Live Blogging the Second Presidential Debates

7:22pm

Tension mounts as we anticipate seeing McCain get pwned like a mofo. In the meantime, Bigfoot for president!

I think we need to elect Maddox for President. He's the man - and he would own this debate if he were running.

Ryan is 97% erect. (This means that his one inch penis is "erect.") He also wants Lauren to stop transcribing. She won't. Bitch.

7:32pm

We've caught the last few minutes of 8 Mile. Yay. (Sarcasm from Lauren and genuine from JT and Ryan.)

Jt and Ryan say that Eminem is a poet. One of the greatest of our times.

7:36pm

KEITH OLBERMAN RULES! Right now he is pwning McCain. I think it's safe to say we would all do him.

Face off in 22 minutes!

JT predicts that McCain will say 'maverick' 14 times overall.
Ryan predicts that he'll say it 15 times and will be horribly offensive.
Lauren predicts that McCain will blow goats. 16 times.

7:42m

We're back to watching 8 Mile. Joy. (Sarcasm from Lauren and seriousness from JT and Ryan.)

Best scene in the movie! End scene! ZOMG! Transformation from boy to man! *splooge*

Questions that we hope are asked:

• In your personal opinion, do you believe that Yaweh will damn all non believers to an infinite afterlife of pain? -Ryan
• To Obama-Most economic experts agree that the foundation of this economic crisis began in 1995 with Democrats and Republicans, but mostly Democrats, implementing policies that allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lend to essentially anybody. I realize that the plan was muddled by the Bush administration, but can you at least accept, on behalf of your party, at least some culpability? -JT
• To McCain-You say that we cannot take Barak Obama's word on what he is going to do. You say we need to look at his record (of course, his record confirms what he will do). You, on the other hand, are now running on a campaign of change as well, after you have voted with George Bush 90% of the time and 95% of the time on economic issues which have run our economy into the ground. Can you defend your record against your promises of change? -JT
• At what point is violence towards the American government an acceptable means of political change for the American public? -Ryan
• Why did you choose your VP candidate? Are you fully confident in their abilities? -LA

8:01

Debates starting! Omgz!

The moderator kind of looks like a corpse. He says that I don't have to be constrained at home! Hah.

McCain looks intense. But that's probably because his arms don't ever move. Like a robot's.

Obama looks smexy.

First question is a softball for Obama, he's gonna rock faces! Obama is dodging the question and attacking McCain. Schwoops. Oh....ok, he eventually got around to it. He's starting off on the offensive, good work, Obama!

PUDDING TIMESSS!! Yay.

McCain looks awkward and is being super creepy. He started with platitudes....gah. He talks about accountability in the same breath he says we are going to fix the economic crisis by lowering taxes on *everybody*. Wow.

McCain: "I know how to do " No real explaining how...just saying he knows how. Lower taxes? Affordable houses? I like all these things! ...how are you gonna do it?

McCain's overall speech seems vulnerable and shaky while Obama seems pretty calm and confident. Bones!

Obama has finally grown some claws. Good job, Barrack. They're both using a LOT of fluff, and I hate it.

McCain: Bailout = Rescue. Symantics. Tries to justify suspending his campaign.

Lauren reminds JT that having a laptop on your lap lowers your sperm count. Protect your nutjuice!

McCain wisely calling Obama on the Democrats culpability for subprime loans. Doing so dishonestly though, and still not answering the question. I hope Obama bites back - he has more ammunition.

Same as above - we're gonna have to stabalize home values. Yes...how?

Obama - Demonstrating a solid understanding of the subject matter, ignoring attacks, answering the question. Kudos to Obama.

Still no "Mavericks". JT is likely to beat Ryan's prediction at this point.

Obama calling McCain on the Republican's deregulation (which fucked up Clinton's plan on subprime mortgages). Again, good. Obama has facts at his fingertips and is speaking less in platitudes at this point. This is the Obama I'm excited to vote for.

Brockaw: Are you saying it's gonna get worse?

Obama: Going back to fluff. Damn. Also, it IS going to get worse. Stop telling them what they want to hear and tell them how it is.

McCain - Talks about buying up bad loans. This is a bad idea.

Lady asked how she can trust either of them when both parties are culpable. Seems like an easy response for Obama: "I wasn't there. He was though." Instead, he's hitting talking points on solutions. He's also shooting down McCain's counterarguments before McCain gets the mic. I like seeing that.

McCain: "I've taken on special interests" Bullshit. No senator has received more from oil companies. Also, McCain is terrible with bipartisanship. He's not defending his involvement or responsibility. "Liberal spending record". Good god, please use more buzz words.

Please, everybody - research what this jackass is saying. Factcheck.org owns McCain, and you'll see it all tomorrow.

omg, Obama wuntz a planutareeum - scienz is teh wtf devul - ask Palin.

McCain: "I know how to fix the economy." - THEN WHY HAVEN'T YOU BEEN DOING IT YOU LYING SON OF A BITCH!?!?!?!

McCain resembles some sort of cross between a turtle and Jabba the Hutt.

"I know how to reach across the aisle." Wow, something else he knows how to do but, strangely, hasn't been doing. Weird!

Obama - Admits that being free of Middle Easter oil is a goal without a plan. Ug. At least he's honest. Obama says we need to dump money into education. I like him more now.''

Ryan and Lauren are going to attempt to shoot a fly on the wall with his air soft rifle. This can't go wrong, right? Lauren totally hit its wing! Suck it, Ryan!

Stupid Obama wanting to support science, doesn't he know science is just supported by the Devil? Geez...

All kinds of none-to-subtle implications about Obama and Democrats conducting business in the middle of the night.

"We'll get to work right away" WHY NOT GET TO WORK NOW!?!

Obama - He is winning. Hands down.

Brockaw - How would you beat bad financial habits?

Obama - Empty speaking. We have to fix the problems. Yes, we know that...how?

On to attacking McCain. Not answering per say, but doing so eloquently and with the force (ie facts) as his ally.

McCain - "Last President to raise taxes in economic difficulty was Herbert Hoover". Bullshit. Remember "No new taxes" Bush Sr.?

"I've got some news Senator Obama, and the news is bad" What's the news, jackass?

"I don't support reducing taxes for the wealthy." Bullshit. Click here.

Brockaw should have let Obama respond. McCain knew he had the last word and flat out lied.

Obama throws a straight-talk express dig. Good. Obama talking about how he's going to provide health care now. Using facts, explaining HOW. That makes me happy. In the pants.

McCain - "It's not that hard to fix social security. We know the problems and we know the solutions" WHAT ARE THEY?

McCain still using buzz words - primarily "liberal" Those kids who are playing drinking games are probably halfway there to being under the table. MAVERICK!

Holy shit..."We have to get smart people together and come up with solutions" Three sentences ago you said we KNEW the solutions!

"We'll get our economy going again" HOW!?!

McCain seems to get more dishonest and bitey when he knows he has the last word. He is flat out insulting the moderator as well. Cockbite.

"We can...clean energy...millions of jobs...we as Americans...best workers...etc" HOW??? HOW YOU MERITLESS SACK OF ROBOTIC SHIT!?!?!

Obama just had a home run! Yays.

Ohhhhh....they're getting feisty. This 60 second time limit is tough to enforce. Kind of makes me feel bad for Brockaw.

McCain keeps pulling petty punches against Obama, which he seems to be handling with grace. Wootz.

McCain - "Obama voted for the alternative energy bill loaded down with goodies" Yes, it was - Obama tried to get them stripped, and tried to get them stripped in a subsequent bill. Ultimately, it was too good for alternative energy not to vote for. So this claim is disengenous.

Obama is super awesome. Orgy! Butt orgies!!! (These last two words have been the only two that Ryan has written this entire time!)

McCain keeps giving the people who ask questions blowjobs....Ohhh you're sooo smart! Thanks for the zomg awesome questions! *splooge* ...Puh-lease.

Yup. Companies who can afford to give their employees healthcare do so. Like Walmart.

I'm worried that Obama's pushiness on time, in contrast to John McCain's overemphasized passivity, may work against him.

"How will this current economic hardship affect America's ability to act as a peacemaker in the world?"
Well, first we'd have to do that in the first place, which we don't. Then we'd have to get the UN's approval, which we don't have.

9:02pm

Man, I wish Lauren's "2" key wasn't so fucked up. I also wish that we could have a 30 second per round freestyle battle rap instead of debate. That would be much more entertaining. Maybe they'd come up with something original, instead of just paraphrasing their speeches.

We're cookin' a pizza! WOOOO!

Ryan is not trying to get JT to play hoops with him tonight. It ain't workin'. Sucka!

You know, just 'cause we have this fuckin' laptop doesn't mean that you can't turn your goddamn head and just fucking say whatever the fuck you want me to understand.

I am super cool and can type really fast so FU!

Jt says that's true.

Ohhh the nominees are getting all schoolgirl bickery again! Follow ups, follow ups, follow ups!

P.s.-Obama is kicking McCain's ass. Oh snaps!

Ryan and JT just fist bumped hardcore after seeing Obama's reply to McCain's "speak softly and carry a big stick" shenanigans.

Oh no. Oh HELL no. McCain did NOT just say that he knows how to get Bin Laden. Blackmailing your country into voting for you because you "know how to get him" is fucking unethical! See Keith Olberman's eloquent spiel on the whole thing here (fucking brilliant!).

Look, Iraq is a clusterfuck! We have not won there! Gah.

The fly is back! We're shooting at it with the airsoft gun! Take that, bug eyes!

9:28pm

We're running out of blogging steam....this live blogging stuff is tough business. No joke.

LAST QUESTION! YAY!

Looks like Claire McCaskill is sitting next to Michelle Obama, cool!

We is eating pizzas now....yayyyy....

Well hot damn, McCain can't predict the future! Who knew?

McCain's wife is super young, yikes.

9:35pm

End of debate comments:

McCain handled himself as though he were a high school bully. Obama handled the debate well and was agressive only when necessary. I think McCain spoke primarily in platitudes and fluff while Obama yeilded facts with ease. Obama easily won this debate. -JT

Obama was obviously better than McCain. Between the two, he won. However, it was not his best speech. While he provided lots of substantive facts, he spoke in political rhetoric. Fuck his international policies (Then he threw up the double deuce). -Ryan

Obama did very well in the debate. He was articulate and offered his stance on the issues. I liked how he was agressive and blew apart McCain's obviously unsound arguments and blatant lies. I was a little worried getting into this but he totally pwned McCain's face. Plus, McCain insulted the damned moderator, what a fuckface. -LA

Blogalogue with Mike from Emergent Faith

Mike has graciously accepted my invitation to a blogalogue and has even taken the initiative to make the first post.

I've been invited to a debate about the value of faith by JT Eberhard (an opponent of faith). We will see where this goes, but I think the first step would be to define my understanding of faith. I'll be drawing heavily on Marcus Borg's description of faith found in his book “The Heart of Christianity”. It may be the most helpful description that I've ever read. Confusion about how to translate the Greek word “Pistos” or “Pistis” may be the root of most problems in understanding faith. Much like the word “love”, there are many different uses for the word “faith”. When we are careless with these translations we end up creating a great deal of confusion.

Faith as Assensus

This is faith as belief or intellectual certainty. Faith as belief means attempting to claim certainty that a propositional statement is true in the absence of conclusive evidence. This is the most common modern use of the word faith found in religions (think of “blind faith” or “faith like a child”). Christians frequently use this meaning of faith to describe their certainty that the stories found in the Bible are historically accurate (that the literally happened). The more certain they are about the historicity of a story, the more they feel they can claim that they have faith. It often means believing something that is “hard to believe” and again, the more difficult or impossible the idea is to believe, the more faith the person can claim they have. This type of faith is little more than a delusion. It resembles the behaviors of a cult (it probably is). If this were the only possible meaning of faith, then I'd probably be the first one to throw faith out the window.

This faith as belief has a long history of division and destruction. In many fundamentalist religions it is used as a litmus test for membership. This is the faith found in creeds. It may include a belief that a particular definition of God is correct (orthodox) or it may go further by including such hard to believe items as a virgin birth, miraculous events, resurrections, and a literal physical afterlife. Regardless of the length of the list of requirements, I don't think it is ever helpful. I see no need to believe something is true if it can't be supported by evidence. Opponents of religion often make the same mistake as fundamentalists by misunderstanding the purpose of a religious (mythical) story. The purpose of a myth is never primarily about transmitting historical facts. Proving that the story is a myth, merely states the obvious and ignores the fact that myths are meant to transmit meaning not facts. My definition of faith does not include this type of shallow faith as belief.

Faith as Feducia

The closest English word is “fiduciary”, but that isn't a good translation. The best translation might be “trust”. Faith as trust does not mean to trust a set of propositions without evidence (that would simply take us back to the idea of “assensus”). Soren Kiekegaard said that this type of faith as trust is like floating in a deep ocean. If you struggle, if you tense up and thrash about, you will eventually sink. But if you relax and trust, you will float. We trust because we have reasonable evidence. I trust I will wake up alive tomorrow because I have reasonable evidence that suggests I will. This type of faith is not afraid of scientific scrutiny. In fact, it has a thirst for evidence. The more evidence we have the more we can trust. Not because we hope the water hold us up, but because we trust our understanding of buoyancy. The opposite of this kind of faith is anxiety or worry. Without any faith as trust, we would go crazy with anxiety. As a Christian, I have developed faith (as trust) that the deep truths about life found in the Christian stories will hold me up (make me better). These truths include ideas about love, justice, non-violent protest, and the power of forgiveness as opposed to violence, oppression and revenge. This is not a blind trust in the historical accuracy of our sacred myths, but it is a trust in the ability of their deeper meanings to make positive changes in lives throughout the world. This is not a trust without evidence. It is a recognition of many repeatable tests I've observed myself and that have also been recorded throughout history in many cultures and echoed in many different religious stories.

Faith as Fidelatis

Fidelity or faithfulness is concerned with a commitment to something or someone. Being faithful to my wife means I do more than just say I love her. I act on that love. To be faithful to a set of stories means that I don't simply read the stories and forget about them. Faithfulness means I actually seek to apply their meanings to my own life. Often, fundamentalists focus narrowly on fidelity as the opposite of infidelity. When they do this, they imply that in order to live out the truths of this set of stories, they must avoid, deny, renounce, and disprove all other stories. That is not what I wish to convey with faithfulness. For example, I love my wife, but in order to love her I do not have to prove all other women (or men) in the world are unlovable. Other people may be just as or more lovable, beautiful, or desirable (even though my wife may not want me to publicly state that fact). I can be faithful to my country without claiming everything in Europe is worthless or evil. In the same way, fidelity to the Christian stories does not mean I can't read other stories and find truth within those stories. Fidelity should not become a paranoid nationalism or religious bigotry (though it often does). I'm most faithful to the Christian story when I liberally apply its truths about love, justice, and forgiveness in my life. Christian faithfulness is following through on our declaration by living out our commitment to this way of life.

Faith as Visio

Faith as vision is a way of seeing the big picture. I'm not talking about some kind of hope in a supernatural afterlife. I'm talking about seeing the long term results of our actions. The opposite of faith as vision would be shortsightedness or a kind of blindness to reason and logic. A person who lacks faith as vision would only be concerned with the immediate results of their actions. Impulsive revenge is a result of lacking clear vision. A person with vision could look past their first impulsive reactions and think logically about the action that will yield the best long term results. Christian faith as vision is enhanced by our stories. Stories that fill our vision with the values of love, justice, and forgiveness are helpful in developing a healthy hopeful vision for life. This type of faith as vision is the inspiration behind the many Biblical uses of light as a metaphor for improved or restored vision. Our many stories about causing the blind to see are symbolic references to the power of faith as vision. Faith becomes a vehicle for improved vision (by your faith you are healed).

Why do I have faith?

I trust that by adding the deep meanings of the Christian stories to my own vision, I can faithfully apply these ideas to my life and in some small way it might make the world a better place.

My response:

Mike,

Thanks for taking the initiative to open! Usually there’s a bit of squabbling there, so kudos to you for seizing the reins and running. Also, good idea to begin by defining our terms – in a discussion about whether or not faith is beneficial, it’s probably a pretty sound notion to make sure we agree on what we mean when we use the word.

I think we can both agree (an agreement in a blogalogue on faith, you say? Strange…) that the first definition you give, faith as Assensus, meaning faith in a proposition with no evidence, is not a desirable quality. A walk down the halls of an asylum could solidify that point. However, while we can easily rule it out as a means of discerning truth, if we are talking about whether or not “faith” is beneficial to hold, we cannot rule it out. Perhaps somebody has this type of faith that they are Mother Theresa and are out to help the impoverished? Any belief can be beneficial, so I feel as though we need to tackle it from another angle.

Since any belief (no matter how preposterous) can be used to adduce beneficial results, let’s focus on what produces malignant results – specifically, what causes good people to do bad things. We can likely agree that most people have good intentions when they act, which works well for humanity. The problem is that our beliefs are the gatekeepers of our actions, which is why I think every human being has a responsibility to hold good reasons for what they believe. This is the concept of our Epistemological Accountability, and it will be the basis for my entire response.

To illustrate this idea, consider the following scenario: you believe that the town in which you live is infested with zombies. If this supposition is true, then the right and good thing to do would be to grab the shotgun Hollywood-style, lock and load, and go to town on the advancing horde. If you were right, and they were zombies, you would rightly be canonized as a hero, with a big bronze statue constructed in your honor.

On the other hand, if you were wrong, and they weren’t zombies, you’ve just joined the ranks of some of the worst human beings to ever live. Because you did not have good reasons for what you believe, you rushed in to do something monstrous. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The real life examples of how faith, encouraging people to hold poor reasons for what they believe, caused good people to engage in detrimental behavior, are everywhere. Aside from a dogmatic disinterest in truth, this may be the most relevant reason that faith by Assensus should be strongly criticized: its ability to cause people with good intentions to do horrific things. I’ll await confirmation from you on whether or not you find this reason for rejecting faith by Assensus to be logical, but if not for this reason then for a litany of others, rejection of this type of intellectual bankruptcy is a point we both endorse.

One of the problems with your argument is that it fails to note just how many Christians (and truly, followers of virtually every other faith) do view faith in this way. Heck, 25% of this country thought Jesus would literally return in 2007 (46% found it "somewhat likely"), and 66% believe firmly in the truth of some type of scripture. We can see the evidence that people view faith this way all around us: what are the odds that Muslims would be drilling holes into each others heads at this very moment on the streets of Baghdad, or that such a large opposition to the rights of normal people in this country would be occurring even in the 21^st century without the “benefit” of this type of faith running rampant?

For the rest of the definitions you give, they seem to be variations on faith as a positive attitude in the face of uncertainty which, being a bit of an optimist, I can completely get behind. The thing is, I do not believe that religious faith, even in the metaphoric sense you’re defending, resides entirely in this camp. As I said above, I do not think the truth claims Christianity makes can be uncoupled from faith as Assensus. After all, what separates your claim of:

"I trust that by adding the deep meanings of the Christian stories to my own vision, I can faithfully apply these ideas to my life and in some small way it might make the world a better place."

…from the claim of a theistic Buddhist:

"I trust that by adding the deep meanings of the Buddhist stories to my own vision, I can faithfully apply these ideas to my life and in some small way it might make the world a better place."

…or a Muslim:

"I trust that by adding the deep meanings of the Islamic stories to my own vision, I can faithfully apply these ideas to my life and in some small way it might make the world a better place."

If there is no credible difference, then how is your trust in these metaphors not, at least in part, a bit of faith from Assensus? Or would you be just as happy picking and choosing stories out of the Koran? If you concede that they are all simply stories from which you can scrape out a few morsels of wisdom from amongst the piles of inhumanity (Kill people for working on Saturday? Martyrdom is a good idea? I can keep slaves? I should keep slaves? Etc.), what do you need them for?

If all we need are reasonable, good ideas in order to make the judgments on the best means to make the world a better place, why do we need stories dragging such long tails of metaphysical debris, that very frequently influence the minds of the more credulous to perform some of the most dispassionate acts imaginable? As Sam Harris puts it, your type of faith seems to give us bad reasons to be good when good reasons are perfectly available.

If we want to be good, we have an obligation to be interested in what is true, lest our good intentions become perverted. I do not feel you are advocating anything like that. Instead, you are advancing a position that we should be alright with people merely relaxing their dependence on superstition but not discarding it entirely (if I have misrepresented you here, please let me know in your next post). While this is certainly better than a full-blown disdain for reason in lieu of believing outrageous claims to truth with no evidence, it is by no means a solution – in fact, by lending even quiet support to this book, which claims to be true throughout, it seems we are perpetuating the problem of the vast number of people who view faith as a claim to literal truth.

Phew, sorry, I get a little long-winded. Here is a summation of my argument for you to pick apart as you choose:

1. If we want to do good, as most of us do, we have an obligation to have good reasons for what we believe – otherwise, we could wind up doing some very terrible things.

2. Even as a metaphor, you are still subscribing to truth claims, otherwise there is no reason to hold them. In doing so, you seem to be betraying faith and reason equally.

2a. If you are not grafting any sense of truth onto the stories you allow to influence your life, are you merely an atheist/agnostic who finds wealth in the positive metaphors in the bible? If so, how can you call that faith when you know the stories are false and when you know that simple reason can adduce which actions will create more happiness or alleviate more suffering in the world?

3. Ultimately, the argument that faith has the power to produce positive behavior can be applied to any belief (no matter how wacky), but that argument ignores bad beliefs' additional power to cause harmful behavior (from good people). For this reason, the argument about whether faith is beneficial or not must address the malicious side (not in an individual, but in a society).

4. In accordance with #3, the discussion about whether faith is good for the world cannot be separated from the discussion about whether or not a particular faith is actually true.

Sorry it got so long, and I look forward to hearing from you again in the next few days. Thanks again for taking the time to do this – I hope we can both come away having learned something new.

Best,

JT

Mike's response:

JT,

First, we should probably both note that it is common for new acquaintances to make some prejudgments and tend toward arguing against straw man positions. Let’s do our best to get past that. Maybe it is old hat for you to argue against the traditional Christian position, but that isn’t my position. I don’t have an argument against your criticism of “belief". I agree with you that belief without evidence is a road to bad decisions. You did make some other claims that I can address but to be honest, you’re barking up the wrong tree in your critique of beliefs.

Sam Harris does have a point that progressive Christians might share the blame for fundamentalist behavior. We run the risk of being guilty by association if we don’t stand up and call a spade a spade. However, I have no intention of standing by. I don’t advocate any actions based on speculation without evidence. I don’t ask anyone to trust the truths of a story if those truths don’t produce repeatable trustworthy results. I don’t advocate adopting the truth of a story on “blind faith”. You correctly made the connection that this faith without belief would invalidate any claims of one particular set of metaphorical stories as superior to all others. I agree. Actually, that is the very point I wish to make. I’ll gladly support the FSM (flying spaghetti monster) if someone develops a story around that character that could inspire, motivate, and improve society by pulling them into the discussion about what changes the world needs. I won’t claim the FSM is a real physical thing, but I’ll support the story’s artistic power to improve lives if it does prove to do that with any reasonable amount of success. Neither would I support a fundamentalist assertion that we should follow the teachings of a mythical FSM merely because the story says we should. The story must be true. Not true in its facts, but true in that its truths must work. If the story makes the case that a particular character trait, ethic, or social value is valuable, we must be able to test it and see supporting evidence.

I think you may be doing what fundamentalist Christians often do by assuming the only value of these sacred stories is located in their ability to document historical facts. You also run the risk of guilt by association if you feed the fundamentalists obsession with looking for a story's truth in the story's historical accuracy. You may be falling into the same illogical trap and therefore supporting their cause and fueling their passion to focus on the accuracy of the story. You are reinforcing their mistake of looking for truth in the wrong place. You keep saying “… but if the story isn’t true…” What you are doing is similar to suggesting a painting is not valuable unless it is an exact portrait of a real person, place, or thing. It sounds as if you're suggesting that if the Mona Lisa wasn’t a real person and if that smile was not an exact replica of an actual moment, then the painting should be devalued (or destroyed).

On another level, these stories go beyond lessons about life. They mean to invoke questions. They illicit our best reasoning skills and suggest that we seek a logical response to the tragically flawed characters and their often illogical decisions. Nobody should not be taught blind adherence to the mistakes these characters make. The stories should illicit anger in many cases (even anger at their often illogical God). These stories present ancient opinions about the world and ask for our criticism. The real truths found in the Bible are not what we find in its printed words. Like any piece of art, the truth and beauty of art is what happens inside you when you wrestle with the questions it invokes. Art pokes at truth but rarely states it in plain language. It inspires us to make the discovery for ourselves. Sometimes art does this by showing us something very wrong or even overtly false to shake us into a posture of thinking. Your critique of religion sounds much like the criticism of those who wish to censor certain music and art because they’re scared people may only see the surface level profanity rather than looking for its deeper truth about the ills or beauty of life. Logic and reason provided a firm grounding for promoting civil rights, but a religious man was able to gain support for the cause by invoking artistic religious expressions - "I have a dream...". Poetic prophetic inspiration is what religion is all about. Unfortunately, fundamentalists miss the point of the poetry and try to take the metaphors literally while ignoring the reasonable meanings.

I see all these stories as metaphorical - sometimes helpful and sometimes harmful (depending on whose reading). I have no support for the horrors of Christianity. If Christianity can’t be purged of its silly superstitions that result in horrible actions then it should die a quick death. The truth is that many (but not all) of these issues have been purged from Christianity. We should continue to purge them in the same we we should continue to purge our government of corruption. We don't throw away all hopes for a good government simply because of the current problems with the one we have. I’ll join you in that battle to make changes. However, I don’t think progressive Christianity has had a fair reading yet. I don’t think the idea of Christianity without belief has seen the light of day for more than only a few people. Zen Buddhism, for example, has had a better reading. It is evidence that we can uncouple faith from belief. Christianity should learn from the more modern strains of Buddhism.

To directly answer your points...

JT point #1 - If we want to do good, as most of us do, we have an obligation to have good reasons for what we believe – otherwise, we could wind up doing some very terrible things.

Will everyone listen to logic or reason without a provocative piece of art (or literature) to inspire them to start asking questions? Are you so sure that art cannot contribute in this way? I’m not so sure. I agree that logic and reason should rule the day and they should be the ultimate guardian of our behavior. But what will provoke the questions? Art and music has a history of bringing issues to light in society. I think artistic creative literature such as the Bible can serve this purpose.

JT point #2 - Even as a metaphor, you are still subscribing to truth claims, otherwise there is no reason to hold them. In doing so, you seem to be betraying faith and reason equally. 2a. If you are not grafting any sense of truth onto the stories you allow to influence your life, are you merely an atheist/agnostic who finds wealth in the positive metaphors in the bible? If so, how can you call that faith when you know the stories are false and when you know that simple reason can adduce which actions will create more happiness or alleviate more suffering in the world?

You may be assuming that I think religion takes us where logic could not. I'm not suggesting that. Religious stories need logical deduction or they lead us nowhere. Can you arrive there without the stories? Maybe. I didn't but I wouldn't rule out another persons path to the correct conclusions. I'm suggesting faith motivates many to look for logical solutions. It gives us a puzzle and says "go work out a solution". Good religion doesn't give any specific solutions. Bad religion gives rigid formulas for solutions, and limits our ability to apply the truths to each situation in a logical method. If the Bible (or any sacred text) gives us a truth proposition, then it should be tested and proven before we follow it. If it doesn’t yield testable repeatable results, then it is not really “truth”. You suggest I may be "merely an atheist/agnostic". Was that a knock on your own views? Why did you put the word "merely"? In many ways I am an atheist/agnostic. I’m certainly not a strict theist. I don’t glean any “facts” from these stories. They are all fiction in my opinion. But “fiction” isn’t the same as “false”. A false story is one that intends to be untrue in its facts. These stories are not false if they were crafted by people who never meant them to be taken literally. It isn’t the fault of the stories that they were placed in the wrong section of the library. This is something we can correct.

JT point 3 & 4. - Ultimately, the argument that faith has the power to produce positive behavior can be applied to any belief (no matter how wacky), but that argument ignores bad beliefs' additional power to cause harmful behavior (from good people). For this reason, the argument about whether faith is beneficial or not must address the malicious side (not in an individual, but in a society). (4). In accordance with #3, the discussion about whether faith is good for the world cannot be separated from the discussion about whether or not a particular faith is actually true.

I agree that the bad results of religion (no matter their good intention) should be on trial in public opinion. Those malicious interpretations and resulting behaviors should be brought to light and prosecuted. Again, you really are offer critique of shallow “superstitious belief” not the more robust definitions of faith that I provided. You will need to take that argument up with someone else since we both agree on that point. You continue to assume that “truth” means historically factual. You’ve confused faith with something that can either be true or false. Instead, faith is something you do or don't do.

JT, Please respond in any way you like, but I hope you will answer this one question as part of your response.

In your opinion, is George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” a true story?

Thanks for the dialog! This process has already been helpful.

Mike

My response:

This is the first blogalogue I've had on the subject where my opponent and I can't seem to disagree on anything major. For instance, we can converge on the fact that belief in things on bad reasons (or no reasons, or in spite of evidence against it) is dangerous and to be both criticized and avoided. We also agree that a majority of the stories in the bible are likely false. As far as I can tell, we're off to a good start. :D While we're quibbling over definitions, I think we'll tie that down here in a post or two.

Your argument, as I am growing to understand it, seems to be that we can evince a few positive lessons from the bible, itself an ancient book that is teeming with inhumanity throughout most of it. I cannot argue against that proposition. What I can argue for are more productive means of getting to knowledge that are both more honest and less dangerous.

You appear to be equating biblical stories, as well as stories of other religions, with Grimm's fairy tales and stories like Rumpelstiltskin. I'm not sure that we could honestly call gleaning the moral concept that we should not steal from reading Goldilocks and the Three Bears "faith", especially when there are infinitely better reasons not to steal than the lesson learned from a story. Perhaps when you are a child, this is the best we can do (I don't think it is, but it's feasible), but I am certain that adults can do better.

There are plenty of moral lessons to be found in faerie tales such as Goldilocks, which almost always succeed in painting the bad guys, the ones engaging in flagrantly immoral activity, as models of what to avoid in your actual life (nobody wants to be Goldilocks, that's the whole point). However, most of our holy books (including the bible), having originated in a time when appalling inhumanity was often the norm, fail at this in the most excessive way. Consider Abraham's passing of the test of faith in Genesis: the fact that he was willing to murder his progeny is held up to us as an example, a metaphor if you will, for what is good. The same can be said of the doubting Thomas and his admonishment that it is a good thing to believe without seeing. This is the very thing we agree is to be most stridently avoided.

I'm not sure if people will get to a state of morality or not without art (another place we agree is that without logic, the stories have no impact, and logic works independent of them - so it's an interesting question whether or not we need such tales to get to logical moral conclusions), but even if I conceded that we couldn't, there's plenty of art to choose from which fully admits to being art or story. You could literally walk into a library blind-folded and, on your first attempt, find a book that is honest in its assessment of itself and its goals, that has a well-spring more to say about leading a sensible life than almost any religious text, including the bible. And still, reading such a book and acquiring its lessons could not truly be considered "faith", but rather reason (or even common sense). You must admit, that if Da Vinci were trying to convince us that the Mona Lisa was a photograph, it would be a terrible photograph indeed.

To your question: do I think Animal Farm is a true story.

No, I do not. It never happened. It is clearly a fictional story, and if it had claims to being factual littered throughout (including threats for not believing it to be true), I would rightly consider Orwell to be mad. As it lacks either of those things, I consider it to be a far wiser (and honest) lesson on morality than the bible. Are there positive lessons to be taken from it? Absolutely. There are also splendid examples of negative behavior that it urges me to avoid - and it implies them to be so, unlike the bible. I'm unsure how acknowledging this is a matter of faith.

Here's what it boils down to, and this is in agreement with what you said earlier about how such stories are powerless without a logical message: when I read Animal Farm, 1984, or The Ugly Duckling, it is me who makes the moral judgment call. The same is true with the bible (again, this argument comes from Sam Harris). When we read in Matthew to do unto others as we would have done to us (although, this was really the doctrine of Lao Tsze 550 years earlier), it is we who decide that this is a keeper as a moral precept. Conversely, when we read the story of Abraham and Isaiah, or of the doubting Thomas, or that we should execute people for breaking the Sabbath, it is also our own logic (and hopefully empathy) that lead us to conclude that these are wretchedly immoral ideas. If our own moral judgment is paramount, why do we need such stories in our adulthoods?

Also, because Animal Farm purports to be what it is, a work of fiction, we are not plagued by a vast majority of our population acting as though Animal Farm were a legitimate project upon which to base their entire lives, encouraging them to abandon the same sense of reason that both you and I agree we need in order to avoid becoming potentially dangerous from our beliefs.

So, let me conclude as I began, with some areas in which we agree:

1. We have an obligation to have good reasons for what we believe.

Faith as Assensus fails in this, so we both reject it and criticize people who adopt faith in this fashion. It is also inarguably true that virtually all people who have faith, have faith in this fashion (I provided links for why this is true in my last post). While I'm glad you are not persuaded by this type of belief, we are discussing what is best for society, not the individual.

2. Most of the bible stories are not true.

The kicker is that they claim to be, which gets people to Faith as Assensus. Additionally, if taking the few good moral lessons from them is tantamount to doing the same with admittedly false stories, such as Goldilocks, is reading Goldilocks a matter of faith? Also, would it not make more sense to cast aside books making false claims to truth, in order to avoid the very dangerous Faith as Assensus, and instead to advocate other wiser and more honest moral metaphors if, in fact, we do need art to get to morality (don't get me wrong, I'm a Music major, so hooray art!)? It seems this would also remove the need for ambiguous words like "faith."

And, since it seems to be in-keeping with both our idioms, I'll throw you a question for your next post: Is taking a lesson from the fictional stories in the bible any different from taking a lesson from the afterthought of an episode of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? If not, are they both a matter of faith?

I've honestly never been approached with an argument like the one you're making, so this is adding to my knowledge bank as well. Additionally, you are pleasant and informed. As a result, I'm enjoying this as well. Can't wait to hear back.

Best,

JT

Mike's response:

JT,

I have to say this has helped me think about how I discuss faith. We’ve mostly agreed on the mythical nature of sacred texts and the need to interpret them through the lens of ancient writers without adopting their ancient superstitions. We also agree on the need for sound reason to rule our ethical choices. I actually disagree with your choice to label the stories “false” without further nuance. In other words, it is reasonable to suggest certain interpretations of the stories are “false” when fundamentalists claim the stories are factual. However, to label the story as false implies that you’ve judged the author’s intent to be something other than a symbolic interpretation of history. Maybe this is a bit of self-discovery about my own argument and common reactions to it. I find it interesting that you have the same basic reaction to my position as fundamentalist Christians. You each assume the story is true or false based on its surface level meaning. That does make it a form of fiction, but it doesn’t make it false. To say a story is false implies that it has no truth on any level. Can you really say that? You may consider a more nuanced accusation or else your position is shallow and you’ll loose your audience quick. I could see where the dialog could go sideways if we were actually more ideologically opposed or more emotionally reactive debaters. Wouldn't it be odd to walk into a book store and see books categorized as "true" and "false". There is a reason we don't use those terms when talking about books.

For example, what if we could go back in time and ask George Orwell “What is the book Animal Farm about?" I can think of two possible answers and neither answer would include a farm or talking pigs. One possible answer might be that the story is about Communist Russia, the ideals of Karl Marx, and the consequences of those ideas gone bad in the hands of Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin. Those are real historic people and events. If animal farm is about those events, then isn’t it a true story? Didn’t those things literally happen? The second answer I could imagine from Orwell would be that his story was about how power often (maybe always) corrupts people no matter their original intentions. Again, I think that answer also would mean this a true story. I don’t see many other options for Orwell (unless I completely missed the intention of the story). I imagine that if we told Orwell that we thought his story was poppycock or lies because pigs do not ever talk, he would laugh at us and wonder if we ever got past the 3rd grade. Therefore, I think that Animal Farm is a true story. I don’t think it is even about talking pigs. The intended message of the author is true. Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin are real people and they existed. Power does often do the things Orwell suggests. Those events which Orwell described did in fact happen, but instead of a flat dull historical reading, Orwell dared to capture the facts in a mythical epic story. If he had taken the logical historical approach, then I doubt we would have ever known the name George Orwell. Do you remember the author of your last history book? This is the basic difference between communicating truth in art and communicating truth in science. Nietzsche talked at great length about the power and beauty in Art. He even borrowed the idea of communicating his own truths trough parabolic stories. He didn’t claim God is dead, but he had one of his characters do it for him. It’s up to the reader to interpret what he might have meant and why he didn’t simply say it himself in plain logical language.

So why did Orwell do this? Why didn’t he just make a logical argument against corruption? Why not simply give us the bare details and let us decide how to react? I think he did this because artists (like yourself?) realize that art moves people to deeply see and hear an idea in a more profound way. It isn’t enough to transmit facts. The big logical decisions in the world often need to be personalized, even personified by art to take hold. They need to become “meaning” if they are going to shake the world. I loved Orwell’s book and I spent more time researching the facts about Karl Marx’s important ideas (both good and bad) and his misguided followers because of that book. I’m not sure I’d have been so interested if it had not been for that story. This is not a “false” story even though it uses fiction to express its truths about history and about life. Even hard line atheists in the soviet union realized this. They needed to create a social narrative (a myth) to do more than merely implement their logical goals to spread communism. They had to get people to buy into the idea. So, they invented the inspirational myth of “Mother Russia”. A symbolic representation ingrained in that society. These symbolic expressions helped create identity and solidarity and they are powerful tools. So when it comes to bringing truths to the attention of the public, I don’t think we, as adults, can do better than art. I think we need creative storytelling to make the social changes that both you and I probably agree on. Each of those symbols should be evaluated, but do you really mean to make the argument that symbolic art and narratives are ineffective carriers of truth?

It seems that our main difference lies in your assumption that artistic symbolic expressions of ideas (and even artistic expressions of history) are either invalid or at a minimum, they are grossly inefficient at transmitting meaning. The case you present sounds like someone who is opposed to symbolic art as a valid way to transmit meaning and even change the world. I find that hard to reconcile now that I know you are yourself an artist. Art does have its problems. It isn’t always logical. Along with the message of the artist, art brings with it the flaws of the artist. Art is truth told through the eyes of an artist. It requires us to look at the world from a different perspective. That isn’t always a perfect delivery system. Most art lovers appreciate those flaws. In fact, it is often the artist’s flaws that make the art so unique and valuable. Is the Bible flawed? Absolutely! But like a true lover of art, we should not be so naive as to only take a quick glance. We should dive in and see what it tells us about the artists. I have faith in the Bible in the same way that I have faith that Orwell’s book can teach people about the evils of power (not about talking pigs). The reason I don’t create any religious notions about Orwell’s book is because his book is very limited and it doesn’t really address my needs. The Bible however, does address me. It is about life, community, friendship, protest, and just about everything else. The Bible is true because it truthfully represents the perspectives of its various artists and their communities (even when those communities had bad ideas).

Now, on to the “true” story of Abraham…

If we see this story as art we don’t ask “did this happen”. Instead, we would say “why did the author write it this way?” and “what is the author (artist) trying to tell us about his life and his community?”

I think this story about Abraham tells us about the birth of a nation. It tells us that the fathers of Israel, represented by the character Abraham (which actually means father), was barely surviving their nomadic life in the desert. Through trials and struggles they survived to produce a nation. Like the birth of our nation, they had to be willing to commit (sacrifice) the lives of their children to the notion of building and securing this new community (in wars, famine, and difficult circumstances). This is not a horrible story about God’s test. It is not really a story about a father willing to kill his son any more than Orwell’s story was really about talking pigs. For Israel, somehow these sons were spared (so they figured they must have been blessed by God). These “fathers” were no more horrible than the fathers of American soldiers are when they sacrifice their sons for the benefit (even the birth) of a nation. (I have to interject here that I do not personally support war and violence, but that is another subject). These people always write victory in war as “God’s will”. In the same way, they write destruction and defeat as God’s will too. Abraham’s story is not a story about morals. It is a mythical telling of real history about the birth and survival of a community. Do we assume that George Orwell supported violence since his main characters committed horrible acts? No, we realize that he is using myth to portray history and that history was ugly. He embellishes and changes the time line for dramatic effect, uses symbolic characters, and yet we all really know what he is writing about. If someone started worshiping these talking pigs and claiming this was a factual story, we shouldn’t respond by destroying or belittling Orwell’s art. I have no problem condemning atrocities committed in the name of the Bible, but we can’t blame the stories or throw them out.

I completely agree with you that Christianity has skewed the story. I agree that this has created centuries of bad decisions. However, the blame lies with the readers who don’t understand symbolic language. They arrived at this conclusion by making the same mistake that you are making. They assumed that the story can only be read at face value. Do you see the connection? I also recognize why this is not clear for many people today. I understand why you (and fundamentalist religions) have read the stories so literally. The biggest reason is because the Bible is not a single book. It is a collection of stories. The bible does not anywhere claim that these stories are non-fiction. It does not claim that we must believe it to be non-fiction. It does say we should have faith in it, but as I’ve suggested, having faith in the truths of a story does not mean we should take its myths literally.

So when you say “We also agree that a majority of the stories in the bible are likely false” that isn’t true. I don’t agree that these stories are false. I won’t use that word for these texts. I also hear in your argument that you assume other myths tell us they are fiction. Really? I guess I missed that line in Goldilocks, Little Red Ridding hood, and King Arthur. Does Da Vinci add a disclaimer on the back of his painting that says the Mona Lisa is not a photograph, or do we rely on our reasoning skills to interpret this piece of art for what it is? It is no more valid to make the unnuanced claim that the stories are false than it is to claim they are factual. Both of those positions lack sophistication and knowledge about the ancient tradition of mythic artistic expression.

Peace

- Mike

And mine:

First, I apologize that this has taken so long. Being busy for the lose...

We still seem to be quibbling over definitions. It seems that you are arguing over something that is analytically true while I am treating the concept of truth synthetically, the way almost every believer in our various religions does (See Analytic-Synthetic distinctions).

So, I'll need you to do me a favor. I'm going to provide you with a few scenarios, and I'll ask you to tell me in your next post which ones you would consider faith. If you could also explain on what ground you make the distinction, that'd be most excellent.

1. A person reads the bible and concludes that it is true in its entirety, that Jesus is the son of god, and that god has a will this person is to follow.

2. A man is walking around the streets of downtown New York exclaiming, with the utmost conviction, that he is Napoleon Bonaparte, and that everybody should fall into rank.

2a. A person sees this man and concludes that he is crazy.
2b. A person sees this man and concludes that he is correct.
2c. A person sees this man and concludes that he is happy, and that happiness means following your heart.
2d. A person sees this man and concludes that he is crazy, but that he is happy, and that happiness means following your heart.
2e. A person sees this man, concludes that he is actually Napoleon, and that he is happy, and that happiness means following your heart.

3. A child reads Goldilocks and the Three Bears and concludes that stealing is wrong.

4. A philosopher and biologist, working in tandem, conclude that chemical-based dispositions in human beings encourage us to be social and to cooperate, and that this disposition was likely selected for in one of our great ape ancestors. As a result, life would suck being ostracized from our herd, which is precisely what causing harm to others by various means, such as stealing, will result in. By recognizing that our own personal happiness will be greater by not stealing, we have a rationale for being honest in this way.

5. A person reads through the bible, noting that most of it is magical gibberish one would expect from a book written so long ago. They read the golden rule in Matthew (or in Lao Tsze's screed, the Tao Te Ching written over 600 years earlier) and decide, via their own common sense, that this is a good idea. They also read the parable about the doubting Thomas or what Leviticus says about people who break the Sabbath, and conclude that this is the most wretched nonsense imaginable.

6. A person has never read a word of the bible, but they go to church every week and know in their heart that Jesus is the one true god and that they are going to heaven.

7. A person reads a story in a news-paper about a serial killer who never smoked and lived to be 103 years old in prison. The person concludes that they should not smoke.

8. A person reads a peer-reviewed journal explaining the litany of ways that smoking shortens your life span, and elects not to smoke.

9. A person reads a story in a news-paper about a serial killer who never smoked and lived to be 103 years old in prison. This person does not want to be a serial killer, so they decide to start smoking.

Moving on to the rest of your post...

My use of the world false simply means that a story is not grounded in reality, which is an assessment we both seem to apply to scripture the same way we apply it to The Illiad. I am not denying it any meaning that is relevant to our lives, but I would not call inferring such meaning from these stories "faith." This is why I require the above distinctions in order to move forward with this.

On finding books on the basis of "true" and "false".

We do sort books by being fictional or non-fictional though, and we have a certain derision for people who, in their mind, would put those books in the wrong section. All stories, whether fictional or not, can have lessons or meaning, and I have already conceded that fictional stories can (and often do) have meaning, so there is no reason to continue producing arguments against an argument that that denies these stories have anything relevant to say. I do not think, however, that the word "faith' can be used for this.

I am a music major, so I am not of the mind that art is a poor transition to meaning. I have already said that meaning can be adduced from stories. I believe your perception of this is a result of our inability to define our terms, which I hope to fix soon.

On why we should not have faith, by definition of gaining lessons.

Even bad lessons can be taken from stories - it is our own sense of morality/common sense, which I spoke of earlier, that allows us to keep the "good" lessons. But having faith on the basis of learning from a metaphor is not always good, we need rationality applied to metaphors in order to ensure we get a positive result, and I'm not sure you can call that faith.

For instance, the vast majority of Christians take the "true" story of Abraham to mean that they should do whatever god wishes of them - a reading of the bible makes this a frightening proposition. They still received a lesson evinced by the bible...is this also faith?

Eager to get this sorted out, and eager to hear from you again,

JT

Discussion with Lila Sacoulas

A while back, Amber picked up a copy of the Ozark Christian News, which contained a favorable review of Expelled (you can read my own review of the movie here). I elected to e-mail the author of the article in order to explain some of the incorrect claims she made in it.

Hello,

I read your article about Expelled today, and it was clear that your own lack of objectivity in viewing Expelled carried into your writing. Since it appeared in a Christian news publication, where truth (especially scientific truth) takes a back seat to confirming things you already think you know, I doubt you'll care to receive the antidote to your ignorance of science that I'm going to take the time to provide for you - but I'm an optimist. :D

First, you have freedom of speech - you can suggest whatever you like. However, while the United States is a Democracy, science is not. The idea of Intelligent Design is being rejected because it fails the litmus test of what is scientific. I will detail why it does not later in this e-mail.

While Darwin was the first to note that species evolve 150 years ago (as you point out), the theory has since been modified to accommodate what we have learned since then. The fact that we came to know the original theory 150 years ago does not devalidate it any more than the age of the Christian story devalidates it (there are plenty of other things that manage that). If creationists are intent on coming up with "new and better idea's" (your unnecessary apostrophe left in place), they must still endure even the most minimal application of the scientific method which Evolution has withstood for 150 years.

The blog you cite also gets many things wrong. First, it says the film is honest. The filming of the movie was not even done in an honest fashion. All of the opposing voices in the movie, from Michael Shermer to Dawkins to Myers to Eugenie Scott, were filmed for the movie under false pretenses. Yes, the producers flat out lied to them. They were told that Crossroads (the movie the interviewees were told they were being interviewed for) would explore the clash between ID and science, not the propaganda piece that Expelled would be. The interviewees were later told that Crossroads was the working title for the movie, but the domain name for Expelled was purchased months before the interviews took place. This was a bait and switch by the producers of the movie in order to get somebody to demonize.

As for the scholars in the movie being fired or otherwise defaced for supporting Creationism, you can find a full dissection of these claims on my review of the movie at http://jteberhard.blogspot.com/2008/04/review-of-expelled-or-win-ben-steins.html. Enjoy.

Anyway, on to why ID is not science. This can be found on my ongoing blog on Evolution at http://tehjuggernauts.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-evolution-is-not-is-evolution.html under "What is Science". I also touch on it more in my essay at http://tehjuggernauts.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-we-must-oppose-intelligent-design.html. Here is the relevant excerpt:

"In order to determine whether an idea is a scientific theory, we must first know what makes an idea scientific and how scientists utilize the term "theory". While I may have a theory regarding what two cards my opponent is holding at the poker table, this is not the way scientists use the word. A scientific theory "summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing" and is "valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it" (Helmenstine). This is a far cry from the anthems that Evolution is "just a theory" we hear from a nation of non-biologists wishing to have a deciding hand in an issue they admit their ignorance of by invoking that phrase.

"For a theory to be "scientific," it must provide the basis for testable hypotheses" (Olmstead). When scientists like Eugenie Scott say "you can't build a science on a negative argument" (Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial), they are referring to science's power to explain things. Scientific theories should be able to make verifiable predictions, much like germ theory makes predictions which allow a person to get a flu shot every year. According to Scott, Intelligent Design fails at this in the most complete fashion:

"The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default." (Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial)

When discussing what should be taught in a science class, it seems that the basic requirement of an idea should be that it aligns with what constitutes science. It is abundantly clear that Intelligent Design does not do this."

ID, as portrayed in this movie, is literally nothing more than a negative argument. The movie snipes at the outer edges of science without comprehending the enormous body of the subject, hoping to allow Creationism to win by default. That is absolutely not how science works.

Anyway, your article invited so many corrections, only a few of which I have the fortitude to correct in this e-mail. If you are interested in what is true, I can assure you that even a fleeting bit of research into the movie will reveal all of what I could tell you and more, if only concern for truth is what Christianity were interested in. I hope you will surprise me.

JT Eberhard
http://jteberhard.blogspot.com

To my surprise, she responded:

Dear Mr. Eberhard,

Thank you for your response. I am a little surprised you picked up and read a "Christian" paper, but I'm glad you did :-)

Just a point of clarification - the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Also, Intelligent Design does not equal Creationism, nor does it negate Evolution. It does not necessarily point to God. It strictly says that "as a theory" it is possible that the whole thing started somehow by something more intelligent than us humans.

"For a theory to be "scientific," it must provide the basis for testable hypotheses" (Olmstead). Let me look up the definition of "Theory".

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another2: abstract thought : speculation 3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art 4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -often used in the phrase in theory5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena 6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

Yes, Evolution is a "theory" and so is "Intelligent Design".

Thanks for your opinion,

Lila R. Sacoulas
Publisher
Ozarks Christian News

Which I followed with:

Lila,

Thank you for the response. Though it only tackled one minute talking point that I already addressed, as though you either didn't read it or didn't comprehend it, it was certainly more than I expected. Kudos.

May I ask where you pulled your definition 1 from? The second is the layman's definition, not the one in use by scientists, therefore it is irrelevant. While your definition, wherever it is from, suggests that all you need is propositions in order to explain a phenomenon for an explanation to be considered a "theory", it does not include the scientific community's requisite that those propositions be supported by evidence or reason. By your definition, my theory that a pink unicorn created the universe is a scientific theory. After all, it is a proposition that explains the phenomenon.

Symantics aside, Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence while your faith, and the anti-science spawned by it, are without any supporting evidence whatsoever, with plenty of evidence to establish that they are false.

Intelligent Design is merely Creationism in a very poor disguise. Anybody with their critical thinking skills intact can see this, and every court to rule on the subject has affirmed this. It is also plain to see that the only people invested in ID in this country are Christians who dislike the fact that science conflicts with their faith.

I think that touches on everything you had to say in your e-mail (a courtesy, I should note, that was not given to me). I hope it helps.

Best,

JT

She then said:

Consider this John,

If there is no God, all things are permissible and there is no incentive for
moral code, other than not getting caught. While it may be convenient to
dismiss people of faith who believe in something higher than ourselves, it
has been people of faith that have established a "moral" code that has kept
humanity in check from the anarchy and barbarism that would be in place if
there is no belief in the Judeo Christian Creator. Whether you realize it
or not, you have greatly benefited by a society that holds a MAJORITY for
ID.

If I am wrong and you are right. I have lost nothing.
If I am right and you are wrong, you have lost everything.

I appreciate the dialog, because where there is no dialog there is no
growth,
Lila Sacoulas
P.S. The first definition was from www.dictionary.com

Unable to let softball lobs like Morality or Pascal's Wager go unanswered, I retorted with:

I already have responses to these things written.

Moral code: http://tehjuggernauts.blogspot.com/2008/05/morality-and-atheism.html

Obviously there is a source of morality without fear of god, since most atheists are perfectly moral people. You have also said something very revealing: you have indicated that the only reason you do not lie, kill your neighbors, rape their pets, and steal their pornography is because you fear god.

The rest about how faith has held morality in check is simply wrong. The texts mandating slavery and other flagrantly immoral acts (which were held by immoral believers through most of our own millenium, not to say anything of the eras before it) are still in the bible, it's just that generations of free-thinkers have made you ashamed to live by the tenets that have defined your faith for almost all of its existence. Your faith is the reason we killed witches for thousands of years (now that we know that there are no witches and that there never were, one does not know whether to laugh or cry). Your faith is one of the reasons women have been subjugated to men throughout history in circles saturated with the unreason of your faith. Rather than being prevented, the barbarism you speak of flows from the womb of the Judeo-Christian god.

Your second passage was the invocation of Pascal's Wager: http://jteberhard.blogspot.com/2008/02/pascals-wager-or-why-you-should-stop.html

On your definition, it uses the colloquial definition, which is not what we're after for this discussion. Consider the definition from the Online Biology Glossary:

"A hypothesis that has withstood extensive testing by a variety of methods, and in which a higher degree of certainty may be placed. A theory is NEVER a fact, but instead is an attempt to explain one or more facts."

Clearly, ID-Creationism fails as this type of theory. You also made no comment on how pink unicorns could be a viable scientific theory under your standards - surely you don't believe in pink unicorns, do you?

You also have not met virtually all of the charges from my initial e-mail, while I am consistently taking the time and energy to make sure I leave no stone of yours unturned.

I also appreciate the dialog, but let's take a moment to make sure that a dialog is what we really have. There are literally millions of things that could convert me to Christianity within the course of our exchange. For instance, I have just written down a 30-digit number and hidden it in my room. If you could pray to god to reveal that number to you, I would convert immediately (and publish the results to the extent I was able). This is just one way I am willing to augment my vulnerability to your position.

But what about you, Lila? Can you imagine something, anything that could convince you that Jesus was not the son of god?

Best,

JT

Today, I got her response:

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner John. I've been sick. Sounds trite but true. (pneumonia and severe sinus infection). Needless to say, I wasn't really sharp for the last couple of weeks. Not that I'm ever really sharp anyway :-)

Our conversations should probably come to an end. You are looking for God like a thief looks for the police.

I do have faith and believe in the Bible, something that is false to you so until God chooses to open your mind, if He ever does, there is nothing I can say to change that.

"I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." - yes that's in the Bible.

I have no doubt that you, Mr. Eberhard have extensively more education (learned) than I, and more knowledge (wise) in many area's. It would be awesome for God to reveal Himself to you, but I fear you don't really want that.

Thanks for your emails and God Bless you!

Lila Sacoulas

Editor of The Ozarks Christian News

Mother of 5 children

12th grade education :-)

And I responded with:

Lila,

Don't worry about it. I try to shy away from these types of things when I'm ill as well and it seems everybody is having bad sinuses right now (all this rain, ug).

I do not believe your analogy about looking at god is correct. I am not afraid of the truth, I simply wish to know what it is as reliably as possible. In fact, I find it far more likely that people of faith, who have based their lives on scripture, have much more reason to afraid of a dispassionate search for truth.

There are plenty of things you could do in order to alter my unbelief. As only one out of the litany of challenges I have made which have gone unanswered, I once informed you of one such thing that could change my mind:

"There are literally millions of things that could convert me to Christianity within the course of our exchange. For instance, I have just written down a 30-digit number and hidden it in my room. If you could pray to god to reveal that number to you, I would convert immediately (and publish the results to the extent I was able). This is just one way I am willing to augment my vulnerability to your position."

And then asked:

"But what about you, Lila? Can you imagine something, anything that could convince you that Jesus was not the son of god?"

This is a question you failed to answer, and it is very important because you just tried to imply that I was close-minded, when I'm clearly not. You, on the other hand, very well may be, depending upon how you answer that question.

On my wisdom, I am a 26 year-old majoring in music - that is all. The knowledge I have could easily be yours or anybody else's, if only they wanted to know it. The concept of god is very important to me, which is why I have read your bible completely through on more than one occasion, and am in the process of learning Greek in order to read the NT in Greek. I simply want to form an intelligent opinion on the matter and to find the truth, regardless of what it is. Can you honestly say the same?

If your god exists, I want to know. If Zeus exists, I want to know. But the evidence is clearly in support of a godless universe, and that religion is a crutch for which people will people will barricade themselves behind terrible reasoning in order to keep. For every argument you have brought forth during our dialog, I have presented you a clear and logical response. For every point I have brought forward, you have given a deeply inadequate and irrational answer or ignored them completely, allowing them to stand unchallenged. Rather than abandon the defeated arguments you have used, you will likely keep them, and wait to use them against somebody who will not catch you - not changing your mind, and with no interest in what is actually true. The irony here is that in your last e-mail, you insinuated my own fear of truth by implying that I was the one shrugging off what you say.

You seem like a sincere lady, but it is clear that you are another victim of the sultifying effects of magical thinking. Rather than being saved by your faith, your ability to see the world as it is, rather than how you want it to be, has become another casualty of it. It's probably not your fault, this is probably what you were raised with. However, it is never too late to decide that you want to ascertain the nature of reality, and find out if what you believe really is true or not. The world is full of unimaginable surprises, Lila, and they're easy to find, and they require no faith - only your eyes.

Best,

JT

I just received this gem from Lila:

When Jesus was on earth he performed many miracles. Many a whole lot more
fantastic than just guessing some random numbers you've hidden away. People
saw those miracles, knew them to be true and some believed and some STILL
DIDN'T - amazing that some still didn't after seeing it with their own eyes.

In saying you're looking for God like a thief looks for the police isn't
saying you're afraid to find him. It simply means you really don't want to
find him. You hope he's not there. You hope he's not around a corner or
over the next street. You hope to get away without ever finding him.

And to answer your question about anything convincing me Jesus is not the
son of God. Actually the God of this universe. There is nothing that could
because I already know HE IS. I need no convincing, but I think you're not
so sure that's why your searching. I stopped searching and looking because
I know.

I'll give you one very small example but because you don't really know me
and you were not there, just like the Bible, you may not believe it. - I
was about your age when my oldest daughter got very sick, she was
hospitalized and I had to go to Kansas City many times to the Children's
Hospital there because it was better for her problems. On one such
occasion, I was alone in the car, it was late in the evening and because of
all the stress of everything, I was extremely exhausted! I should not have
been driving the 2 1/2 hours home alone, but it couldn't be helped. I knew
I very possibly might not make it home, I was so tired I couldn't keep my
eyes open, but my kids were waiting for me at home and I had no money to
stop and rest - so I just prayed that God would help somehow to stay awake
and alert to make it home. I was drifting off and on. It was about 10
minutes later that I saw a woman on the side of the road Hitch Hiking. (not
normal at that part of the Highway) Well, I don't pick up hitch hikers,
it's not wise - a single woman alone in a car, there was no way I would pick
up anyone except maybe an old, heavy, American Indian lady. That's who was
there. I was only 26, she must have been 65 so I pulled over and had to
back up to get her. When she got in the car I thought my eyes were going to
water. SHE SMELLED SO BAD!!! B.O. like you wouldn't believe. I don't know
what all she said, I don't remember anything but her smell was so strong
there was no way I was going to fall asleep at the wheel. She needed to go
farther than I was so I dropped her off at the corner of where I turned to
go home (an hour and a half later) and I was wide awake then. When I got
home and mentioned it to my husband he said you should go back and get her
and we could at least feed her a late dinner before she continues and offer
her a bath. I was embarrassed I didn't think about that so I jumped in the
car and went to go get her. It couldn't have been more than 5 minutes from
the time I dropped her off. She was gone. - Now you would think that she
probably got a ride but I know that part of the highway, that part of the
evening. - dead as dead. The odds of her getting a ride 5 minutes after I
dropped her off was IMPOSSIBLE. So I asked the corner store if they saw
anyone get picked up. They were one block up and they didn't see any cars
stop. This was in a small town called Marceline, MO. I didn't realize it
at first, but the more I thought about it the more I realized that God
helped me keep awake and He does have a sense on humor sometimes :-) Even
if by some unusual circumstance someone came by to pick her up (which if you
knew the area, you'd know that wasn't the case) she was still there at the
exact time I asked and needed to stay awake. Whether she was an angel, it
doesn't matter, I asked God to help me and he did.

I'm not one to get all magical and mystical because nothing like that ever
happened again. People that get all caught up in Angelology are missing the
whole point.

John you're looking for some big miracle, some big sign and it's all in the
small stuff, the ordinary people, day to day life and how we handle it (for
me, with God's help) for you - on your own understanding.

God Bless you John, and like I said before, I hope He shows you somehow and
you notice when He does :-)

Lila

My response today:

Lila,

Prophets of every religion have supposedly performed miracles. Even people like Sathya Sai Babba nowadays have millions of followers all claiming that he is performing miracles. In the Hadith, 2,000 Muslims watch Muhammad ascend into Heaven aback a winged horse. You don't lend any credence to these obvious falsehoods, do you? If not, why do you abandon such skepticism with the bible and its fantastic, yet evidenceless claims? The fact that you know almost every person in the history of faith (all faiths, not just yours) have made such claims, yet you believe them to be either lying, deluded, or crazy, and have chosen to ignore it, attests to the way believers always consent to have their minds blown by things that are not even remotely god-like.

Your assertion that I do not wish to find god is made with no reasoning, aside from the fact that I have repeatedly shot down your arguments - however, rather than amend your position as each argument is defeated, you have chosen to employ cop-outs like "you're not really looking!" Let me assure you that my reading list of holy books for various faiths is fairly extensive, and suggests that I really want to know what is true. I don't really care if he's there or not - I simply want to know what is true.

Your third paragraph is the real killer for me. Earlier, you said you were ecstatic that we were having a dialog, but a dialog means that both sides are willing to put their preconceptions on the line. If there is nothing that could ever possibly change your mind, while there are literally millions of things that could change mine, how fair is that? How fair is it for you to make requirements of me that you are unwilling to meet yourself? Aside from that, you said you stopped looking when you found Jesus - yet every single argument you have brought forward for that belief has been eviscerated by me, a 26 year-old music major (and admitted nerd). Perhaps you stopped looking earlier than you should have?

As far as those arguments go, let's take a look at them:

Your first response:
It actually had nothing to do with god's existence, or any defense of my criticisms of your article, except to play semantics over the word "theory," which I eventually pulled from a Biological dictionary.

Your second response:
You tried the Morality card as well as Pascal's Wager, both of which I believe I crushed, with no rebuttal from you. I also asked the question that would later reveal that no amount of logic or relevant fact could change your mind.

Your third response:
Rather than concede any of the above points, you moved to copping out by saying that I did not want to find what was true, when I obviously do. No other responses or modifications to arguments.

You fourth, and latest, response:
Admonishing me with the miracles of the bible, attempting to use the bible as evidence for somebody who believes it holds all the veracity of a Mother Goose collection while you effortlessly ignore the miracle claims of other faiths. In order to separate your claims of miracles from the others, you must provide some evidence that yours are true. You did not do this. You also echoed your claim that I am not looking for the truth, when I would wager I know more about your faith than most Christians. You also said you've stopped searching, and I doubt that being exposed to the deep inadequacy of your arguments will convince you to begin searching again although, to a reasonable person, there would seem to be no other option.

Then you gave me your story about the hitchhiker. One of the most revealing lines from it was "The odds of her getting a ride 5 minutes after I dropped her off was IMPOSSIBLE." No, no they weren't. They may have been small, but most certainly not zero. This is little more than an event that could occur to anybody, Muslim, Hindu, or non-believer, yet you have considered this very mundane occurrence to be confirmation of a book of mythology that is literally bursting at the seams with ancient ignorance and literally impossible claims (that's why you call them "miracles"). Is this type of thing really powerful enough to make you stop seeking truth?

Really Lila, listen to yourself. How many Muslims say the same things as you; that they are certain they are right and stopped looking when they found Allah? That they prayed (to Allah) for a loved one's pneumonia to be healed and it went away? How useful is it that they allow easily explicable things like a hitchhiker being picked up to confirm in their minds the truly impossible proposition that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel or, in your case, that Jesus rose from the dead? Remember, beliefs determine our actions, and it is belief in Islam that causes thousands of unnecessary deaths daily. Muslims have failed their responsibility to hold good reasons for what they believe, and you, and every other Christian it seems, have failed in this responsibility as well. Is this really what you are so proud of?

JT

Poe's Law

We have found a new source of stupidity and ignorance. This one is local. The Daily Christian News Blog, based out of The Ozarks.

A recent blog post consisted of the following question:

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH: What should the response of the church be?

Some moronic imbecile that god blessed with the good fortune of a keyboard left this gem:

The church needs to respond the same way it does all other sins. What the church has done is put some sort of stigma on the sin of homosexuality. Just because one does not suffer from that particular sin they should not ridicule those who do. Divorce is another act that many are quick to burn others at the stake but forget they to struggle daily with their owns sinful nature. We must respond as Jesus does. With love and righteousness. We must not destroy but build up and like the women caught in adultery we MUST tell the go and sin NO more.

The Church's response cannot be one of complete acceptance. To embrace sin is just as wrong as practicing sin. Also they cannot keep silent on it. Silence is acceptance. The key is to call all sin, sin. We need to stop babying America in fear of smaller crowds and stick to preaching the uncompromising Word of God.

-Chris

I just left this response. We will see if it gets a bite.

Chris,

I agree completely. The Church should never shy away from the teachings of The Bible, for fear of assaulting those who feel that our understanding of the world or morality could grow or improve over time.

We should follow The Bible completely. In The Bible we are instructed to stone to death those who participate in homosexual behavior (Lev. 20:13, Romans 1). We are also instructed to stone to death those who engage in adultery, bestiality, idolatry, breaking the sabbath, cursing God, or rebellion against our parents.

I encourage each and every one of us to follow this book completely. We cannot allow our societies changing understanding of morality to influence our desire to adhere to the scripture given to us by God.

The next time you hear of a man who becomes remarried, pick up the nearest stone and chuck it. If you are in a Chinese restaurant and see an alter to the Buddha, start throwing things. The girl in the mall has purple hair? You know what to do.

We cannot allow these heathens to blaspheme the Word of GOD. We do not know when He is coming back, and we must always follow His Directions.

If we fail to channel God's wrath, we can only assume that His wrath will become focused upon us, during the coming End Times.

The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting. (Psalm 119:160)

-Amber Culbertson-Faegre
tehjuggernauts.blogspot.com

Yay for Poe's Law.

Gunz, Yo!

I have recently become entrenched in a discussion regarding concealing handguns on Missouri State University's campus. My debater is a man who knows his guns, so I should have quite the discussion on my hands. Stay tuned, and I'll update this post whenever I receive a response.

I've placed our texts in green and blue. I figured something like red and blue would be too biased, and I want to try to differentiate our words easily. If anyone has any better suggestions on formatting, let me know.

Without further ado, here's Frank:

---

I have recently read your article about conceal and carry on Missouri State campus. I also viewed your discussion with the Brother Jed type person outside the library. It is hard for me to put up with a lot of religious intolerance from either those who don’t believe or those who believe too much. There is a balance to be had. I have not however messaged you to talk about religion. There is no sence arguing about such a heated and irrelavent subject.

The article you and your associate wrote seemed to be missing evidence and supporting facts. Missouri has a very stringent application and education process on firearms for a conceal and carry recipient. I do understand your view point that people who have no criminal record but plan on illegally using this right can do so. Those who wish to do such a thing don’t need to go through the application process, $220.00 processing fee, training class, and NICS (federal background check) to carry a weapon. People who want to do illegal things just carry illegally.

The young man who went on a rampage at Virginia Tech did purchase most if not all his firearm equipment legally. This was due to a lack of a criminal background not a failure to find one. If anything knowing that this could happen seems to reinforce the need for those qualified to carry a concealed weapon if they so choose. If someone chooses not to carry that’s ok too. I just think it should be a possibility. The Missouri State security are little more than parking attendants. They cannot carry a firearm or defend anyone in an emergency situation such as that of Virginia Tech.

Your statement about concealed guns on campus restricting the free flow of ideas also fails to make a good argument against the carry law. In order to carry in Missouri you must be 23 years of age. This generally keeps people in their first years at college who have less than great judgment from carrying a firearm. Not to mention in order to buy a pistol you must be 21 and a resident of this state.

I work as a range officer on a firing range in Springfield, and I also shoot for the Missouri State Pistol Team. I know all the Missouri laws surrounding the buying, carrying and shooting of any type of firearm. I also view CCW classes often, as the range where I work regularly hosts them. They involve several tests from knowing the Castle Law doctrine to accurately shooting and handling the firearms. Many people fail and even if they don’t fail the police department reserves the right to fail a person pending a stringent background check for both federal and local crimes not to mention those mentally unfit to carry.

http://learntocarry.com/docs/CastleDoctrine.html This web site shows the doctrine and its intended use. I hope you take a look and see why we all feel so strong about this right. Those of us who carry or will carry aren’t violent people we just want to have the option to protect ourselves against violent threats. We don’t live in fear and we don’t want to hurt people, but we do know there are people who want to hurt others and they are our concern. I also understand that there are people that support our cause that I don't even want to be associated with. This is unfortunate, but I hope you don't use the minority of these racially insensitive over zealous people to judge us all. We are not all like that. I know you have the same problem with those people who support your cause that don't really have your ideals at heart.

Don’t let criminals swing the balance of justice. Bad people will always get guns we just want to tip the balance back into the law abiding citizens’ hands. You of all people should support such a right due to the fact you share one of our most precious of rights attained by the use of force that of free speech. Thank you for your time and I await your reply.

Frank

---

Frank,

First, let me say that I'm glad to see you taking an interest in both your local laws and what whackjobs like myself are saying.
Second, allow me to apologize for the absence of my response to your inquiry. It's no excuse, but I've been swamped by classes.

I'd like to discuss this issue in depth with you.

I plan to post this conversation to a public blog in the event of you responding to this. If you have any problem with this, let me know. I find people are generally more rational (both myself and others) if the conversation is public.

Let me start off by clarifying my position. I am not against guns. I like guns. I think that they are necessary for the security of a free state. Specifically, for a people to protect from government. I also support the right to have guns in our homes. Frankly, if I'm breaking into your house at 4:00 in the morning, and you pop me, I'm gonna say that I deserve it. I have no business being there.
So, to clarify, my problem is guns in the hands of others' in public places where I'm going to be.

Before we start this conversation, however, we need to know what our ideal goal is. Once we agree on this goal, I expect myself and my beliefs to augment whatever philosophical or logical reasoning we are able to draw from our shared experiences and well-documented evidence. In turn, I expect no less from you. Can you guarantee me, on your honor, that you are willing to change your convictions due to logic and reason, Frank? If you cannot, then there is no reason for this discussion to continue.

Further, I think that this discussion must encompass gun ownership in general, rather than just concealed carry. We can't well argue segregation without discussing racism, can we?

So let's jump right in.

What's the goal here? Are we attempting to protect "rights", either anarchistic or libertarian in nature? Are we attempting to protect the populace? Are we attempting to make our schools safer?

I hold that our goal should be ensuring the long-term safety of our society, but I am willing to look at the situation and argue it from any perspective you choose.

I look forward to this conversation.

Have a good day, Frank.

-Ryan Culbertson-Faegre

---

Ryan I can agree on the changing of an idea. I don't think changing ones mind makes anyone less a person. I wouldn't say that my argument isn’t as large in scope as overall gun rights. I already have gun rights. As soon as I turn 23 I will have the right to carry. Since those rights are already present for me to enjoy I don't have any argument with them. Unless my rights are being threatened, which is an entirely different issue, I don’t feel the need to discuss them. The use of gun rights in the discussion shouldn’t be discontinued however. I agree that gun rights on the whole will give evidence and supporting facts both ways thus neither argument should be penalized for the use of this evidence.

I would say that the issue for me is making college campuses more secure. Schools on the whole can't be considered in this issue because schools with grades preschool through 12 have an attendance of students that don’t legally apply to the issue. Protecting the populace for me is not as important an issue. It is important only for me to protect myself and those I care about in my home or out. The populous can defend themselves in any way they see fit. If however it is an important issue for you to put in protection of the populous I will not deny that request. Gun rights and rights that fall under that umbrella are wide and sweeping in scope. If as we go through this discussion we decide to open more arguments into the gun world I won’t disregard any of the issues. I just think starting with safer college campuses is a good place to begin.

I understand that with finals approaching the discussion may stretch until they are completed and that is fine with me. I also don’t mind the exchange of our ideas being public. I would ask that the forum for the discussion be relatively scholarly and that no other input be recognized by either of us during our discussions. I would also ask that the place where the discussion will be posted be made available to me for my viewing. With these outlines I don’t see why we can’t make some headway in our debate. With this in mind I await your response to my first posting and any other important outlines you’d like to add to the discussion.

---

Frank,
I'm glad to see your response. The blog is at tehjuggernauts.blogspot.com.

Before we get started on the actual meat of the post, I'd like to clarify, if I may. I am concerned that we are starting from an impossible premise. Is your proposition that you should be able to protect yourself and your loved ones anywhere you go, or that we should all be able to protect ourselves and our loved ones anywhere we go?

If it's the first one, then I concede the debate.
As a starting foundation for an argument, it would be hard to figure out a way that you having a gun would be detrimental to your safety, if that's all that you're concerned about. I could probably pull out statistics about how you're more likely to shoot yourself than somebody else if you have a gun, but we all know that's hokey, since they usually include suicides, and you're a responsible gun owner.

The thing is, we're not cowboys out on ranches; we live in a society. Societal living means that we're trying to do what's best for all of us. While it may be beneficial to you to carry around a concealed weapon, we may find it extremely detrimental to the rest of us to allow others to do so. Since both you and I are benefiting from living in this society, and opt to stay here rather than live in the wilderness somewhere (at least for now), I believe that we must look at it from a societal perspective, rather than a selfish one.

Therefore, I believe that we should try to find a way of dealing with carrying concealed handguns that suits everybody.

If you are able to argue your point from a perspective other than "I should be able to protect my family," then we can get somewhere. Otherwise, we cannot.

I look forward to addressing your initial points as soon as we work out what we're arguing for.

-Ryan Culbertson-Faegre

---

That’s fine with me. I don't mind where the debate starts from. The Public at large has the right to carry as well. We all have to pass the same criteria in order to conceal and carry so including everyone is fine with me. I just wanted to begin with CCW on campus due to the fact that I or the rest of the public do not have the right to carry there.

---

Frank,

Excuse me for the absence. I've been busy cranking out term papers.

I'm glad to see that we agree on a starting preposition: that we are looking out for the good of society.

Let's start by talking about a myth: that regulating handguns has anything to do with the constitution.
Now, I'll be the first to agree that we need an armed civilian populace. We, as a nation, would be much more secure if we could protect ourselves, in the case of an overly repressive government, with assault rifles, sniper rifles, and Rocket Propelled Grenades.

I fully support your right to keep whatever combat gear you want stored away in your house. In the unlikely but very real chance that it will ever be useful, I wouldn't want you without it.
However, the right to keep and bare arms is very plainly intended to allow the people to maintain some semblance of a free state. It's in the very wording of the second amendment. Our founding fathers never intended for people to walk around with loaded 1911s stuck up their jackets.

Let's talk about another myth: the regulation of concealed carry is strict enough to bar any immature, crazy, or mentally unstable people from the right to carry a gun around.

A friend of mine was standing in a Taco Bell parking lot smoking with a drug dealer who was sitting there with his friends. The drug dealer pulls out a derringer and shows it to everyone, who is clearly impressed. When my friend tells him that he probably shouldn't be carrying that on him, he replies that it's cool, because he has a Concealed Carry permit.
Now, you're probably thinking, "Hey, that's just an unconfirmed anecdote! That doesn't mean that a damn thing!"
And you're right.

So I present to you the story of Zachary Ourada. Zachary was 26. He had a Concealed Carry permit, and he was drinking in a bar with some friends. He was pretty wasted, and, being a drunken young chav, he started bragging about his Concealed Carry permit, waving it around like a badge, and harassing women. A bouncer asked him to leave, and his friends drove him home. Shortly after, he returned with a handgun, shot the bouncer in the back four times, and then attempted to flee the scene of the crime by jumping in the Mississippi River and swimming away. Needless to say, his clever escape did not work. When the police dragged him out of the river, he exclaimed, "I didn’t do nothin’ wrong, man! I got a permit to carry that bitch!"

Now, the thing about Zachary is, he wasn't a first time offender. He had lost his driver's license for a number of driving offenses, including drunk driving violations. According to a Bureau of Criminal Apprehensions (BCA) report, people have been issued Concealed Carry permits who have been convicted of domestic assaults and firearms violations.

Okay, so how do we fix CCW? Deny more people?
The problem is, if I'm psycho, and don't have a record, I'm probably going to be issued a permit. There's no way of knowing if somebody has a temper that will flare up and cause them to draw on you. Especially if you're a sanctimonious asshole like I am!
Just the other day, for example, I had a crazy man threaten to hit me and pray for my demise to his god for about 15 minutes. As far as I know, that man has no prior criminal convictions, and he still wants me dead.

Now, the argument is: you don't want criminals to be the only people possessing firearms, do you?
No. And I'm not saying most Concealed Carry permit holders are immature or nuts. Most of them aren't. But there are some people who are angry or crazy, and who wouldn't tote a pistol around if we didn't let them. Those people don't usually have a reason to carry a handgun around, especially secretly, besides "self defense". When we let anyone who doesn't have a criminal record and who can shoot straight carry a secret gun around, we're only asking for trouble.

So here's my proposition for fixing CCW: you want to carry a secret handgun, great. You need three things:
1. A reason. Have a dangerous job where you have to deal with shady people (landlord, private detective, etcetera)? Maybe you walk home at night? Great. You can carry a handgun while you're doing whatever it is you do. Just want one to shoot people if they mess with you? No.
2. A mental evaluation. You pay for a full mental evaluation, and if you're deemed fit, great. Any anger problems or messianic complexes? No carrying guns for you.
3. Proper training. This seems to be the only thing CCW's got going for it. People with Concealed Carry permits are generally pretty safe about their guns.

What about keeping us safe at school? That's the main concern here, isn't it? Well, let's just get more security, train 'em, and let 'em keep Glock 23s in their offices. It'd be a little bit more expensive, sure, but I'd readily pay a few bucks extra every semester to have a safer campus.

So, Frank, that's my proposal for a more ideal system. I'd love to hear your take on it.

-Ryan Culbertson-Faegre

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=97142

http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/005868.html

---

I understand the want of better regulations for CCW. That is a step that many gun advocates agree on. We do end up having one problem with the regulation aspect of the government. The more regulations occur the easier it is to document who has what type of firearm there by making it easier for them to be taken away. This same issue has started in a similar fashion in many other countries including Britain, Australia, and now Canada is very close to having firearms removed. The main point being that regulation is the first step to having guns disappear.

I know this has little to do with CCW but I’m going to connect the two I promise. CCW is regulated fairly well throughout the country in the states that have it. The problems stem not from the federal NICS background check but from the local department check. These departments are supposed to go through and have any documented case of violence down to petty theft staked out in the files of people who aren’t supposed to carry. Problems occur however when friends do other friends favors or police do shoddy jobs on the background checks. You can guess how often a pencil pusher officer screws up. This is how the licenses hit the streets legally that aren’t supposed to be there. No matter what happens with regulation there will always be accident due to the fact that no government organization is flawless.

As far as mental fitness that is another story. I see people with firearms everyday that have absolutely no business having them. Working as a range officer I’ve seen every type of poor and dangerous handlings with firearms I can imagine. I’ve even had someone who was mentally deficient come in with a 45 Smith and Wesson M&P. This however brings doctor patient confidentiality into play, which is unfortunate for people like me who have to defend my right to carry everywhere I go. As you said you have people yell that they want to kill you when you and your organization are doing what you do best. Those people that are yelling at you are the people that are a little off balance and tend to take my side of the story. I don’t want them to take my side of the story because they are idiots. You see I don’t want them to have guns any more than you do, but when you start denying more and more people the right to own or carry then you end up tipping balances and causing riots.

The point is that when you allow everyone who hasn’t gone to jail carry a weapon the playing field is level. In actuality more people stay in line when CCW laws are in effect because they don’t know who might be carrying a weapon. Criminals even act a little more sheepish. We know they are going to have guns no matter what, but when laws allow others to have guns they have to think a little more about their targets. The little old lady walking home from the store may not be so easy a target after all. The reason for CCW is to make your self a hard target. Criminals are everywhere and they thrive on easy targets because they themselves are cowards.

I do like your idea about giving guards on campus guns. I was going to say campus security now is nothing more than glorified parking attendants. Keep in mind though police officers much less security guards only fire their weapons once maybe twice a year when they have to qualify for their job. That’s right most police officers are terrible marksmen. I have fun taking them into the range and out shooting them. This is another main reason why I would rather have my own weapon to protect myself because I know that I have the ability with the firearm to use it correctly.

I have seen everything on campus from you Spaghetti guys to old Jed and I know that everyone is a little crazy. I for one am a conspiracy theorist. Many of which you might find not so far from being true. Many very liberal portions of the government are doing everything they can to have all ammunition bar coded or creating gun powder that expires after three years. These are things that stem from more regulations. In my mind we are never to far from a “Red Dawn” situation.

If we could have a properly trained person in every building on campus that could neutralize a threat I would feel safer, but that as we can tell from our money stupid school is not fiscally sound. A few students getting killed would only fuel government funding to improve security so why improve it now when they can get paid to do it after. I just think that you, myself, and every other law abiding citizen should carry some kind of firearm on their person at all times provided that they are of age and not a felon. Look at Sweden everyone there has a fully automatic weapon and that seems to be the happiest place on earth.

I know people are going to have CCW that shouldn’t and I know not everyone with a gun should have one but that makes it even more important for those of us that can have them to have them. I am glad that we can agree on the fact that our campus is not even close to being secure. I think that is a step forward in this debate.

My Proposition

1) Going through a training course and law study session about CCW laws. (already exists)
2) Making sure all applicants have no mental defects. (hard, but needs to be done)
3) The federal and local background check preformed correctly putting the officer in charge of check legally responsible for any misdeed done by the new CCW holder. (that will get the desk jockeys in line)
4) Once these criteria are met those then legally allowed to carry can do so anywhere they deem fit.

This is my proposal. Fairly similar I know. In fact it’s a little more stringent, but in the end I still think those passing the credentials should still be allowed to carry anywhere.

Your Take

---

Frank,
Once again, sorry about the absence.

We're obviously in agreement regarding a lot of things. Specifically, our views on the right to keep guns, and our views about some of the people who want to walk around with guns: that they are idiots. Our main difference of opinion seems to be whether or not people should be allowed to carry their guns around all the time.

First, I'm going to address the slippery slope argument that you've presented. You say that once you start regulating guns, they'll start getting banned and restricted.
This same argument can be applied to anyone. I could just as easily say that if you restrict alcohol, soon you'll end up with prohibition. Obviously this is not the case. Or that if you let homosexuals marry, next you'll have babies marrying common household appliances. These are obviously ridiculous assertions.
I believe that if you're seeing trends favoring regulation and then illegalization in other countries, it has more to do with a general consensus shifting towards regulation than it does legal precedent.

Fortunately, we don't have to argue about that, because I'm on your side regarding the regulation of guns. I don't want anyone (not the government, not you, and not anyone else I don't expressly inform) to know whether or not I have guns, ammunition, grenades, or anything else. I believe that there's a historical precedent favoring populations that are heavily armed when it comes to occupation (see Iraq). Now, I'm not saying that there's GONNA be a revolution, an occupation, or anything of the sort in my lifetime. But you can't blame a guy for wanting to be ready just in case.

See, the only problem is, I don't want people to shoot me. This isn't a problem if people are keeping their guns under lock and key in their homes. I'm probably not going to come over for dinner if I don't trust you not to shoot me. And I certainly wouldn't blame you for shooting me if I was takin' your stuff at night. I don't rob people, so it's not really a concern. So there doesn't seem to be any reason that I wouldn't want you to have guns. However, I do go around campus pissing people off (who sometimes think that they have God on their side, and that he's willing them to kill me). This is a Constitutional right to free speech that I'm invoking, and I don't want that put in danger by some guy with a gun. Right now, I'm not too worried about getting shot, 'cause we're not allowed to have guns on campus, and most of these crazy people are actually pretty law-abiding. However, I wouldn't put it past one of these guys to get pissed off and cap me for God if I said something blasphemous and he was carrying.

My solution to the problem is to limit Concealed Carry to people who are in dangerous situations, and to increase police activity and accountability. Further, I think we should let security guards on campus get trained and keep weapons in their cars, just in case.
I completely agree with the increases in regulation that you want to attach to the Concealed Carry permit. I only fear that allowing everyday people access to weapons in public places is asking for trouble, and arming even more people is not a particularly enlightened solution. You can test for severe mental instability, but it's much more difficult to test for a hot, and deadly, temper.

-Ryan