Right Reason

I apologise in advance for the very 80s looking video, but the theme of this song is perfect for 4th of July celebrations. The song is “Independence Day” by Whiteheart.

Here are the lyrics:

Listen to our declaration
Listen to our testament
We’ve been given a revelation
We’re sure of where we stand

It’s why we call it Independence Day
I call it Independence Day
Let the doubters call it what they may
‘Cause we call it Independence Day

OK, so as you know things have been quiet on the podcast front lately. We’re pretty busy getting ready to move house next week plus I’ve got a couple of other commitments at the moment. But here’s what’s coming up:

First, there’s the series In Search of the Soul that I will (I promise!) be finishing. The next episode will be on physicalism, the one after that will be on the problem of resurrection, and then the final episode in the series will look briefly at the issue from a biblical perspective.

After that, I plan the next podcast episode to be on the descensus ad Infernos, Christ’s (supposed) descent into hell, expressed in a rather late entry into the Apostles’ Creed (although never actually taught by the Apostles). I’ll have a few things to say on the history of the doctrine and I’ll explain why I don’t think that Christians should affirm it.

Before I get around to this, however, I will be preaching at our church on the evening of the 12th of July, right after we’ve moved into our new place. I’ll be preaching on Psalm 69. I’ll record the message and release it here as a podcast.

My blogging output will be pretty low until after we’ve moved into our new place, so sit tight!

Over the last few years I’ve noticed a pattern. I’ve seen plenty of skeptics present arguments against Christianity or certain aspects of Christianity like its moral code, its metaphysical beliefs and so forth. What I’ve noticed is that when a spokesperson presents an argument (say, against the “horrible” God of the Old Testament) and the fans or fellows gather around and agree loudly, it is seen as not merely mistaken, but actually inappropriate or somehow bad form – ruining the party I guess – to step forward and point out that whatever its logical merits (or lack thereof), the argument actually gets the facts wrong.

I can recall discussions on abortion, for example, where skeptics have regarded me as “pedantic” for explaining the meaning of biblical language in Exodus 21 or Genesis 2:7 (even where the meaning of this language was central to their own argument). I’ve encountered skeptics who try to argue that the Old Testament teaches polytheism, and they’ve gotten literally angry with me when I explain the way the plural elohim is used in Scripture (because that word forms a key part of their argument). Sometimes the facts are just annoying, and to bring them up is just nitpicking and anti-social.

The most recent case is that of John Loftus. Loftus has complained in the past about the fact that the Old Testament endorses slavery. He describes the brutality of slavery in the southern states (when people were kidnapped in Africa and sold to slave traders traveling to the New World ) including the vicious beating and mistreatment of slaves, and connects this to the Old Testament, saying “Why didn’t the Christian God ever explicitly and clearly condemn slavery?”

One response that has been available to this challenge for a very long time is that offered by John Locke and by a whole range of Christian thinkers as well. For a good summary of these argument check out a recent blog by Matt over at M and M. The thrust of the reply is to point out certain facts about “slavery” as described in the Torah. The word `eved refers to anyone who works (or worships, actually), and is related to the verb for “work,” so that a farmer who “works the soil” slaves away at the soil. The actual description of Old Testament slavery is revealing. As Matt notes, 1) Kidnapping is a capital offence in the Torah (Ex 21:16), and slave trading appears to be condemned in a couple of New Testament texts as well, 2) an `eved is stated to be a person with the same value as other people, 3) harming or killing an `eved was prohibited and subject to punishment, 4) being an `eved was a temporary arrangement and did not last indefinitely, and 4) it was against the law to return a fleeing `eved to a master.

Given what the Bible actually prohibits and condemns in these requirements, the Old Testament actually condemns what we call “slavery” as it was practiced in the southern states. Check out Matt’s post and the comments for a fuller explanation. In short, if the facts presented by Locke and others are indeed facts, then the Old testament does not endorse “slavery” but clearly condemns it. But what I noticed in particular is that Loftus has now replied with a post of his own – not a post about how Matt has the facts wrong. No, nothing of the sort, but instead a complaint that what Matt is doing is “nit picking”! In his post, “Nit pickers have started to attack,” he replies:

What I find interesting, Matt, is that you have not addressed my main question in my book: “Why didn’t the Christian God ever explicitly and clearly condemn slavery?…why didn’t God tell his people, “Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, or trade slaves,” and say it as often as he needed to?

Apparently it’s just in poor taste and really just skirts around the edges to point out that contrary to the claims that some skeptics love to make, the Old Testament does not endorse what we call slavery. But I daresay that annoyance has clouded John’s vision, for what has been shown is that in fact God did condemn kidnapping and/or mistreating people, the very things that Loftus is concerned about and which he is calling “slavery.” it may be irritating to have the rug ripped out from under your argument, but getting annoyed and demanding that people deal with the “main” argument by pretending that the rug is still there (for the sake of your argument and nothing else) is a bit of an ask, don’t you think? Why not just graciously thank the other person for their helpful explanation and remove the argument from your repertoire? Does skepticism really need this argument to work that much? Are the facts really that annoying that when they are brought up you dismiss them as side issues or distractions?

But as if this isn’t enough, look at the emphasis given to the false claim about a “side issue”:

Was your God as clear on this issue as he was about murder? Oh, that’s not a good analogy because, well, you know, genocide, the witch hunts, heresy trials and the crusades. Hmmmm. Okay, let’s try this one: Was your God as clear about this as he was that we should love our neighbors? Oh, that’s not a good analogy because, well, you know, the question was “who is my neighbor?” right? But once you get my point you’ll have no good answers to this problem and you know it, so instead you side-step it as you did here. That’s what it takes to believe, Matt, side stepping problems because you cannot reasonably explain them.

Notice two things: Firstly, virtually everything in the above quote is in fact a case of “side stepping.” It makes literally no attempt to engage the facts that the Christian reply raises, instead it leaps away to other “bogeymen” type argument full of rhetorical flourish. But secondly, Loftus repeats the claim that the facts that Christians bring up here (namely, the fact that biblical servitude was very different from the case of southern slavery that Loftus describes, and that God actually condemns those practices explicitly and on more than one occasion) are side steps, and that to even mention them at all is just an attempt to get away from the challenge altogether because the Christian has “no answers.”

That’s right. To actually reply by saying that the skeptic has the facts wrong is just not the thing to do, because it distracts from the fun of, well, skepticism! What a bunch of party poopers those Christians are. 🙁

Glenn Peoples

I figured this sort of empty threat would be made, which is why I posted my earlier blog entry on David Bain, Reasonable Doubt and Defamation.

As is no secret, not everyone agrees with jury verdicts. The David Bain trial is no exception, and some people still believe that David Bain murdered his Family. Some of them have even started a Facebook group  called “David Bain is Guilty” for people who think that this is true.

Apparently some media law experts think that this makes those people vulnerable to a defamation suit. Their reasons for saying so, however, are not at all compelling. According to media law lecturer Ursula Cheer, even a small note on a person’s facebook account indicating that they were part of this group could be an act of defamation. Wellington media law lecturer Steven price had this to say:

“The main defence would be, is it true? And if David Bain wanted to test that in court he could sue for defamation.”

The person making the claim would then have to prove on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Bain did it, Mr Price said.

“And that’s very different from a standard of reasonable doubt.”

Yes, it is a different standard from reasonable doubt – and that works in favour of the person making the accusation. It means that a person making the accusation doesn’t have to prove David’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It means that they would only have to show that it was more probable than not, which is a lighter burden of proof. Saying “and that’s a very different standard from a standard of reasonable doubt” as though that should be a daunting thing for the accuser is just strange. But secondly, that’s not the main defence at all. As I noted in my earlier blog on the subject, the accuser does not have to show that it’s true at all. All he needs to show is that it’s a belief that he reasonably holds, which is a much smaller burden of proof again.

These threatening sounding warnings carry no real weight. If you really do think that David did it, then as long as you hold your belief reasonably, you are allowed to say so in whatever forum you like.

Glenn Peoples

And now for something completely different. This may be my favourite ever TV advertisement:

As readers will probably know, George Tiller was shot dead recently. He was an abortionist who carried out late term abortions, and he was killed at church.

The response from the anti-abortion community was more or less as I expected it to be, and it is a perspective I share: Morally, George Tiller deserved to be punished for his horrific acts, killing a very large number of babies. However, this does not justify vigilante violence, what the shooter did was wrong and he deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. Edward Feser furnishes what I take to be a typical example of this perspective. He says that while abortion is a terrible thing to do, “vigilantism is a grave offense against the moral and social order,” that “no private citizen has the right to take justice into his own hands,” and that “Tiller’s murderer ought to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.”

I’m not going to seriously entertain the possibility that Feser was ambiguous. He was not. He was extremely clear. Pro-choicer Brian Leiter wasn’t mistaken. He is an out-and-out liar trying to deceive people about the facts and use his lies to gain sympathy for abortion. As Feser notes, here’s what Leiter had to say HERE:

What’s wrong with the world? People like Ed Feser (Pasadena City College), apologist for discrimination, now apologist for murder.

“Apologist for murder.” Yes, that’s a link to Ed’s article where he specifically states that vigilante violence is wrong and the shooter deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Lying Leiter is claiming that Dr Feser is an “apologist,” that is a defender, of what the shooter did.

I guess this is one of those situations where the cause is so precious that truth is a distraction.

Glenn Peoples

David Bain was found not guilty of murder, but given the rather divisive nature of the high profile case, there are still people who believe that he committed the murders of his family in 1994. This raises in my mind an interesting question about what people are allowed to say about their beliefs in public. In particular, it raises the question of what does and does not count as defamation or libel.

Read More

Today, at the conclusion of what was probably New Zealand’s most closely followed murder (re)trial ever, David Bain was found not guilty of killing his parents and three siblings in Dunedin in 1994.

I don’t quite know what I think about whether or not David did it. “What?” you might say. “But the court found that he didn’t do it!” No, actually it did not. I want to stress before writing this that I’m not saying he did it. Maybe – and hopefully – he didn’t. But this high profile case does present the opportunity to correct a mistaken, although widely held, view of exactly what a “not guilty” verdict really is. There’s a common belief afoot that when a court declares a person “not guilty,” they are making the claim about history like this:  “It’s a fact that this person did not do what he is accused of.” Some media outlets perpetuate this belief. For example in the news article linked above, we read, “Bain spent 13 years in jail for a crime the jury took five hours and 50 minutes to decide he didn’t do.”

Although common, this view of a not guilty verdict is mistaken. Yes, a person is regarded (presumed) by law as innocent until proven guilty, so the law will treat people who are found not guilty as innocent people – as it certainly should. They will still be presumed innocent by the law. But there is a difference between legally declaring a person not guilty and stating that it has been proven that they did not do what they are accused of.

In the Scottish court, a third verdict is available – “not proven.” In our court, only two are available: Guilty or not guilty. Guilty means that the evidence establishes that the person has committed the offence in question. Our broader “not guilty” verdict actually encompasses both the Scottish “not guilty” as well as the Scottish “not proven.” “Not proven” itself also encompasses both of these, since when a person is deemed “not guilty” the case against them is deemed “not proven.” The upshot of all this is that when our courts find a person “not guilty,” they are actually commenting on the case for their guilt, not on the facts of history.

If this seems a little odd to you, think of it in logical notation. In such notation the symbol ~ means “not” or “it’s not the case that.” Let G = Guilty, which means “the prosecution has established that this person committed the crime.” “Not guilty” is ~G, which means “it’s not the case that the prosecution has established that this person committed the crime.” Many members of the public aren’t aware of this, and they wrongly assume that ~G means “it is the case that the defense has established that this person did not commit the crime.” But this is not contained in either ~ or G.

Legal experts concerned about the public perception of high profile cases have been expressing this concern for some time. In 1994 Lord Donaldson advocated that Britain adopt the “not proven” verdict instead of “not guilty,” precisely because “not guilty” gives the misleading impression that the court has found a person to be innocent. “[t]he verdict of ‘not guilty’,” said Donaldson, “says nothing about innocence. It simply says that the jury was not wholly sure that the accused committed the crime.” Bear in mind after all, in order to find a person not guilty, all the defense has to do is introduce reasonable doubt. In case there was any room for doubt as to his meaning, Donaldson says again: “The only real issue for the jury is whether they are sure the accused is guilty. Whether he is innocent or not is irrelevant for their purpose, and it is a pity that this is generally not understood.” [The Mail on Sunday, 4th Sept 1994, my birthday, incidentally]

It has been established that it has not been established that David Bain committed these murders. Is he innocent? I hope so, and I certainly have no basis for treating him as guilty.

Glenn Peoples