never exist, while we have no part in making the laws, that are to bind us." This right also makes it possible for local communities to live under laws that reflect their own values and judgments. The principle of federalism leaves a large area of authority in the hands of the State governments and provides many opportunities for the people of the several States to live under the laws that seem best to them. As Samuel Adams observed, in a country as large and diverse as the United States, the people "under one consolidated Governmt. can not long remain free, or indeed under any Kind of Governmt. but Despotism." This means that liberty requires that the Federal government stay within its limited jurisdiction, as defined by Article I.8 of the U.S. Constitution, and also requires that the U.S. Supreme Court stop usurping authority that the U.S. Constitution leaves in the hands of the State governments.
The fifth requirement of liberty is constitutionally limited government. The right to a constitutionally limited government is an additional barrier protecting us from our own government. In the words of the Representatives of Berkshire County, "the fundamental Constitution is the basis... of legislation...circumscribing and defining the powers of the rulers, and so affoarding a sacred barrier against tyranny and despotism.” This part of liberty requires that the U.S. Supreme Court understand the U.S. Constitution not as a "living document," but in the same sense in which the people understood it when they ratified it. If the Federal government can redefine its own limits simply by giving new meanings to words, then the Constitution, as Jefferson says, becomes a "blank paper" and the power of the Federal government becomes "boundless." This means, among other things, that the U.S. Supreme Court must stop re-defining the 14th Amendment in such a way as to give itself power over decisions concerning abortion, homosexuality, and the role of religion in a free society--all issues that the U.S. Constitution reserves to the several States.
The sixth requirement of liberty is having a large area of personal responsibility without help from government. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville describes a form of despotism in which government does not harm people, but rather takes care of them. Government "provides for their security, anticipates and takes care of their needs, facilitates their pleasures, [and] manages their most important affairs," but the people end up in "slavery" and "gradually fall below the level of humanity." In a free society, government supports the widow and the orphan, but does not otherwise support able-bodied adults who simply choose not to work, nor does it enable people to continue to live irresponsibly without suffering any consequences.
The seventh and final requirement of liberty is independence, or not being ruled by foreigners. In 1776, it became necessary for Americans to throw off the rule of Great Britain and assume "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." The reason why independence is so crucial is that other countries do not have our best interests at heart and our person and property will be in danger so long as they continue to rule us. Now that we have gained our independence, this part of liberty requires, among other things, that the U.S. and not countries like Russia, China, and France must decide what the U.S. needs to do in the defense of its own citizens. It also requires that U.S. judges make decisions based on the American legal tradition, rather than adopting European standards of right and wrong.
The two parties in the United States take nearly opposite positions on each one of these parts of liberty. In fact, one party seeks to preserve liberty as a goal of American politics and the other has more or less abandoned this goal and seeks to replace it with another. If God, in fact, gives the rights of person and property to human beings, it is hard to understand how He can be indifferent to liberty, which is the only political arrangement that has proven capable of safeguarding these rights. If this is so, then it would seem likely that God would favor the political party that stands for liberty to the extent that it continues to do so.
In a recent article on "Religion AND Politics," John Ortberg would persuade Christians that we should "vote, be educated, be involved," yet be careful not to take politics too seriously, because politics does not have the power to bring about the "perfection" that is the deepest desire of the human heart. Christians, he says, should also take care not to apply simplistic ideas about right and wrong to politics and, above all, should not presume to think that God favors one political party over another. In saying these things, I would suggest that Ortberg fails to understand the purpose of politics, the value of liberty, and the role that God requires Christians to play in a political system such as ours.
In the first place, the purpose of politics is not to bring about perfection, but simply to make it possible for human beings to live in peace, without being harmed by others or by their own government. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, the reason why "Governments are instituted among men" is to secure "certain unalienable Rights" with which we have been endowed by our Creator. By establishing laws that protect people and by punishing those who harm them, government prevents something that God hates (the misery that wicked human beings would otherwise bring upon their fellow men) and makes possible something that God loves (our enjoyment of the world that He has created).
The Apostle Paul ascribes the same purpose to government. In his letter to the Romans, Paul describes a ruler as "God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (13:4). In "executing wrath," the ruler fulfils the demands of justice and also discourages others from doing harm. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul urges Timothy and his flock to pray "for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence" (1 Timothy 2:2). In this request, Paul acknowledges that it is government that makes it possible for human beings to live out their lives in peace and, in the case of Christians, to live out their lives in a way that is pleasing to God. If governments, as Paul says, are "appointed by God" and a ruler is "God's minister," then Ortberg is wrong to belittle their importance just because they fail to achieve a purpose that God never intended for them.
Yet there is another reason why Christians in the United States need to take politics seriously. In a free society such as ours, Christians share in the exercise of the powers of government and so we ourselves are God's ministers. In the words of the First Continental Congress, “The first grand right, is that of the people having a share in their own government by their representatives chosen by themselves." If, as Paul says, "there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God," then as Americans each one of us is appointed by God to share in the responsibility of government. By our participation in the political process, we do our part to make sure that government fulfils the purpose for which God ordained it. We also do our part to make sure that government itself does not violate the God-given rights that it was established to defend.
Ortberg is also wrong when he suggests that God does not favor any political party. In trying to prove this, Ortberg quotes a passage from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, in which Lincoln observes that the people of the North and the South read the same Bible and pray to the same God. Yet he leaves out the next sentence, in which Lincoln makes it clear that there is little doubt whose side God is on when it comes to the wicked institution of slavery: "If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?" God does take sides in politics: He is on the side of those who want government to secure the rights that He has given to human beings and He is opposed to those who would have government violate those rights. It is not so much that God favors a particular political party; it is that God stands for certain principles and favors the political party that promotes the principles that He Himself approves.
So how does this apply to American politics and the political disagreements of our day? To answer this question, we will need to consider a brief definition of liberty.
The idea of liberty begins with the "self-evident" (and Biblical) truth that God gives all men the three basic rights of personal security, personal liberty, and property--or, in the words of the U.S. Constitution, life, liberty, and property. (In the context of this sacred triangle of rights, the word "liberty" is defined as freedom from physical restraint--that is, not being a slave or being wrongly imprisoned without due process of law.)
This leads to the first requirement of liberty, which is to live under a government that protects the rights of person and property. "Liberty," says Locke, "is to be free from restraint and violence from others." This part of liberty would include the responsibility of the U.S. government to protect the American people from those who would harm us as well as the responsibility of State governments to protect the lives of the unborn.
It leads also to the second requirement of liberty--that of living under a government that does not itself violate the rights of person and property. In the words of James Madison, "you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." This part of liberty would require, among other things, that government refrain from taking the property of a few members of society and giving it to the rest--whether in the form of gas rebates or medical care. “The invasion of private rights," says Madison, "is chiefly to be apprehended...from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents.”
The third requirement of liberty is that of having a large area of personal choice without interference from government. "Civil liberty," as William Blackstone defines it, requires that people refrain from harming others in their person and property, but otherwise "leaves the subject entire master of his own conduct, except in those points wherein the public good requires some direction or restraint." This part of liberty is not, however, a license to do as we please. As Justice Field explains in the Slaughterhouse Cases, "the police power of the State...extends to all regulations affecting the health, good order, morals, peace, and safety of society." Personal liberties do not, therefore, include a personal choice to take the life of an unborn child, engage in sexual behavior that typically leads to health epidemics, or attend a public high school football game without hearing someone pray--recent Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding.
The fourth requirement of liberty is self-government--that is, having input into the laws under which we live through our representatives in a legislature. This right serves two purposes. In the first place, it protects us from our own government. "Security [for our lives and property]," explains Alexander Hamilton, "can never exist, while we have no part in making the laws, that are to bind us." This right also makes it possible for local communities to live under laws that reflect their own values and judgments. The principle of federalism leaves a large area of authority in the hands of the State governments and provides many opportunities for the people of the several States to live under the laws that seem best to them. As Samuel Adams observed, in a country as large and diverse as the United States, the people "under one consolidated Governmt. can not long remain free, or indeed under any Kind of Governmt. but Despotism." This means that liberty requires that the Federal government stay within its limited jurisdiction, as defined by Article I.8 of the U.S. Constitution, and also requires that the U.S. Supreme Court stop usurping authority that the U.S. Constitution leaves in the hands of the State governments.
The fifth requirement of liberty is constitutionally limited government. The right to a constitutionally limited government is an additional barrier protecting us from our own government. In the words of the Representatives of Berkshire County, "the fundamental Constitution is the basis... of legislation...circumscribing and defining the powers of the rulers, and so affoarding a sacred barrier against tyranny and despotism.” This part of liberty requires that the U.S. Supreme Court understand the U.S. Constitution not as a "living document," but in the same sense in which the people understood it when they ratified it. If the Federal government can redefine its own limits simply by giving new meanings to words, then the Constitution, as Jefferson says, becomes a "blank paper" and the power of the Federal government becomes "boundless." This means, among other things, that the U.S. Supreme Court must stop re-defining the 14th Amendment in such a way as to give itself power over decisions concerning abortion, homosexuality, and the role of religion in a free society--all issues that the U.S. Constitution reserves to the several States.
The sixth requirement of liberty is having a large area of personal responsibility without help from government. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville describes a form of despotism in which government does not harm people, but rather takes care of them. Government "provides for their security, anticipates and takes care of their needs, facilitates their pleasures, [and] manages their most important affairs," but the people end up in "slavery" and "gradually fall below the level of humanity." In a free society, government supports the widow and the orphan, but does not otherwise support able-bodied adults who simply choose not to work, nor does it enable people to continue to live irresponsibly without suffering any consequences.
The seventh and final requirement of liberty is independence, or not being ruled by foreigners. In 1776, it became necessary for Americans to throw off the rule of Great Britain and assume "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." The reason why independence is so crucial is that other countries do not have our best interests at heart and our person and property will be in danger so long as they continue to rule us. Now that we have gained our independence, this part of liberty requires, among other things, that the U.S. and not countries like Russia, China, and France must decide what the U.S. needs to do in the defense of its own citizens. It also requires that U.S. judges make decisions based on the American legal tradition, rather than adopting European standards of right and wrong.
The two parties in the United States take nearly opposite positions on each one of these parts of liberty. In fact, one party seeks to preserve liberty as a goal of American politics and the other has more or less abandoned this goal and seeks to replace it with another. If God, in fact, gives the rights of person and property to human beings, it is hard to understand how He can be indifferent to liberty, which is the only political arrangement that has proven capable of safeguarding these rights. If this is so, then it would seem likely that God would favor the political party that stands for liberty to the extent that it continues to do so.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Amos 1
Amos describes in this chapter many sins against Israel. The surrounding countries are condemned for how they have treated Israel, the northern kingdom of Israel.
The surrounding countries are:
The surrounding countries are:
- Syria
- Philistia
- Tyre
- Edom
- Ammon
Syria "threshed Gilead with implements of sharp iron" (3). Ammon "ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead in order to enlarge their borders" (13).
Philistia "deported an entire population to deliver it up to Edom" (6). Tyre "deliverd up an entire population to Edom" (9). Presumably this entire population is Israel. I wonder if Amos speaks of a past event or the future destruction of Israel, the future judgment of Israel.
Tyre and Edom both violate ties of kinship in destroying Israel. Tyre "did not remember the covenant of brotherhood" (9). Edom "pursued his brother with the sword" (11).
Perhaps this chapter is a vision of the future destruction of Israel at the hands of these surrounding nations. Even if they are instruments in the hands of God, to deliver His wrath upon Israel, still they will be punished.
Syria: "The people of Aram will go exiled to Kir" (5).
Philistia: "The remnant of the Philistines will perish" (8).
Tyre: "I will send fire upon the wall of Tyre, and it will consume her citadels" (10).
Edom: "I will send fire upon Teman, and it will consume the citadels of Bozrah" (12)
Ammon: "I will kindle a fire on the wall of Rabbah, and it will consume her citadels....Their king will go into exile, he and his princes together" (14-15).
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Amos 9, 13-15
13. The LORD gives Amos a vision of the future. It is a future in which there is no waiting for the good things that we must wait for in this life. The good things will come immediately.
Instead of plowing and sowing and waiting and reaping--actually, this would make more sense if it said "the reaper will overtake the plowman"--but it says the reverse.
The treader of grapes overtakes the one who sows seed--that makes more sense as a way of describing immediate results.
"The mountains will drip sweet wine"--I guess that means that we will get wine without having to do the work of producing it.
"The hills will be dissolved"--I'm not sure what that means. Elsewhere I think it refers to the proud being humbled.
14. Here, the LORD says that He will "restore the captivity of My people Israel." Is that referring to a remnant of the northern kingdom--or is it a remnant of the southern kingdom? I thought the northern kingdom was under total condemnation, no one excepted, with no future restoration.
Here the LORD speaks of people returning to the land and planting vineyards, making gardens and enjoy the fruit thereof.
Which ruined cities will they be rebuilding? Those of the northern kingdom?
15. In the final verse, the LORD says that the LORD will plant the remnant back in the land and they will never again be removed from it, the land that the LORD gave them.
Is this a message of hope for the northern kingdom? Is there a faithful remnant? Or will the descendants of the scattered ones be a faithful remnant who will then return?
Instead of plowing and sowing and waiting and reaping--actually, this would make more sense if it said "the reaper will overtake the plowman"--but it says the reverse.
The treader of grapes overtakes the one who sows seed--that makes more sense as a way of describing immediate results.
"The mountains will drip sweet wine"--I guess that means that we will get wine without having to do the work of producing it.
"The hills will be dissolved"--I'm not sure what that means. Elsewhere I think it refers to the proud being humbled.
14. Here, the LORD says that He will "restore the captivity of My people Israel." Is that referring to a remnant of the northern kingdom--or is it a remnant of the southern kingdom? I thought the northern kingdom was under total condemnation, no one excepted, with no future restoration.
Here the LORD speaks of people returning to the land and planting vineyards, making gardens and enjoy the fruit thereof.
Which ruined cities will they be rebuilding? Those of the northern kingdom?
15. In the final verse, the LORD says that the LORD will plant the remnant back in the land and they will never again be removed from it, the land that the LORD gave them.
Is this a message of hope for the northern kingdom? Is there a faithful remnant? Or will the descendants of the scattered ones be a faithful remnant who will then return?
Friday, July 18, 2008
Does God Intervene in History?
John Fea's critique of The Light and the Glory in the July/August edition of Touchstone reminds me of the evolutionist's critique of intelligent design: just as we must confine ourselves to natural causes in understanding the origin of the species, we must do the same when understanding the events of American history.
It may be worth discussing in a bit more detail than Fea does the self-understanding of the participants in the War for Independence.
The Declaration of Independence itself expresses the view that God will be on the side of the Americans in the coming war: they embark on it "with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence." God is on the side of the Americans, not because He likes Americans better than he likes the British, but because the Americans are fighting to defend the unalienable rights with which they have been "endowed by their Creator." Fea seems to think that it is a fatal blow to this way of thinking to point out that British Christians were praying for the Americans' defeat. The Founders would no doubt have found it strange for someone to find, as Fea does here, a moral equivalency between liberty and tyranny. If God in fact gives people rights, presumably He prefers that system of government which is best able to secure them. Perhaps He even intervenes in history on the side of those who fight for it.
Fea wants us to dismiss the statements of the participants in these events, because to do otherwise would be to "fail to exemplify the historian's necessary detachment from his subject." Or because it "would be the equivalent of future historians arguing that the events of September 11, 2001 were a punishment from God because their sources--certain prominent television preachers--said so." Yet these statements were made not by preachers but by important Founders such as Washington and Franklin, intelligent men who were directly involved in these events and who (at least in Franklin's case) were not necessarily known for their great faith.
In the Constitutional Convention, for example, Benjamin Franklin speaks of his certainty that God fought on the side of the Americans: "In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor." In his first inaugural address, Washington does the same: "No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency."
Granted, we do not have to believe that what Franklin and Washington say is true just because they say it, but the detachment of a historian does not require us to assume that what they say is not true either. Perhaps we can take the approach of the scientist: in the Declaration, the Americans predict that God will fight on their side because they are fighting for liberty, and in the event, He apparently did.
Note: see also John Witherspoon: "It would be a criminal inattention not to observe the singular interposition of Providence hitherto, in behalf of the American colonies."
It may be worth discussing in a bit more detail than Fea does the self-understanding of the participants in the War for Independence.
The Declaration of Independence itself expresses the view that God will be on the side of the Americans in the coming war: they embark on it "with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence." God is on the side of the Americans, not because He likes Americans better than he likes the British, but because the Americans are fighting to defend the unalienable rights with which they have been "endowed by their Creator." Fea seems to think that it is a fatal blow to this way of thinking to point out that British Christians were praying for the Americans' defeat. The Founders would no doubt have found it strange for someone to find, as Fea does here, a moral equivalency between liberty and tyranny. If God in fact gives people rights, presumably He prefers that system of government which is best able to secure them. Perhaps He even intervenes in history on the side of those who fight for it.
Fea wants us to dismiss the statements of the participants in these events, because to do otherwise would be to "fail to exemplify the historian's necessary detachment from his subject." Or because it "would be the equivalent of future historians arguing that the events of September 11, 2001 were a punishment from God because their sources--certain prominent television preachers--said so." Yet these statements were made not by preachers but by important Founders such as Washington and Franklin, intelligent men who were directly involved in these events and who (at least in Franklin's case) were not necessarily known for their great faith.
In the Constitutional Convention, for example, Benjamin Franklin speaks of his certainty that God fought on the side of the Americans: "In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor." In his first inaugural address, Washington does the same: "No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency."
Granted, we do not have to believe that what Franklin and Washington say is true just because they say it, but the detachment of a historian does not require us to assume that what they say is not true either. Perhaps we can take the approach of the scientist: in the Declaration, the Americans predict that God will fight on their side because they are fighting for liberty, and in the event, He apparently did.
Note: see also John Witherspoon: "It would be a criminal inattention not to observe the singular interposition of Providence hitherto, in behalf of the American colonies."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
