Reflections on the Nature of Government

^10 Pilate therefore said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” ^11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.” (John 19:10-11).

It has been a turbulent few weeks politically and morally in terms of what our government is trying to do, and facing religious opposition to it.  The contentious aftermath about the House Health Care bill including the Stupak Amendment has pro-abortion supporters in the government wondering what to do to counteract this.

This isn't an article about health care or abortion or the Obama administration per se.  Rather, it is about the nature of government itself.  What is its purpose?  When is it a good government or a bad government.

Part I: Reflections on Aristotle's Politics.

Aristotle, in his Politics, described the difference between a good and a bad government as:

The conclusion is evident: that governments which have a regard to the common interest are constituted in accordance with strict principles of justice, and are therefore true forms; but those which regard only the interest of the rulers are all defective and perverted forms, for they are despotic, whereas a state is a community of freemen. (Book 3 Part 6)

We have here two key elements: first, that a government needs to have a regard to the common interest, and second that it has to act in accord to strict principles of justice.  A government which acts according to the interest of the rulers is a despotic government.

This need not be a willful attempt to unjustly keep certain people suppressed.  Aristotle also noticed that the human nature of self deception also has its role to play:

…all men cling to justice of some kind, but their conceptions are imperfect and they do not express the whole idea. For example, justice is thought by them to be, and is, equality, not. however, for however, for but only for equals. And inequality is thought to be, and is, justice; neither is this for all, but only for unequals. When the persons are omitted, then men judge erroneously. The reason is that they are passing judgment on themselves, and most people are bad judges in their own case. And whereas justice implies a relation to persons as well as to things, and a just distribution, as I have already said in the Ethics, implies the same ratio between the persons and between the things, they agree about the equality of the things, but dispute about the equality of the persons, chiefly for the reason which I have just given- because they are bad judges in their own affairs; and secondly, because both the parties to the argument are speaking of a limited and partial justice, but imagine themselves to be speaking of absolute justice. (Book 3 Part 9)

The disgust many Americans felt over the actions of the Supreme Court in the 1960s and 1970s seems to spring from this kind of thinking.  For example, the focus on the rights of the criminal alone without reflection on how these rights impacted the rights of the society as a whole.

Likewise, restrictions on individuals because of laws like segregation or apartheid can be opposed because they give justice to some, but not others.

I think this comes into play in America today in regards to how certain partisan ideals are portrayed as "rights" and those who oppose the partisan ideals represented as "rights" are demonized.

For example, we have in America a debate on Health Care and whether it should be universal.  The idea behind it is the belief it is not right that the poor should suffer due to the lack of ability to pay for coverage, since the costs of being able to save a life often could mean the financial ruin of someone who could not afford health insurance.  As far as this goes, it is legitimate to discuss what role the government should play in making sure that all are able to receive necessary care.

What becomes unjust however is when one seeks to force through a benefit for a special group, which benefits that group only.  Hence the debate over including abortion in Health Care. 

Abortion is generally acknowledged to end the existence of an unborn person, and the dispute is over whether the mother should have the right to decide on a whim whether or not to end the existence of this unborn person.  A certain segment of the population insists on the availability of this convenience for the mother.  Another segment argues that this is immoral and objects to people who object being forced to support it against their will.

With this being considered, the demand to include access to abortion as a part of "health care reform" is in fact promoting inequality, where all are obligated to support something which benefits only a certain segment of society (those who insist on engaging in sexual activity without considering the consequences and insisting on the right not to be responsible for the consequences).

A similar case could be made for the push for "gay marriage."  Marriage has long been recognized as an institution which is the building block of society.  It recognizes that sexual activity between males and females result in offspring, and recognizes that a bond exists between husband and wife, between parent and child.  Laws which protect marriage recognize that these bonds are inviolate, and actions which harm the marriage bond will ultimately bring harm to society ("the common interest" referred to above).

The push for "gay marriage" seeks to set this aside, allowing the rights of marriage to those who cannot produce offspring by the nature of their being.  This is not the same thing as a heterosexual couple who is infertile marrying.  While the infertile heterosexual couple could have children except for the accident of their own health issues, homosexuality simply cannot produce offspring by its very nature: Two lesbians cannot have a child.  The child is the offspring of one of the partners and another man.  Two homosexual males cannot have a child.  The child is the offspring of one of the partners and another woman.  (This is one reason why one can validly say that "gay marriage" attacks society.  Homosexual couples seeking to reproduce must necessarily violate the marriage bond to do so)

Seeking the legal benefits which comes with marriage without the framework the legal benefits are intended to support is to merely privilege a certain segment of society. This is based on the idea that since all persons are equal, all persons should have access to the same rights regardless of whether it is fitting they should have them.

Aristotle observed:

…political society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of mere companionship. Hence they who contribute most to such a society have a greater share in it than those who have the same or a greater freedom or nobility of birth but are inferior to them in political virtue; or than those who exceed them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue. (Book 3 Part 9)

From this, it seems to follow that the rights of marriage under the law of a society must be based on the contribution of the family to society, and not on the basis of sexual intercourse between two individuals.

Unfortunately, in America we have a sense that every person must have a right to do anything they want.  Therefore we see nonsense like insisting males have the right to join the "Girl Scouts" to avoid injustice, ignoring the fact that things like gender are real things.  (It is wrong to treat a person as less of a person on account of their gender, but it does not follow from this that we must treat a person as if gender does not exist).

From this, we can consider more clearly what Aristotle had to say about the nature of good and evil in relation to government.

Aristotle pointed out:

The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions. (Book 3 part 7)

Those who would promote a view of government which insists on protecting private interests as a civil right are indeed perversions.

Part II: Reflections on Christian Obligation In Regards to the State

It is true that one cannot apply to the state the idea that one who is a Christian has freedoms that another individual does not.  This would make Christianity merely a "private interest," in the sense similar to legal persecutions by radical Hindus in India or the state mandated support of Islam in the Middle East.  Christians need to remember that when Christian teaching and Christian ethics form the basis of society, it must be that the ethics and teaching apply equally to all.  (It is because of this view that the Church takes a stand against secularism in government and society.  When the government is ruled in a way that benefits the irreligious over the religious, it is acting in the favor of a private interest).

However, the Christian view is that God is the center of reality, of truth and of life regardless of whether one believes in Him or not.  Their view of good derives from this.  Likewise, the one who professes a secular view, that God has no role to play in society, has to establish what is good from a secular view. 

I believe Thomas Aquinas had some good insights into what is necessary in law to be considered good:

…it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is "that which makes its subject good," it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good, either simply or in some particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply. If, however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or in opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good simply, but in respect to that particular government. In this way good is found even in things that are bad of themselves: thus a man is called a good robber, because he works in a way that is adapted to his end. (Summa Theologica I-II Q92 A1)

For the Christian, the Divine Justice is the yardstick for the good the lawgiver must follow.  If it does not, then while it may be beneficial to some, it is not good.

St Augustine speaks of the idea of the kingdom without justice in his City of God:

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor." (Book IV: Chapter 4)

If the state has impunity to place injustice as law, then the state is arbitrary like a band of robbers, and cannot be said to be just.  Since the Christian is obliged to oppose injustice, they must speak up when the state is unjust.  If the state insists that the Christian cannot speak up on the grounds of "separation of Church and State," this is unjust because it deprives the Christian the right to speak when those who speak from other convictions are not similarly deprived.

It is because of this that reports of complaints against Bishops taking a stand in accord with their beliefs becomes ominous.

Part III: Christianity and Other Views within a State

Whether or not the atheist or the non-Christian religious believer likes it, America is largely made up of people who believe in the Christian notion of God, and any discussion of a good government must take this into account, because these standards are assumed.  If one wishes to reject these standards, something must be shown to be acceptable to replace them.

The Christian, with a properly formed faith, who acts in accord with their beliefs is in fact doing what the citizen of a state is supposed to be doing: acting for the common good based on what they believe is right.  Agree or disagree, the Christian with the properly formed faith does indeed have a world view on what justice is and what it requires.

The view of one who holds Christianity is wrong, and insists on forming society in a way which runs counter to the Christian view however. is not doing this unless they demonstrate why their actions do appeal to absolute justice and the common good and not to a private benefit.  Those who would object to "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance or "In God We Trust" on our money is not objecting in terms of supreme justice, but under the private benefit of not wanting to see religious activity in public.

So if one proposes the state is to be governed by something other than the Christian view of Good, we need to be able to look at what this "other" holds, and why it should supplant the view the Christians hold on the nature of good and evil.  If such a case cannot be made, but proponents make this change anyway, then this is an arbitrary action by a group acting with impunity, not with justice.

Part IV: The Problem of Partisanship

The problem we have with the state in America today is that rather than a government acting for the public good with a clear understanding of what is good, we have a government of factions, each seeking to promote its agenda, and calling it good for the whole.  Both Liberals and Conservatives focus on material wealth, and differ on whether it is good to let the "free market" decide or the "state" decide.

Under this view, a majority in both houses and a president who shares these partisan leanings are enough to do what one wants with impunity — until the power structure shifts and those who were out of power enter power and those who once ruled are cast out.  Then that which was a majority view becomes a minority view and the formerly minority view becomes a majority view.

In this case the government veers "right" to "left" and then "left" to "right."  Those who support the government call it "good" while those who do not call it "bad" (or "a step backwards").  None of this considers what is the true good however, and I believe if Aristotle were alive today, he would have to call our governing of state a perversion.  Private interests run key.  The citizens become marginalized and our government becomes a government of few governed by self interest, with growing dissatisfaction from the faction falling out of power with each pendulum swing.

Part V: What Then Should We Do?

Ultimately if America is to be a land of justice, we need to step back and understand what it means to be an American citizen.  We need to recognize what is the source of ultimate good and justice and we need to make sure our laws follow this vision as accurately as possible.  Democrats and Republicans will no doubt differ on ways and means on how to carry it out, and not all of these views will be compatible with the ultimate good, due to the person's ability for self-deception.

However, if we are to be a land of justice, we need to understand what the yardstick is to be, and ensure that those who we bring to office are people who live up to this justice and not to partisan concerns which are made first.

Those things which run afoul of the ultimate good must be opposed.  The idea of vox populi vox dei (The voice of the people is the voice of God) is of course nonsense.  Indeed, the person who is crediting as having coined the statement (Alcuin) actually said the opposite:

Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit. (And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.)

The appetites of the individual lead people to do many things which are problematic, contradictory and focused on self-gratification.  The state exists to serve the good of the people, but the good is not the self gratification.

Therefore, we need to oppose those actions which deal with self-gratification or the reducing the consequences of self-gratification, and ask ourselves what is the greatest good?

Conclusion: The Christian Way

As Christians, we have an answer to this which guides our behavior, and is shown in two passages from Matthew:

^36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” ^37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. ^38 This is the great and first commandment. ^39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ^40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (Mattt 22:36-40).

and

^16 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” ^17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” ^18 He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, ^19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ^20 The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” ^21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” ^22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. (Matt 19:16-22)

We have conditions in two areas as to what is good.  To follow God, and to treat our fellow man as ourselves.  A state which goes astray on either area fails to do what is good and just.

The Bishops and the laity who speak out against the evil of the government are not being partisan.  They are not imposing their own views.  They are in fact teaching us what we are required to do in the Light of the ultimate good.

Illogic from an Internet Quote

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

—Quote commonly repeated on the Internet

This is what passes for a reasoned argument on the internet.  The problem of course, not only is it not a reasonable argument, it fails to grasp the basic point of contention.

Problem #1: "I just believe in one fewer god than you do"

First of all, the argument of "believing in one fewer god" sounds cute but there is a problem with it.  The difference between believing in two gods and believing in one god is not just the difference of one god.  It is the difference between polytheism and monotheism, which is a pretty substantial difference, as it is the difference between a belief in a group of imperfect higher beings, each with sovereignty over a specific area, and a perfect higher being.

The difference between believing in one god and believing in zero gods is an infinite difference, as is atheism and theism.  Believing there is a God holds a dramatically different view from a view that there is no God, as it reflects on one's outlook on the meaning of existence and our obligations towards our fellow men.

So the statement shows either a great ignorance or a great contempt for the issue in question, and demonstrates a failure to understand the dispute between theism and atheism.

Problem #2: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

Such a statement, again, sounds cute but it also betrays an ignorance of why we monotheists actually disagree with polytheism.  A look at fourth and fifth century authors like Arnobius of Sicca (I am referring to the actual author, not this blogsite) and his Ad nationes; or St. Augustine and the first ten books of City of God shows a challenge to a polytheistic view, stating that such beings were by nature finite beings and had no such a power to compel worship, and demonstrated logically that such a view of deities was irrational and so on.

Even outside of Judaeo-Christian views, Greek philosophers recognized the flaws of the system of polytheism.

The author of the quoted statement, and those who cite it or copy it into their sig files, demonstrate that they have no idea why polytheism is rejected by a monotheist, assuming that the monotheist simply uses their arguments against other religions.

The problem is, these arguments against polytheism cannot be applied to monotheism because polytheism and monotheism hold incompatible views.  Disproving polytheism does not disprove monotheism.

This brings us to a second issue with this second statement.  No matter how many false religions one debunks, one has not proven all religions are false.  It is like saying "All swans are black."  No matter how many black swans one sees, it does not prove the case.  Yet the sighting of one white swan disproves it.  So the disproving of the Greek pantheon, the Hindu pantheon or whatever does not say "there is no God."  It can merely say "this system is not reasonable and can be dismissed."

Unfortunately, in this age of "bumper sticker philosophy," people do throw that quote around thinking it proves something, when examined, it is quite empty of meaning. 

Why Indeed?

One of the trends I have noticed among the more traditionalist minded Catholics is a sense of malaise about the Church they are in.  They look at the problems of the Church today, they look to the decline of vocations, they look to the scandals… and they complain about how "The Church" does nothing whatsoever about it.

They ask why nobody is doing anything about it.

I was struck with how odd this looks when we look at the saints of the Church in times when we had these exact problems of another century.

In my Lives of the Saints book, I was reading of St. Godfrey, Bishop of Amiens, who lived in the eleventh century AD.  When he entered the religious life, there was a strong decline of vocations, there was moral laxity among the faithful and among the religious.  Some religious and clergy were failing to live up to their vows.

So what did he do?  He went to work restoring the Church in the area he lived in, restoring discipline, making his own life an example of the holiness he preached.

Today, many look at the problems of the Church and they ask "Why does not God send saints to bring about reform?"

To which I think the counter question could be asked:

Why are we not seeking to be saints, serving Christ's Church from our love of God?

Why indeed?

This is a little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.

Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.

It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done

Reflections on Limited Salvation

^16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. ^17 For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. (John 3)

I've encountered among certain groups of Christians a sense of fatalism.  The idea is that God has already decided who will be saved and who will be damned before they even came into being.  This is not a view of God's omniscience, where He knows who will and who will not accept His mercy.  Rather, this view holds some people were created with the intention that they be saved and some people were created for the intention of being damned.

Under such a view, there is nothing we can do.  If we are predestined to be saved, it does not matter what we do.  If we are predestined to be damned, all our longing for God is of no avail.

It really makes me shake my head in sadness.  When did these Christians make a loving and merciful God, calling for His people to return to Him into an arbitrary tyrant?

I believe this view is not due to defending the justice of God, but defending a flawed view of God which must call injustice "just."

Free Will and God

One of the things which seem to be the cause of such a view is a fear that if man has free will to decline God's grace it means God is not all powerful.  Since we as Christians do believe that God is all powerful and His will cannot be thwarted, these people have to create a view which denies free will can refuse God's call.

The problem I have with such a view is that God made man with free will to accept Him or to reject Him, and even though God desires our good, some will not accept it.  He permits us to go our own way, as the Father permitted the Prodigal Son, yet welcomes back the repentant (Luke 15:11-32).

The Fear of Language Implying a Weakness of God

Unfortunately, some Christians fear any sort of language that seems to imply God is bound so He cannot do something.  For example, the idea that God cannot do evil seems to imply that God is not free.  After all, if we can do evil but God cannot, does this not mean we are more free than God?  So to get around it, they say "Well, God can lie, but He won't lie."  Unfortunately, this is nonsense, even if it is widely held.

Why do I call this nonsense?

Because it shows a failure to understand what evil is.  Too many people tend to have a Manichean view of Good and Evil.  Good is a real thing.  But to too many, so is evil.  So from this kind of view, people hold that God is all powerful, therefore He would have the power to do evil, otherwise a being which could do evil would be more powerful than God.

The problem is, evil is not a presence of a thing, but an absence of good.  A deficiency.  So the evil of Hitler would be understood as a lack of those things we are called to do in the service of God: A lack of mercy, justice and compassion.

When we remember this, to say "God could do evil but chooses not to" is to actually say that God is not perfect, but flawed, and merely covers these flaws with self control.

Such a view of God is of course blasphemous.  Yet those who fear that language which they think makes God seem limited, do indeed make these views associated with God.

Must We Have No Freedom if God Is To Be Entirely Free?

One problem people have is if a person is free to accept or reject God's grace, it seems to make God's ability to save less.  Double predestination and "Faith Alone"

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia describes the problem with the view this way towards both the so-called elect and the so-called reprobate:

…the absolute will of God as the sole cause of the salvation or damnation of the individual, without regard to his merits or demerits; as to the elect, it denies the freedom of the will under the influence of efficacious grace while it puts the reprobate under the necessity of committing sin in consequence of the absence of grace. The system in its general outlines may thus be described: the question why some are saved while others are damned can only be answered by assuming an eternal, absolute, and unchangeable decree of God. The salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate are simply the effect of an unconditional Divine decree.

But if those who are predestined for eternal life are to attain this end with metaphysical necessity, and it is only such a necessity that can guarantee the actual accomplishment of the Divine will, God must give them during their lifetime efficacious graces of such a nature that the possibility of free resistance is systematically excluded, while, on the other hand, the will, under the influence of grace, is borne along without reluctance to do what is right and is forced to persevere in a course of righteousness to the hour of death. But from all eternity God has also made a decree not less absolute whereby he has positively predestined  the non-elect to eternal torments.

God can accomplish this design only by denying to the reprobate irresistibly efficacious graces and impelling their will to sin continually, thereby leading them slowly but surely to eternal damnation. As it is owing to the will of God alone  that heaven is to be filled with saints, without any regard to their merits, so also it is owing to that same will of God that hell is to be filled with the reprobate, without any regard to their foreseen sins and demerits and with such only as God has eternally, positively, and absolutely destined for this sad lot.

In other words, this interpretation of God makes Him arbitrary.  He gives His life for some, but for others, He is the spiritual equivalent of the person who will not even bother to lift His hand to save a drowning man.

The question is, how is this just?

The Double Predestination Argument

The argument for Double Predestination has been explained by RC Sproul as:

Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God's justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all — in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice.

There is a problem with this.  We need to consider God punishes the guilty for their own sins, but forgives the one who turns back to God.  Consider Ezekiel 18:

^20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

^21 “But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. ^22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. ^23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? ^24 But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.

^25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? ^26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die. ^27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is lawful and right, he shall save his life. ^28 Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. ^29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?

Now, if a man cannot turn from sin without grace from God AND God only gives that grace to a limited number, then how can the wicked man turn from sin and save his life?  If God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (verse 23), how can He stand aloof when men in need of salvation are dying in damnation.

Also consider this line from Sproul: "God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice."

However, if all of us are guilty and worthy of damnation, but God only chooses to punish some of us, this is an arbitrary and unjust act.  It smacks of favoritism, and The Bible tells us in Acts 10:

^34 And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, ^35 but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."

Sproul's comment in fact contradicts what the Bible tells us about God.

Is It Just That a Man Be Punished For Something He Cannot Control?

Consider this.  Suppose a law be passed that all men shall live in houses, and anyone living as a vagrant will be severely punished.  The problem is the vagrant cannot choose to live in a house without the means to acquire a house.  Punishing a man for not living in a house when he does not have the means to gain some sort of shelter in a house is in fact an unjust law.  The vagrant is doing no more than it is possible for him to do, and he is being punished for not doing the impossible

Likewise, if the only way a man can avoid committing sin is the Grace of God (which is true), and a man does not receive that grace (what the proponents of Double Predestination call the Reprobate), what justice is it for that man to be damned for sinning?  This man is doing no more than is possible for him (under the view of Double Predestination), and is being punished for what is impossible for him to do.

Romans 9 and Double Predestination

Romans 9 is often cited as a justification for the view that God picks some people to be saved and others to be damned.  For example:

^19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” ^20 But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me thus?” ^21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?

Such things are used to say that God made some people to be saved and others to be damned.  Yet, in context, we can see the issue Paul is addressing: Why is it some Jews are not accepting the Gospel while Gentiles are?  The Jews were the chosen ones of God after all.

Paul seems to address this at the end of Chapter 9:

^30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; ^31 but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. ^32 Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, ^33 as it is written,

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble,

a rock that will make them fall;

and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

The faithful who is saved is indeed still making an act of faith, and the promised who fail are not acting, but are presuming that because of their observances of the Law their salvation is assured.

We are seeing in this, something that negates the theory of Double Predestination.  We are seeing a difference made between certain Gentiles who come to Christ because they believe, while certain Jews are not attaining righteousness because they approach it from an attitude that because they keep the law, they are owed salvation.

Of course Paul is right in saying that one who pursues salvation based on what he does is not owed salvation.

Are We Owed Salvation?

However, there is a difference between saying it is unjust to punish a man for something he cannot avoid and saying God owes us salvation, and this is an error many have made in misrepresenting the teaching of the Catholic Church, which has wrongly been accused of Pelagianism. 

What we are speaking of is the idea of what is just.  If one is finite in nature, it makes sense to say it is not unjust to save only some in keeping with limited resources.  However, if God is infinitely powerful, the question is justly asked "Why does God not only refuse to save some, but it is His positive will that those men be damned… even before they are born?"

Atheists have asked, with validity, where the justice is in bringing people into existence if they are only going to be damned.  A just answer can only be given if we understand that God provides the necessary grace for salvation, but some men refuse the gift.  When we look at Romans 9 from this perspective, the section of the potter and the vessels makes more sense and shows the justice of God.  He does indeed know who will accept His grace and who will refuse it, but those who will ultimately refuse it cannot claim it was unjust that they were created, because God sent His Son for all of us.

The Bible Tells Us We Are To Act

Consider John the Baptist, who is seeking to preach a message of repentance and a baptism for the forgiveness of sins.  People are coming to him with a question:

^10 And the multitudes asked him, “What then shall we do?” ^11 And he answered them, “He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.” ^12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” ^13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than is appointed you.” ^14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3)

Indeed, in the same chapter, we see him rebuking the crowds for wanting salvation without a change of behavior:

^7 He said therefore to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? ^8 Bear fruits that befit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. ^9 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

If we repent, we will show it in our actions.  Or to take the opposite tact, if our actions do not show contrite behavior, we are not sincere in our atonement.  Now if God actually wills for some of us to be damned, what good is a prophet who is sent to tell us to repent and to turn to God?  If they are predestined to be saved, such a message is unnecessary.  If they are predestined to be damned, such a message is futile.

Consider too Matthew's parables on those who enter the Heavenly Kingdom and those who are cast outside of it.  Consider Matthew 25:

^31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. ^32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, ^33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. ^34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; ^35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ^36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ ^37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? ^38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? ^39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ ^40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ ^41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; ^42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, ^43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ ^44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ ^45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ ^46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

This is not a message of predestination.  This is a message of telling people not to presume their salvation, reminding them that they need to act on what they profess and not to assume that their profession of faith is enough.  How we behave to our fellow man on earth reflects whether we are doing God's will.

Also consider Mathew 7:

^1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. ^2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. ^3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ^4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? ^5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Such a message is futile if one is already predestined to be saved and another damned.  If one is already saved, how can he be judged by the measure he gives to others?

The Fruits of Double Predestination

The fruits of this idea are negative for Christians.  It creates an attitude of judgment which is to be directed towards whoever disagrees with the Christian judging.  I know I have personally encountered some believers of this error who sought to write off my objections by saying my view "proved" I was one of the reprobate.

It also negates the need for the missions.  Christ told us to preach the Gospel to all nations, but really why bother when God has already decided who is saved and who is damned?

It negates the need for proper living.  Luther's infamous letter to Melanchthon gives us the hyperbole of even if one commits fornication a hundred times a day and murders a thousand times a day it cannot separate us from the grace of God has indeed led to the error of Once Saved, Always Saved which has been abused by those who think it does not matter when we do fall into sin.

(In contrast, the Catholic view would hold that God is indeed always ready to forgive no matter what sins we commit… but we are required to repent and turn back to Him if we would receive His forgiveness).

The view of Double Predestination is very similar to the view of "Fate" among the ancient pagans.  If a man was fated to do a thing, no matter how he struggled, his path was set, and even seeking to avoid this fate would lead to the final conclusion (Consider the story of Oedipus for example). 

Likewise, if one is predestined to be damned, life is nothing but despair.  If one is predestined to be saved, there is nothing we need concern ourselves with

I believe such a view is unworthy of Christians to consider, giving a blasphemous view of the justice, mercy and love of God.

On The Catholic Church and Sinners In Her Ranks

On occasion I get sent a link of some scandalous action done by some individual within the Church.  Some sister from an out of control order openly states heresy or holds an grossly inappropriate job in the secular world.  The question I get from the (rightly) scandalized person is "Why doesn't the Church do anything?"

I think such a question is a valid one of course.  What I think is invalid is when the scandalized person uses the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

The structure of such a fallacy is:

1. If A then B
2. B
3. Therefore A

This can be put into the usual challenge of:

1. If the Church approves of Sister Mary Heretic, they will not discipline her
2. They are not disciplining her
3. Therefore the Church approves of what she does

This is not a logical conclusion however.  It is like saying if Bill lives in Los Angeles he lives in California.  He lives in California.  Therefore he lives in Los Angeles.  Just because one condition is met does not mean all do.

So why does the Church not act in the cases of some public scandals?

There can be some reasons to explain this, and no, not all of them are flattering to the shepherd of the local Church.

First of all, we do need to remember some of the teachings of Jesus:

^47 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; ^48 when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad. ^49 So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, ^50 and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. (Matt 13:47ff)

Also from Matt. 13:24-30

^24 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; ^25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. ^26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. ^27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ ^28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ ^29 But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. ^30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

We have in these parables, Jesus speaking of His Church.  There are good and bad fish in them, wheat and weeds.  Quite frankly we cannot expect to have a Church which is free of bad men, because Our Lord told us to expect it.

Ultimately we need to realize that those who do live in a way contrary to Christ will have to answer for it.

We also need to remember that not all bad actions are from malice.  One can delay from over cautiousness for example, or one misunderstanding the situation, or using bad judgment.  Or one can simply be a bad administrator, or deceived by underlings.  These are not things we want to see in a priest or a bishop of course, but these things do indeed happen, and these are things where wrong actions can be done without malice or intending to condone the wrongdoing.

This is not saying we must condone the acts of wrongdoing in the Church.  We do need to keep expressing our concerns, though we must do so in a charitable manner.  There are sinners in the Church and we do need to pray for them that they may have a change of heart.  There are some shepherds in the Church who are by action or inaction allowing some harm to the Church, and we do need to pray for them that they might be shepherds who follow the example of their masters.  That those who do not understand, might gain understanding; that those who are deceived might be shown the deception, that those who used bad judgment might gain wisdom and so on.

But let us not fall into a false despair that the Church is in danger of collapsing as a whole.  We know Jesus promised to be with us until the end of the world and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

On Witness: Two Quadrilemmas

How are we to understand the attacks made by some atheists against the reliability of the Disciples of Jesus as witnesses to what He said and did?  Christians of course believe that cases against their credibility are dubious at best, but what are they to do when they encounter claims which seek to deny the value of their witness?

The False Revelation Argument

One of the objections given to the witness of the Apostles, is the claim that other people (Mohammed, Joseph Smith, etc.) claim to have had divine revelation.  The problem with the argument is that it generally concludes to the effect of "Those claims were false so it is also likely that the claims of the Apostles are false.

You can't Prove a Universal from a Limited Case

There are several problems with this sort of an argument.  First of all, it argues from a specific case to reach a universal conclusion.  If what Mohammed or Joseph Smith claims is not true, that speaks against their specific case, not the case of anybody else.  If Bill and Jack both claim to have been robbed, and Jack lied about it has no bearing on whether Bill was lying.

What that argument has as an enthymeme (an unspoken assumption) is the claim that God does not exist so any claims of a form of revelation are false.  So the full argument would run like this:

• God does not exist (Enthymeme)
• Person X claims to have had a revelation from God
• Therefore Person X is lying or deceived

The problem of course is the enthymeme needs to be proven logically if it is to be used as the basis of a logical argument.  If the premise needs to be established as valid, the conclusion is not proven to be true.  So as it stands, the argument cannot be used as a challenge to the case of witnesses.

The False Analogy

The second common problem with the claim is it is a false analogy.  People like Mohammed and Joseph Smith claimed to have private revelation from God, and convinced people to follow them out of largely material promises of a physical afterlife.

The case of the Apostles was different.  Who they followed was a specific person who did not make promises of physical rewards.  Indeed, the Jesus they followed made clear that political liberation and wealth were not the message He was teaching.  Those who followed Him (which were more than "Twelve men" as some have misrepresented) attested to what He said and the works He performed to back them up.  These are not merely accounted for in the Gospels.  The Talmud mentions these acts, though it calls them "magic."  So do the secular Roman accounts.

Two Quadrilemma and Atheistic Claims

The problem the atheist has to address is why they hold what they hold.  We can study by breaking this down into categories.  There are two ways we can look at it: One is whether Jesus spoke truthfully and the second is whether Jesus said what was claimed.

The First Quadrilemma

The first quadrilemma is based on whether or not Jesus spoke truthfully over what He said

1. Jesus either was what He claimed or He was not
2. The Apostles either believed what He claimed or they did not.

This leaves us with a quadrilemma. 

1. Jesus was what He claimed to be and the Apostles believed His claims (What the Christians believe)
2. Jesus was not what He claimed but the Apostles believed His claims (Apostles Deluded)
3. Jesus was not what He claimed and the apostles did not believe His claims (Apostles Lying)
4. Jesus was what He claimed and the Apostles did not believe His claims (Apostles Lying)

Of these claims, the Christians hold #1, atheists tend to be divided over #2 and #3, and with #4 in the past some Gnostics held to it, and some New Agers hold a variant of this sort of view.

The theology of Christianity (#1) holds that Jesus was what He claimed to be and the Apostles witnessed these claims and believed.  Christian apologetics comes from this perspective, and the one seeking to understand this should look to these sources.

The Gnostic view (#4) holds that Jesus was God, but the Apostles did not believe what He really said He was.  The problem with this view is, how do they know what was claimed without the witness of those who knew Jesus personally?

This leaves us with the two remaining views which atheists claim: Jesus did not speak truthfully and the apostles were deceived about what He said and did (#2) or Jesus was not what He said He was and the apostles lied about what He said.

The problem with both assertions is: On what basis can this be held?

Let's look at #2 first.  If Jesus lied or was deluded about what He claimed, on what basis do we assert this?  Is there evidence for this claim?  Or is it based on the assumption that Jesus could not be God because there is no God.  This assertion cannot be claimed as fact without evidence.

See how the assumption that atheism must be true keeps showing up in all arguments?  Yet atheism is the conclusion.  It can't be the premise as well.  So from a logical perspective this claim cannot stand on its own until the premise (Jesus was not who He said He was) is proven true.

Of course in this case the atheist who makes this claim [and to be fair, not all do] is arguing from a universal negative.  Such a case cannot be proven true unless actual evidence is produced which attests to this.

Such is the problem with the "Deluded disciples" argument.

In case #3, we have another level of proof needed.  Not only did Jesus lie (or was deluded), but the Apostles did not believe what they were teaching.  In other words, the Apostles lied about what Jesus said and did. 

This is the case where the counterargument of cui bono? (Who benefits?) comes into play.  How did the apostles benefit from the lie?  They were not rich or powerful.  They were executed for their beliefs, hated by their own ethnic groups.

Case #3 not only has to establish that Christ was not who He said He was, but also has to establish why these "false witnesses" would rather die than recant what they lied about.

Therefore Case #3 also requires evidence to impeach the credibility of the disciples.  Yet again, the argument is based on the belief that God does not exist and seeks to find an alternate motive for the Apostles.

Ultimately, the Christians present their case for #1.  Those who hold it false need to provide their evidence for why they hold #'s 2,3 or 4.

The Second Quadrilemma

Some might find this a bit redundant, but it is necessary to investigate an alternate claim made by some atheists, and that is the claim that Jesus did not even say what the Apostles claimed He did. Again we need two divisions of two groups:

1. Either Jesus said what is attributed to Him or they did not
2. The disciples either understood what Jesus said or they did not

With these categories, we again have four groups:

1. Jesus did say what is attributed to Him and the disciples understood it
2. Jesus did say what is attributed to Him and the disciples did not understand it
3. Jesus did not say what is attributed to Him and the Apostles understood it
4. Jesus did not say what is attributed to Him and the Apostles did not understand it

Now in these cases, it seems the atheist dodges the horns of having to prove Christ was lying or deluded, but it does open more problems as well.

Case #1 is what Christians believe

Case #2 is not too common.  Some heresies would hold that the Church misunderstood the Bible for example and their version is accurate.

Case #3 again assumes the Apostles knew what Jesus did teach but lied about it.  (Some Muslims say this about St. Paul for example)

Case #4 is what is argued by those who claimed that Jesus had a human message but the disciples misunderstood his language (taking it over literally).  A variant of this is the Muslim claim that the Scriptures were altered and misrepresented by the Apostles who did not understand Christ was teaching Islam.

With case #1 of course, one would look to the writings of the apostles as true.  This is what Christians believe, and the defense of such a view would be found in the Christian writings.

With case #2 we have some of the early Christological heresies of the Church which held that certain biblical passages were in contradiction to what the Apostles claimed and therefore they got it wrong.  This gets into the concept of How do we interpret the New Testament?

With case #3, we have an alternate expression of the third case in the first quadrilemma: The apostles lied about what Jesus said.  Again, cui bono?  What did they gain?

In case#4, we would find most atheists who want to say that Jesus was merely misunderstood and His disciples did not understand what He was trying to say.  There are some problems with this reasoning however.

First, such a view assumes Jesus was a wise teacher, but merely misunderstood.  Yet a wise teacher seeks to make sure his students understand him before he goes on.  He does not use metaphorical language if it is clear that his students are taking it literally.

Second, such a teaching has to be taken into context of the culture: The teachings of the disciples was that Jesus Christ was God made man.  Yet to the Jews, such a view would be blasphemous, and His first disciples were Jews.  It would have been easier for a pagan to accept it than a Jew.  Yet they did either accept His claim or mistakenly thought He taught it and believed it.  How can this be reconciled, and what evidence exists for such a view?

Third: If Jesus did not teach what the Disciples claimed He taught, then what did He teach?  How can we know the disciples misunderstood what was said without evidence of what was said.  Without this, we do not have anything factual, but merely a counter-theory based on the idea that whatever Jesus was, it could not be God.

The Endless Circle

Notice how these claims all return back to the central atheistic conclusion: There is no God.  The claims made about what "really" must have happened are based on this conclusion.  But for an atheist to appeal to science or to doctored texts or falsehood or delusion as a reason to object to the Christian claim needs to demonstrate that his view has basis in fact if it is to be taken as a reasonable objection.

What it Leads To

I don't doubt some atheists will read this and think I am arguing that "atheism is false, so Christianity is true."  I am not.  Rather I am examining certain claims made by some atheists which are used to state that Christianity is "unreasonable."  In doing so, I show the logical flaws in their case and that the argument in question cannot be reasonably used against the Christian belief.

Now of course the demonstrating the flaws in the atheistic claim does not yet prove Christianity true, but it does show certain attacks against Christianity are without a solid basis and can reasonably be dismissed.

On Perception and Science: A Reflection on Some Claims Made by Certain Atheists

[Author's note to the atheistic reader: As a preliminary, I think I need to make this clear to certain atheists who may be following what I write. This post (like the predecessors in the series) are not written with the goal in mind of disproving atheism once and for all.  Nor do I assume that what I write here proves Christianity once and for all.

Rather, the subjects I have been writing on have been approached with the intent of looking at certain claims of made by some atheists who make them with the assertion these claims show Christianity is unreasonable.  The purpose of my writing on these certain claims is to investigate whether the argument made in each case is reasonable or flawed.

It stands to reason that if a argument is fallacious, it does not prove the claimed conclusion and cannot be used as a reasonable objection to the faith.

Please keep this in mind and keep to the topic if you wish to respond]

Preliminary: The Understanding of Assertion

Cardinal Newman (1801-1890) once wrote in his work Grammar of Assent:

1. PROPOSITIONS (consisting of a subject and predicate united by the copula) may take a categorical, conditional, or interrogative form. 

1. An interrogative, when they ask a Question, (e.g. Does Free-trade benefit the poorer classes?) and imply the possibility of an affirmative or negative resolution of it. 
2. A conditional, when they express a Conclusion (e.g. Free-trade therefore benefits the poorer classes), and at once imply, and imply their dependence on, other propositions.
3. A categorical, when they simply make an Assertion (e.g. Free-trade does benefit), and imply the absence of any condition or reservation of any kind, looking neither before nor behind, as resting in themselves and being intrinsically complete.

These three modes of shaping a proposition, distinct as they are from each other, follow each other in natural sequence. A proposition, which starts with being a  Question, may become a Conclusion, and then be changed into an Assertion; but it has of course ceased to be a question, so far forth as it has become a conclusion, and has rid itself of its argumentative form that is, has ceased to be a conclusion, so far forth as it has become an assertion. A question has not yet got so far as to be a conclusion, though it is the necessary preliminary of a conclusion; and an assertion has got beyond being a mere conclusion, though it is the natural issue of a conclusion. Their correlation is the measure of their distinction one from another.

We need to keep these distinctions in mind when studying a topic.  Which category does a statement fall into?  Treating a interrogative as a assertion demands proof of something which is itself seeking proof by nature.

So, we need to look at the topic from these perspectives.

• An interrogative statement would be "Does God exist?"  This is something open to the possibility of the answer being either yes or no.
• A conditional statement would be "if these propositions are true, God does not exist."  The conditional depends on the propositions made.  If the assumptions err, the conclusion is not established to be true (which is different from saying it is established to be false).
• A categorical statement would be "God does not exist" or "There is no reason to believe God exists."  Such a statement assumes the position contrary to the assertion is not valid.

One of the problems with the discussion of the concept of the existence of God is people do overlook these three situations or confuse one for the other.  The one who questions is not the same who asserts.

So when one asserts something categorically when another believes the categorical assertion is not justified the proper thing to do is to look at the prepositions which the individual uses to make their categorical claim.

Looking at some of the Propositions and Claims of made by some atheists

Atheism, in general, professes a disbelief that God exists, though it is commonly professed in two ways, though with variations in phrasing:

1. A positive statement that there are no divine powers (The "Science has disproved God" argument fits in here) and everything happens in an undirected and unguided manner.
2. A hedged statement that there is no evidence for God, so it is unreasonable to believe He exists.

The problem of course in Statement #1 is evidence for such a claim has to be provided and evaluated.  It tends to be an argument from silence when looked at.  The case on Statement #2 is used by those who hedge their bets, yet this supposedly "more reasonable" approach also contains some logical problems.

The Logical Problems with the "No evidence" claim

I've already dealt with the first statement and the problems it has with invoking science.  So lets look at he second.  The problem I have is with how I have seen it expressed.  Put into a syllogism, it follows this pattern:

• Either A or B
• Not A (or no evidence of A)
• Therefore B (or B is more likely)

The problem is "Not A" or "No Evidence of A" does not lead to the conclusion that "B is true" or "B is more likely."  (The logical term is "non sequitur" which is Latin for "it does not follow").  The lack of proof for one has no bearing on whether the other is true.

Take the case for a hypothetical case, an alien race exists.  Whether we could detect such a race would depend on where they were located in relationship to us and where they were technologically in relation to us.  If for example a pre-technological race existed on another world, we would not find evidence of it through SETI (which is based on detecting communication symbols in space), yet conclusions that they do not exist, though a "best guess" of science would be wrong.

The Case Of Phlogiston

Or if you don't want a hypothetical case, consider a real one.

Phlogiston was a scientific theory (first appearing in 1667) used to explain combustion and oxidation prior to the discovery of oxygen as an element.  Phlogiston was believed to be a substance which caused combustion, and once burned out, the pure material was left.  Respiration was seen as the process of removing phlogiston from the body (which is why a match would be extinguished if dropped  in a bottle of the stuff you exhaled).

So let us look at the theory of Phlogiston using the syllogism above:

• Either Phlogiston or Oxygen
• There is no evidence for Oxygen
• Therefore Phlogiston is more likely

Up until the late 18th century, this would have seemed like a reasonable argument.  However, the lack of evidence for oxygen did not mean oxygen did not exist.  Rather we had a misinterpretation of the data we had which led to a scientific conclusion which was false.  The scientific community of the time might have thought phlogiston was proven, but in such a case the theory was wrong in interpreting what it knew.

The Issue of Assumption

From this, we can see that the assumption something must be, or likely be, so because of a lack of support for the opposite is the wrong way to argue.  One needs to be certain no possibility of error exists before making a categorical claim.

Now yes, some assumptions are safe bets, though the reasoning is not always formed correctly.  "The sun rose yesterday, the sun rose today, the sun will rise tomorrow" is commonly considered a safe bet, but really the past performance is no guarantee of future results.  The sun could theoretically go nova tomorrow and obliterate our world.

Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor might be invoked here, saying that when it comes to whether or not God is involved in the universe, the simpler conclusion is usually more valid.  The argument often used is that Science can explain the universe without the need for a God, so a conclusion making use of a God is not logical.

The problem is this is a misquoting of what the Razor in fact was "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity."

The example of Geocentrism

Now, there is indeed some use to the Razor.  For example, with the dispute over a geocentric solar system and a heliocentric solar system, we had a problem with the geocentric system which had to explain why the planets moved backwards during their orbit, and the result was calculations trying to explain how planets could move in orbit this way.  The Heliocentric system could explain these retrograde motions in a much simpler way.

Now the fact that the heliocentric view was simpler did not make it true, though the fact that the geocentric system required so many exceptions to what was being observed in physics that these added complexities needed to be looked at.

Occam's Razor is a tool, and not a law, but some people treat it as a law.  The fact that it can be used to question complex theories does not mean that the simpler is always correct.  For that matter, it does not always mean that our perception of what is simpler is always correct.  Let's face it, for the ancients the evidence seemed pretty clear: The sun rose in the east and set in the west every day.

From that perspective, the heliocentric view would have seemed implausibly complex because full knowledge was not available.

Science is Complex

When I was in school, we were taught that the atom was made up of the Proton, the Neutron and the Electron, and the electron was the smallest part of the atom.  A few generations before I was born, it was still assumed the atom could not be split.

Yet nowadays, we know of gluons and bosons and hadrons and quarks.  Science has shown the atom to be more complex than it was understood to be in earlier times.

Now, if we were to take Occam's Razor and apply it to the atomic theory, one might want to reject modern theory because it seems more complex than the earlier theory, yet we do not.  Why is this?

A Lack of Knowledge does not mean a Lack of Existence

The reason this is is because our observations have shown us more about the universe… information we did not have at earlier times.  Because of these observations we realize that what we thought was a cut and dried observation about science in fact did not go deep enough due to the lack of ability to observe the very minute things of the universe.

I have no doubt of course that science will continue to make deeper observations over things as time goes on.

But What Will It Learn?

One of the arguments that has been put forth in favor of "debunking" religion works along these lines:

1. Science has shown the Greek Myths to have no basis in fact
2. Science will some day show that the claims of Christianity have no basis in fact either.

It is a comparison which presumes that the Christian claim is no more valid than the claims of Greek myth.  It often presumes that:

Any supernatural claim has to be false and science will some day produce the evidence to justify this claim.

Replace that claim with this one:

Any supernatural claim has to be true and God will some day produce the evidence to justify the claim.

Many atheists I have encountered would accept the first claim as reasonable and mock the second.  Yet the argument is identical.

If the atheistic premise is false, the conclusion that science will be able to show miracles cannot happen is false. 

Yet even if the atheistic premise were true, it is still not reasonable to speculate on what science may be able to discover.  We may also discover our current knowledge on a subject was as erroneous as Phlogiston or that discovering the cure to cancer is as likely as discovering how to transmute lead into gold.

(In case you're wondering the case does indeed work the other way as well.  Just because God exists does not mean He will explain all some day).

Conclusion

I believe we do need to keep these sort of assumptions in mind when we evaluate arguments against our faith.  Not all scientists are atheists, but in general atheists tend to use science to shore up their claims.  So when arguments promoting atheism are made in the name of science, the question is on what basis such a claim can be made.

A claim from science needs to have the standards of science applied to it for example.  Is it science to speculate on what science will know in the future?  No.  It is not science, but science fiction, and the person who says this says so not from scientific knowledge but from faith in what he thinks science will discover.

Ultimately we need to remember that what we think science is showing us may be the perception which we later discover that science shows us the former perception was wrong.  We cannot anticipate these things though.  Learning truth of the natural and physical world through science requires observation, study and theory to help us understand it, not guessing as to whether we will be flying to work in rocket cars