As I mentioned in my previous post, I’m tackling On Guard in smaller chunks now. The reason for that is best illustrated by this segment from the first part of my critique of Craig:
The dilemma of modern man is thus truly terrible. That atheistic worldview is insufficient to maintain a happy and consistent life.
-p. 45
No, it’s not.
Man cannot live consistently and happily as though life were ultimately without meaning, value, or purpose.
-p. 45
Yes, we can.
If we try to live consistently within the atheistic worldview, we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy.
-p. 45
No, we won’t.
In instead we manage to live happily, it is only by giving lie our worldview.
-p. 45
No, it isn’t.
Each of his statements in this passage really requires more attention than I paid them. Don’t get me wrong. He has a total lack of understanding of the human condition and the quotes deserve swift dismissal, but simply leaving it at that the way I did does nothing to really counter his beliefs, beliefs which he is not alone in holding.
For starters, there is no unifying atheistic worldview. Being an atheist consists of only one thing: disbelieving the statement, “A god exists.” There are, quite literally, an infinite number of worldviews compatible with that position, just as there are an infinite number of worldviews compatible with believing in a god. This poses a problem for Craig, since a good portion of the worldviews that include belief in a deity also lead people to be profoundly unhappy. It is my belief that there is probably no worldview which guarantees a lifetime of happiness. It may, in truth, be a contradiction, since a lifetime of uninterrupted happiness would be exceedingly boring and probably not fulfilling in the least. Continue reading…
Are we asking the wrong questions if what we want are good presidents?
It’s a question we almost never ask. Pundits discuss who’s likely to run and who of those could likely win, but we usually devote no time to a serious discussion of what we should actually be looking for in our presidential candidates, regardless of what political ideology they might hold to. it’s what party bosses used to do before primaries, and that system gave us some pretty stellar presidents. Sure, some were dead on arrival, but, hey, this is America. We’ll take what we can get.
By asking the wrong question, we limit our possibilities to those candidates narcissistic enough or slippery enough to believe that they can win regardless of what is actually in the country’s best interests. And since the only candidates that the press talks about are the ones likely to run regardless, those candidates monopolize early campaign coverage, making less-likely but perhaps more beneficial candidates hesitant to enter the race for fear of being humiliated. The public and the media have conspired to create a self-defeating cycle that has stretched over several decades. Continue reading…
So how do we separate money from politics when we need to? I think everyone can agree that, so long as there is money, we cannot (and probably should not) keep money and politics completely separate. Many advocacy groups allow for a kind of collective bargaining that improves the political standing of groups that, as individuals, would have little power. Teachers, for instance, can be limited in their political involvement because they generally are not paid what they’re actually worth in society. In such a case, money, collectively, can be necessary to get the group’s voices heard. [...]
