Conscience, Death, and Marriage

Earlier this year, a bill that would make certain instances of assisted suicide legal in the state of California was passed by the state Senate and is now trying to slip through the assembly via a special session, according to Los Angeles Times reporter George Skelton.1 Modeled after a similar law that has been active in Oregon, the California bill would allow patients who supposedly have less than six months to live to end their lives by taking lethal drugs prescribed by a physician.

These kinds of laws are problematic for a number of reasons, which I will go into in a later article. However, Skelton made one comment in his opinion piece as he tried to sell the legislation that caught my eye. He wrote, "To protect hospitals and physicians from acting against their beliefs, none would be required to participate."2When I reviewed the actual legislation, it did indeed contain a clause for conscience. SB-128, Sect 443.14 (e)(1) reads:

Participation in activities authorized pursuant to this part shall be voluntary. Notwithstanding Sections 442 to 442.7, inclusive, a person or entity that elects, for reasons of conscience, morality, or ethics, not to engage in activities authorized pursuant to this part is not required to take any action in support of an individual's decision under this part.

Isn't that interesting? A physician, a hospital, or any other appropriately licensed individual or organization may refuse the wishes of the patient "for reasons of conscience, morality, or ethics.” This runs contrary to what normally happens when patients walk into care facility and are suffering. Doctors are supposed to alleviate suffering. Emergency rooms are required by law to take in and examine all patients who complain of significant pain, whether they can pay or not. It would seem the responsibility of hospitals would be the same in this instance as the patient is still suffering, but it's due in this instance to a terminal illness.

The Double Standard

Don't get me wrong. I'm no supporter of this legislation, and I'm glad that doctors will have the opportunity to opt out if it violates their beliefs. But here's the thing; a suffering person is a far more urgent situation than say a wedding and a physician carries a far greater responsibility to the public good than a cake baker or photographer does. It is a more urgent situation than having one's employer pay for whatever kind of birth control will help you fulfill your carnal desires. Why then would democratic legislatures in the state of California include such an extremely wide and open conscience clause in this piece of legislation when we are told over and over that belief isn't something that should affect one's profession? Why aren't the pro-assisted suicide groups rallying to throw out this exception, complaining that it's inherently discriminatory, that one's beliefs shouldn't impose on the suffering patient, or that any person who chose to go into health care should have known that they may need to provide life-ending drugs?

One can quickly see the disconnect in the two positions. If belief, moral conviction, or ethical understanding is enough reason for any doctor or an entire institution like a hospital to refuse to alleviate the suffering of a patient, then it is clearly more than enough reason to refuse to bake a wedding cake or take pictures at someone's wedding. Skelton trumpets the exemption in the bill as a good thing. Would he be willing to support such legislation if that clause stood alone, such as a Religious Freedom bill? Or is this clause to get the camel's nose under the tent until a judge decides to wipe out the exception through judicial fiat? I can only surmise, but one thing is clear. It is wholly inconsistent to uphold an exemption for belief when suffering is involved but to say one's convictions don't count in lesser circumstances.

References

1. Skelton, George. "Legislature's Action on 'right to Die' Bill Is Fair and Square." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 24 Aug. 2015. Web. 24 Aug. 2015. http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-cap-special-session-20150824-column.html.
2. Skelton, 2015.

What Archaeology Can and Can't Do (video)

Archaeology has helped the biblical scholar put together a lot of pieces from the stories of the Bible. It has shown many places and events to be true. Yet, archaeology cannot be the silver bullet that proves God's existence or that the Bible is his inspired word.

In this short clip, Lenny outlines just how archaeology can illuminate the biblical accounts and why it isn't the last word on faith.

Naturalism and the Problem of Living a Good Life

Scott Rae, in the introduction to his book Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, lays out some of the reasons the study of ethics is important and why the modern assumption of naturalism endangers the concept of even a good life:

Most people, when they are genuinely being honest with themselves, associate doing well in life with being a good person. Having moral character is still essential to most people's conceptions of what makes a person flourish in his or her life. For example, it is difficult to imagine a person being considered a success in life if he has gained his wealth dishonestly. It is equally difficult to call a person a success who is at the top of his profession but cheats on his wife, abuses his children, and drinks too much. On the other hand, we rightly hold up a person like Mother Teresa as a model of living a good life, even though she lacked most material goods that society values. One of the principal reasons for being moral is that it is central to most concepts of human fulfillment. For the Christian, being moral is critical to a life that seeks to honor God. We could say that being moral is inherently good because it is foundational to a person's flourishing in life, since doing well in life and being a good person still go together for most people.

…

These reasons for the importance of studying ethics all presume that there is as genuine moral knowledge. But that notion is being increasingly called into question in philosophy today as a result of the cultural dominance of the worldview of naturalism. Among other things, the naturalist holds that all reality is reducible to that which can be perceived with one's senses—that is, there is nothing that is real or counts for knowledge that is not verifiable by the senses. As a result, moral knowledge has been reduced to the realm of belief and is considered parallel to religious beliefs, which the culture widely holds are not verifiable. The theist maintains that moral knowledge is genuine knowledge in the same way that scientific knowledge is real—that the notion that "murder is wrong" can be known .as true and cannot be reduced to subjective opinion or belief without the risk of all morality being subjective. The theist argues that no one lives consistently, as though morality were entirely subjective, and that moral truths do exist and can be known as such.1

References

1. Rae, Scott B. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 2000. Print. 11,13

Making an Atheist by Listening to Echoes

In his article "How Facebook Made Me an Atheist," Mike Frederick Ziethlow tells his story of moving to disbelief. He recounts his tearful wedding vow, telling his wife "I love that God gave you to me." From there, it becomes only a matter of months until his interaction with social media let him to conclude two things: 1) people will believe anything, like a quote misattributed to Churchill, and 2)people will generally be uncritical to the extent of reinforcing their own biases.1 Ziethlow then concludes, "Once I realized I'm just as fallible as the next, liking things that confirm my beliefs, sharing things that echo my perspective, I understood how lies really do get halfway around the world while the truth remains pantless." It is from this framework that Ziethlow begins questioning the Christian faith he was given buy his parents, ultimately becoming an atheist.

Setting the Bible Up to Fail

I think the initial questions Ziethlow asks are worthy and should be asked by each person. One cannot live on the faith of one's parents; each person must seek out the truth for him or herself. What bothers me about Zeithow's story is how he proceeded to investigate the Christian faith. He admits that he didn't really know a lot about Christianity and he was "starting from scratch." So, he figures reading the Bible will sort it all out. However, he sets up the biblical text to fail even before he begins by creating a false dilemma. He recounts:

Now, starting from scratch, the first question I had was whether to take the Bible literally or metaphorically. If you are a literalist, fine — you trust the Word of God is inerrant. If you are a metaphorist, your faith may be "on sand." For example, which parts do you take literally, and which do you take figuratively? Earth created in six days? Talking snake? The dead rising? Unfortunately for metaphorists, the Bible is quite clear these things must be accepted, and that if you are "lukewarm" on the subject, He will spit you out. So literalism — trusting that the Word of God is all you need — is really the only logically defensible position for a religion that repeatedly claims as much.2

The stark either/or approach to literal or metaphorical text has never been advocated by the Bible or anyone who teaches the Bible. In fact, to read any text in such a way is to mangle the text itself. Even our modern day newspapers cannot be approached in such a wooden fashion. Just go to the Sports page of your local paper and you will see that in even this literal medium is replete with metaphors and hyperbole. Was that baseball team really torpedoed?3 Wouldn't that constitute an act of war? Aren't newspapers supposed to only deal in facts? If so, then why should I take anything as metaphorical when a paper is quite clear that it is a paper devoted to presenting news stories?

Dismissing a Childish Faith

Given this foundation, Zeithlow unsurprisingly finds his journey through the biblical accounts less than believable. He dismisses a young earth creation reading of Genesis, the global flood of Noah, and Joshua's long day as impossible because "laws in the observable universe tested time and again by science and physics would prove untrue." Notice two things here. First, a miracle is defined as an event that suspends the laws of science (physics being a sub-branch of the larger discipline), so Zeithlow's concern is demonstrably false. Miracles don't disprove the laws of nature, they are exceptions to them. Secondly, if Zeithlow would have consulted with those who know about biblical exegesis, he may have found out that there are good Christians who are divided as to what those passages really mean.

The primary problem with Zeithlow's approach is it isn't rational. In his article, he never states that he consulted with biblical scholars or even pastoral commentaries to uncover what the biblical text meant. Perhaps if he did he would have found out that the story of "a guy chopp[ing] up his recently-raped concubine and mailed her body parts all over the country" isn't commended but condemned in the book of Judges, a book that repeats the warning "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6. 21:25). Instead, all of Zeithlow's references and recommendations are of atheists who helped him move "from the Bible to science."

Listening to the Echo Chamber

One can see the irony here. Zeithlow has committed the very flaw that he condemned at the beginning of his piece. He confirmed his hunch that God wasn't real by liking people who confirmed that hunch and he shared those sources that echoed that perspective—the very problem he decried at the beginning of his article! There is no real investigation of the Christian faith, something that may take more effort than asking a few Facebook friends to help you out. In order to be fair, one should seek out the best arguments for a position, not simply straw men.

Given how Zeithlow describes Christianity, I would tell him I don't believe in such a faith either. My belief is much more mature, much more robust, and much more capable at handling issues he hasn't even brought up. I take its foundational texts not simply "literally" but seriously, seeking to understand the author's intent. If he is willing to investigate the true Christian faith, I'm more than willing to help point him to an adult understanding. Otherwise, it seems Zeithlow is the one caught with his pants down.

References

1. Ziethlow, Mike Frederick. "How Facebook Made Me an Atheist." Medium. A Medium Corporation, 19 Aug. 2015. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. https://medium.com/@mikefziethlow/how-facebook-made-me-an-atheist-a5d0e19046c6.
2. Ziethlow, 2015.
3. Digiovanna, Mike. "Angels Can't Complete White Sox Sweep after Fatal Fifth Inning." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 20 Aug. 2015. Web. 21 Aug. 2015. http://www.latimes.com/sports/angels/la-sp-angels-20150821-story.html.
Image courtesy Nevit Dilmen - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons.

If You Want to be Reasonable, Then You May Have to Believe

I've had the opportunity to interact with many people who would classify themselves as either atheists or agnostics. (Sometimes, they try to classify themselves as both, but that's an untenable position. ) While theists and atheists will argue back and forth on the legitimacy and support for each one's position, it is the agnostic position that intrigues me the most. Many agnostics claim to be reasonable people who rely on evidence and rationality to come to a conclusion about God. But is the person who withholds a belief always more reasonable than one who accepts it? In a word, no.

To Hold a Justified Belief

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy identified Roderick Chisholm as "one of the most creative, productive, and influential American philosophers of the 20th Century."1 Chisholm studied an area of philosophy devoted to understanding how we know things, called epistemology. His book A Theory of Knowledge provides a strong framework for what constitutes a rational belief. There, Chisholm explains that to have not simply a belief (which anyone can hold about anything—reasonable or not), but to have a justified belief is to "say something about the reasonableness of that belief." 2 Chisholm goes on to explain that when we make statements like "one who believes in X is at least as justified as one who withholds belief in X" we are making a claim that each position is equally reasonable; that is there is just as much reason to withhold that particular belief as there is to affirm that belief.

However, Chisholm makes the point that if arguments or evidence are presented that argue for a particular belief, the equation changes. To withhold a belief is to be neutral, not to take sides either way. For example, I'm completely neutral as to whether I think the Philadelphia Phillies will be playing in the World Series. I do not follow baseball closely and I don't know the standings of the teams. But after I look at the standings, even for a moment, I would no longer be neutral. Given the Phillies are last in their division and have a record of 47 wins versus 73 loses, it would be unreasonable for me to remain neutral on this question. Knowing the standings doesn't give me certainty about my belief, but I'm more justified in holding to the belief that the Phillies won't make it to the World Series.

Chisholm argues in a similar way when he writes that "St. Augustine suggests that, even though there may be ground to question the reliability of the senses, most of us are more justified most of the time believing that we can rely upon them than believing that we can not rely upon them" (emphasis in the original).3 Because there is good evidence that our sense tell us the truth about the world most of the time, it is more reasonable to believe what our senses tell us rather than doubt that they are providing truthful information. If additional evidence is offered (i.e. the person is having an extraordinary sensory experience and has taken a hallucinogenic) then we can adjust the justification to that additional information and say one may be more justified to not believe their senses in that instance. However, neutrality, what Chisholm calls counterbalanced, is a difficult position to maintain.

Can Agnostics Be Counterbalanced?

Given the fact that arguments and evidence changes the equation of belief, I must question those who claim to be agnostic on their position. It is not reasonable to withhold a belief if there are facts that argue either for or against a position. The agnostic wishes to stay neutral on the question of God's existence, but we know quite a bit that makes neutrality a less reasonable position than that held by the theist. We know that something doesn't appear from nothing. We know that consciousness has never materialized from non-conscious material. We know that at least some people have reported seeing miracles and we know that includes the reporting of seeing the resurrected Jesus. All these facts point to the existence of a God. If one were to argue against these as evidence for God's existence, then the burden would be upon that person to show why their approach isn't assuming atheism rather than agnosticism. But to simply claim to withhold belief given the facts above is simply not justified. It is what Chisholm would call unreasonable.

References

1. Feldman, Richard and Feldman, Fred, "Roderick Chisholm", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/chisholm/.
2. Chisholm, Roderick M. Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1989. Print. 8
3. Chisholm, 1989. 8.