Axiology is a branch of philosophy that studies values. Axiology includes questions about the nature of values, how they are classified, and what things have value. It also includes the study of value judgments, especially in ethics.
To be meaningful, in an objective sense, axiological statements must have the force of obligating a moral agent to either perform a prescribed action or prohibit him from carrying one out. If that force is not sufficiently authoritative, by what right may any human impose his personal convictions on other humans?
If moral obligations aren’t grounded in a sufficiently authoritative way, then we are not justified in making absolute moral pronouncements. We have no warrant to say things like, “striving to eliminate poverty is objectively good” or that “racial oppression has and will always be bad, in all places and for all peoples”. Nor would one have any basis to say that "rape is wrong, or that "torturing babies for fun is morally wrong".
Only a transcendent Person who is rightly authorized in and of himself (since he alone is the author of all created things) to hold us accountable for them is justified in making absolute moral pronouncements.
Objectively binding moral obligations can’t rightfully be imposed from within the human community, regardless of consensus by any arrangement of individuals in that community. They must come from a source external to the community (i.e. not derived from but independent of the community). That source would have an authoritative claim on the community because it would have constituted the community.
It would also have an immutable nature, without which moral imperatives are subject to change over time. The only qualified candidate, with no conceivable substitute capable of satisfying the requirements for grounding objective morality, is God. Only his character – his intrinsically good nature – establishes the basis for why all people are properly obligated to be good.
Is there any reason to conclude that a prefect God, who created humans for a purpose, could not provide them a morality that is free from bias, individual perspectives, cultural norms, and societal values - i.e. objective morality?
Objection 1: One can be moral without believing in God.
Reply: I’m not saying one can’t be a good, moral person unless you believe in God. I’m saying that if you accept the reality of objectively binding moral values, yet you can’t provide a coherent explanation for how to derive them, then your view of the world is incoherent.
And if you do not accept the reality of objectively binding moral values, if morality is simply the subjective realm of desires and preferences that invariably differ from one individual to the next, then one cannot say anything is right or wrong; good or evil; moral or immoral.
Objection 2: All morality is subjective
Reply: if you do not accept the reality of objectively binding moral values, if morality is simply the subjective realm of desires and preferences that invariably differ from one individual to the next, then one cannot say anything is right or wrong; good or evil; moral or immoral.
Many people are fascinated by the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence. The late Christopher Hitchens called the fine-tuning argument “the most intriguing.” Physicist Sean Carroll referred to it as “the best argument that the theists have when it comes to cosmology.”
But just like other arguments for God’s existence, there are rejoinders. One popular-level response is called “the puddle analogy.” The analogy was originally expressed in Douglas Adams’s The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time:
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
Some think the puddle analogy deals a fatal blow against the fine-tuning argument. If the pondering puddle shouldn’t be surprised about its existence, we shouldn’t either. But does the analogy work? Are advocates of the fine-tuning argument engaging in “puddle thinking?”
Arguments from analogy are a kind of inductive argument. Basically, they reason that because two things are similar, what is true of the first is also true of the second. For an argument from analogy to work, the analogy has to be a good analogy
Of course, no analogy is perfect—there will always be differences. But for an argument from analogy to work, the similarities have to be significant, and the differences have to be superficial. But if the opposite is true—if the differences are significant and the similarities are superficial—well, then, we have a problem. In other words, if the analogy fails, so does the argument.
Puddle Problems
In a recent article titled “The Trouble with Puddle Thinking,” astronomers Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes explain why this analogy fails.
Consider more closely the puddle’s reasoning. Let’s name our puddle Doug. He has noticed a precise match between two things: 1) his shape and 2) the shape of the hole in which he lives. Doug is amazed! What Doug doesn’t know is that, given A) the fluidity of water, B) the solidity of the hole, and C) the constant downward force of gravity, he will always take the same shape as his hole. If the hole had been different, his shape would adjust to match it. Any hole will do for a puddle. [Emphasis added.]
This is precisely where the analogy fails: any universe will not do for life. Life is not a fluid. It will not adjust to any old universe. There could have been a completely dead universe: perhaps one that lasts for 1 second before recollapsing or is so sparse that no two particles ever interact in the entire history of the universe. [source]
In the puddle analogy, the puddle can exist in any hole. That’s how puddles work. The shape of the hole is irrelevant to the existence of the puddle. If you change the shape of the hole, the shape of the puddle changes, but you always get a puddle.
The problem is, life doesn’t work like that. Life cannot exist in any universe. The evidence from fine-tuning shows that a life-permitting universe is extremely rare. If you change certain conditions of the universe just slightly, you cannot get life anywhere in the universe. For instance, slightly increase the mass of the electron or the up quark, and get a universe with nothing but neutrons. No stars. No planets. No chemistry. No life.
The significant difference: We know that changing the dimensions of a hole does not affect the existence of the puddle. Any old hole will do. There is no fine-tuning for puddles. However, we also know that changing the conditions of the universe does affect the existence of life. There is fine-tuning for life.
So, the puddle analogy has a problem. And it’s a big one. It’s a false analogy. The analogy doesn’t work because getting a life-permitting universe is vastly different from getting a puddle-permitting hole.
Within the context of a life-permitting universe, fine-tuning involves “the claim that the laws of nature, the fundamental parameters of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe are set just right for life to occur.” Robin Collins, The Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos: A Fresh Look at Its Implications,” in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, 207.
In other words, certain physical constants and quantities exist within an exceedingly narrow range that favors the appearance of life.
This does not mean, necessarily, that the universe was designed but, rather, as physicist Luke Barnes states: “In the set of fundamental parameters (constants and initial conditions) of nature… an extraordinarily small subset would have resulted in a universe able to support the complexity required by life.” But the implication is that it is more likley to have occured via design than by chance.
Reasonable Faith video
Examples of fine Tuning
Even the tiniest change to any constants or quantities will result in a universe incapable of supporting life. For example, if the gravitational fine structure constant (i.e., a measure of the strength of the interaction between charged particles and the electromagnetic force) was slightly smaller, existing matter would have expanded too far and rapidly to form stars and planets. Hence, no life could have formed.
On the other hand, if the gravitational value was too large, the universe would have collapsed on itself, and the stars would have burned out too quickly to allow the existence of life. Moreover, if the electromagnetic force did not exist, there would be no complex chemistry. The chemicals essential for life would be too unstable to allow proper bonding, and there would be insufficient carbon and oxygen to support life.
Alternate views
While some believe that the many observed constants and quantities seem finely tuned for developing intelligent life, others have suggested that there is no way to scientifically test the effect of fine-tuning since there is no way to adjust the values to observe the consequences. As physicist Sabine Hossenfelder stated, a fine-tuned universe represents “an observational constraint on our parameters.” In other words, our knowledge of fine-tuning is interesting but is of limited scientific value since the parameters cannot be changed.
The Fine Tuned Argument [FTA] claims that, given the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of a
life-permitting universe is very unexpected given naturalism — that “there is only one world, the natural world . . . [which] evolves according to unbroken patterns,
the laws of nature” (Carroll, The Big Picture, 20)—but not particularly unexpected given
theism—that God exists. It thus provides evidence for the existence of God.
Faced with his
own fine-tuning discoveries in physics and astronomy, Fred Hoyle commented
that, “a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect
has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there
are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature” (Hoyle, p16).
Virtually no scientists dispute the science behind fine-tuning. What they dispute is what it all means. Three popular explanations for the existence of a fine-tuned universe are:
1) the multiverse explanation
2) fine-tuning is a brute fact of a universe brought about by chance (i.e., single-universe naturalism)
3) the design hypothesis
The Multiverse
The multiverse explanation of fine-tuning proposes the existence of a vast, if not infinite, number of universes with different initial conditions or fundamental boundaries of physics and perhaps even different laws of nature. If there were an endless system of universes, we could expect that at least one universe would be structured to support intelligent “observers.” Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised to find human-like life forms or other embodied conscious agents somewhere in a multiverse. In this scenario, we were randomly selected to live in a universe that supports life.
Evaluation: One problem with the multiverse hypothesis is that NO scientific evidence supports it. None. If multiple universes exist, they are unobservable—without observation and testing, there is no way to generate scientific evidence to support a multiverse hypothesis. One cannot test a hypothesis when no data is forthcoming.
According to physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, any universes outside our own would be “causally disconnected from us.” and “The vast majority of multiverse ideas are presently untestable, and will remain so eternally.” Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, p 101-107
As a result, the multiverse explanation is not a scientific hypothesis; it is a philosophical (metaphysical) one. Philosophical questions such as this lie outside the purview of traditional scientific methods and must be justified in some other way.
Advocates of the multiverse often posit a "universe-generating" mechanism to explain the origin of other universes. By postulating a universe generator, proponents think that it may increase the probability of getting a life-friendly universe somewhere in the multiverse. However, the speculative cosmologies that are purportedly responsible for generating multiple universes (i.e., string theory, inflationary cosmology) invoke mechanisms that themselves require fine-tuning. Thus, the multiverse hypothesis cannot explain fine-tuning without appealing to some prior fine-tuning mechanism (either the universe generator or whatever generated the generator).
For example, suppose one tries to explain the design of a car by referring to the assembly plant that produces many similar cars. Such a description doesn’t alleviate the need for an explanation for the design of the car. Indeed, it simply points to the need for an explanation of the design of the assembly line that produces the cars. In other words, it shifts the need for explanation to the next level. The shortcoming of this approach is that it leaves one in doubt about the source of all prior fine-tuning processes and mechanisms and still leaves open the question of why these should be random rather than designed.
Thus, even if a multiverse exists, theism may provide a better explanation than naturalism. An infinite set of universes is better explained by an unbounded cause than a random cause. Since there is no good reason to believe that the multiverse must be randomly caused, and since the universe generator must also be finely tuned, a simpler explanation [via Occam's Razor] seems more likely: If a multiverse exists at all, then a single transcendent intelligence designed it to support life.
Single-universe naturalism
Philosophical naturalism [PN] is a worldview that asserts that the existence of intelligent life in our universe is the result of chance processes governed by natural laws. There are no design influences, only blind material causes. However, naturalism is unproven scientifically and therefore requires a substantial defense to warrant belief. And PN is also self-refuting.
Fine-tuning is a brute fact
Single-universe naturalists claim that there is nothing surprising about the fact that we find ourselves in a universe with rational beings because nothing else is possible. Only in a universe that supports life can there be beings capable of observing and reflecting upon fine-tuning. Single-universe naturalists see life in the universe as a brute, inexplicable fact that requires no further explanation. Nobody would be alive to comment on fine-tuning if the universe weren’t life-permitting in the first place. Thus, the existence of human observers is unremarkable.
If one assumes in advance that the fine-tuning found in the universe is the result of chance, then any arrangement of matter is equally improbable (or probable), and there is no reason for one to ask why or how we exist. Naturalists who see fine-tuning as a brute fact say we don’t need to search for a deeper explanation: The universe “just is.”
Evaluation: First, to say that fine-tuning “requires no further explanation” is a matter of opinion. Undoubtedly, many people seek deeper explanations than are readily available. And to say that human existence is “unremarkable” is, at best, arguable.
Second, to justify one’s belief that a fine-tuned universe is merely a brute fact, one must know in advance that the universe is solely the result of chance. In other words, one must assume the truth of philosophical naturalism. However, mere assumptions are not self-justifying. To prove that naturalism is true, one must develop and present good reasons to justify such a belief.
Nevertheless, the assumption of naturalism receives no help from science because naturalism is not a scientific position; it is a philosophical one. To merely assume the truth of naturalism amounts to nothing more than a “naturalism-in-the-gap” belief. Thus, single-universe naturalism is a belief that requires one to put forth evidence and arguments to demonstrate the rationality of naturalism and that it's the best explanation of the evidence
When scientists (or anyone else) assume the truth of philosophical naturalism, they naturally begin to reject anything and everything that does not fit their predetermined viewpoint. Many people take the side of naturalism simply because of a prior commitment since it's the methods and institutions of science that compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world. They have an unspoken, a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce only material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive. But that is not rational. The cure for that, of course, is reason.
The design hypothesis
For many theists, it is unsurprising that the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life. After all, if an intelligent being wanted to create a world where intelligent life exists, it seems reasonable that it would set the initial conditions and physical constants of the universe to favor that outcome. A finely tuned universe - one that supports intelligent, self-reflective, rational beings - is perfectly consistent with a theistic explanation. It is a coherent and simple explanation that need not appeal to unnecessary conjectures (e.g., the multiverse) to support its case.
Theists (specifically monotheists) have historically believed that God created the universe and populated it with all forms of life including intelligent life. This has inspired many theists, as well as non-theists, to seek answers to the “how” question through the study of biology, chemistry, and physics. To theists, fine-tuning leads one to look for an ultimate explanation for the universe and its many features. In a theistic world, the Designer could have used any number of methods to ensure the establishment of intelligent life, including a fine-tuned single universe or a multiverse.
Evaluation: Like the multiverse and chance hypotheses, theism cannot be proven scientifically. In other words, the theistic explanation is not a scientific position but a philosophical one. But that's okay since reason is the basis of all knowledge, not science. Nevertheless, many philosophical/theological arguments favor theism, while naturalism has few if any, positive arguments. Therefore, the success of theism depends on demonstrating why it explains fine-tuning better than the other two hypotheses.
Conclusion
Although each of the three explanations offered is consistent with a fine-tuned universe, none of them can explain fine-tuning with absolute certainty. But then we know almost nothing with aboslute certainty.
Both the multiverse and chance hypotheses are doubtful. Neither is supported by scientific evidence, and both lack philosophical arguments to support their foundational beliefs.
Nevertheless, the design hypothesis is currently the best explanation of the data - it infers that the fine-tuned constants and quantities of the universe favor the influence of a designing intelligence. And **the design hypothesis indirectly supports theism**, as this designer must be beyond the confines of the physical.
Objection A- The puddle analogy is an argument against FTA as it compares a puddle to life, and any hole to the environment and its pressures. It shows that organisms with specific adaptations are well-suited to any environment.
Repy: SETI looks for design [or artificiality - i.e. not generated by natural processes], an arson investigator can tell if a fire came about naturally or was started by a human, the police can determine if a death was natural or at the hands of a human, an archeologist can say whether it’s a just rock or an arrowhead, etc. An appeal to a designer is accepted in every field of inquiry, including biology - we can determine whether a virus, like Covid-19 was designed of was natural.
An a priori non-design stance seems to be an a priori ideological conclusion, rather one that is driven by the facts
Objection C -This is a God of the gaps argument.
Reply: A God of the Gap argument assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon. But I’m not citing an unknown phenomenon or a gap in our knowledge. I am using the inference to the best explanation and citing what we do know about the universe, in order to choose between design [purposeful, intentional guided process with a goal] over chance [a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal] or an the scientifically unknowable [the multiverse]
Objection D -You can't apply Zeno's paradox to causal chains.
Reply: Per the [IEP] "...many of Zeno’s arguments turn crucially on the notion that space and time are infinitely divisible, he was the first person to show that the concept of infinity is problematical."
Where did I say that "space and time are infinitely divisible"? Difficult to evaluate your objection since it's so vague.
Objection E -You can't speak of BEFORE the universe, when time as we know it is a product OF this universe.
Reply: 1) I guess that wipes out the possiblity for any multiverse theory
2) Perhaps I spoke of casually prior.
Objection F -Saying that "God" is the TOE is literally meaningless. It provides no knowledge or insight into the universe, it's just wordplay. Pumpkin soup is the explanation for everything. See, we call all assert meaningless things.
Reply: LOL, showing that God exists provides NO knowledge or insight into the universe? That's totally absurd the the nth degree.
Objection G - how can a designer create the universe without time, space, or energy/material?
Reply: My post is limited to showing the the best explanation is that the universe was designed, not how that design was implemented. This question will have to be addressed in a future post.
That being said, scientific observations are consistent with the idea that the universe came into existence out of nothing rather than existing eternally or forming from pre-existing material. Modern astrophysics has confirmed by both mathematics and observation that the universe is continually expanding; that space itself is expanding.
An expanding universe must have a starting point. An infinite regress of causes isn't logically viable. While there are a variety of models that, at best, delay the problem further into the past, none can escape the ultimate reality that even the very substance of the universe had a beginning. These facts also negate eternal, cyclical models of the universe found in many eastern religions in which the universe has always existed. The universe is finite. It began to exist, and there was no matter before it. And every model of the universe must contend with the fact that there must be a starting point for existence.
Objection H - What if the constants and quantities had to be the way they are? If their values are somehow necessary, then fine-tuning isn’t a problem that needs to be resolved or explained.
I'll let Wiliam Lane Craig address this:
It seems to be pretty widely acknowledged that the constants and quantities in question are not physically necessary. This is because they cannot be predicted on the basis of current physical theory or any extension of current physical theory. Several years ago Stephen Hawking addressed your question at a cosmology conference at the University of California, Davis. Notice the alternative answers which he identifies to the fundamental question he poses:
Does string theory, or M theory, predict the distinctive features of our universe, like a spatially flat four dimensional expanding universe with small fluctuations, and the standard model of particle physics? Most physicists would rather believe string theory uniquely predicts the universe, than the alternatives. These are that the initial state of the universe, is prescribed by an outside agency, code named God. Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle.
Notice that the options mentioned by Hawking are precisely the three alternatives which I address. Hawking argues that the first option, physical necessity, though the option most physicists would prefer to be true, is a vain hope: “M theory cannot predict the parameters of the standard model. Obviously, the values of the parameters we measure must be compatible with the development of life. . . .But within the anthropically allowed range, the parameters can have any values. So much for string theory predicting the fine structure constant.” He wrapped up by saying,
"...even when we understand the ultimate theory, it won’t tell us much about how the universe began. It cannot predict the dimensions of spacetime, the gauge group, or other parameters of the low energy effective theory. . . . It won’t determine how this energy is divided between conventional matter, and a cosmological constant, or quintessence. . . . So to come back to the question. . . Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not.It allows a vast landscape of possible universes,in which we occupy an anthropically permitted location.
In fact, this idea of a “cosmic landscape” predicted by string theory has become something of a phenom in its own right. It turns out that string theory allows around 10^500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that the theory does not at all render the observed values of the constants physically necessary. [source]
Yes, we do have some evidence that the mind is separate from the brain.
1) cerebral localization
It's been known since the 19th century that for motor and sensory function there are very specific locations in the brain that seem to mediate those functions. Hand movements are controlled by a specific part of the opposite cerebral hemisphere. Vision is controlled by a very discrete area in the occipital lobes.
However, Higher intellectual functions, such as abstract thought, mathematics, ethics, are not localized like that. There is no calculus center of my brain. There's no ethics center in my brain.
The brain seems to be necessary for doing calculus and doing addition and thinking about concepts like justice and mercy, and so on, but it's not localizable. The belief that higher abstract thought was going to be localizable was held by materialism in the 19th century, and they developed the theory of phrenology from that. He has the idea that all of these individual higher intellectual Functions have a spot in the brain that controlled them. Phrenology has been discredited. It's been shown to be wrong.
Because only certain things in the brain seem to be mediated by the brain other aspects of the mind, don't have a spot in the brain. The implication there is that they're not really material, but they're an immaterial power of being able to reason and use logic. And frankly, that's a very old dualist idea. It was an idea proposed by Aristotle. So for thousands of years duelists have predicted that and modern neuroscience, for now, confirms that.
2) split brain operations
Back in the 1960s, Roger Sperry, a prominent neuroscientist did a series of studies on patients, who had split brain operations due to severe epilepsy. An epileptic focus would begin in one hemisphere of the brain and travel through the corpus colosum, which is a bundle of fibers connecting the two hemispheres, and cause a generalized seizure.
It was recognized by surgeons in the mid-20th century that if you cut the fiber bundle that connected, the two hemispheres of the brain that you could prevent the seizures from becoming generalized, and you could greatly improve the quality of the patient's life. So a number of patients had this operation called corpus callosotomy. The patient's seizures would get better. But they really weren't much different, that is that their brains were essentially cut in half, but they still seem to be a unitary person. They still seem to be fairly normal. Sperry was a neuroscientist who studied these people in detail, and he did find that there were some subtle abnormalities as a result of cutting the brain in half, but the abnormalities were very subtle; so subtle that the experiments he won him the Nobel Prize.
And what that implies is that the human mind is not purely generated by the matter of the brain, otherwise cutting the brain in half would have profound effects on the human mind. It might make two people. Certainly, it should create a profound difference in a person's state of consciousness, but it doesn't. You've cut the brain in half and the person can't tell the difference, except that he has fewer seizures.
3) epilepsy neurosurgery
Dr. Penfield was the first neurosurgeon to systematically operate on the human brain when people were awake; he would work on the brain while they were awake in an effort to identify the focus of their seizures and to remove the focus from the brain. So their seizures would stop, and he operated on upwards of a thousand patients like this and very carefully recorded his results. He believed that all the mind originated from activity of the brain., but by the end of his career, he was a passionate dualist.
He repeatedly observed that there were aspects of the patient's mind that no matter what he did to the brain he couldn't affect. He could elicit memories, make a muscle move, or make a patient have a sensation. But he couldn't change their consciousness, he couldn't change their intellect, he couldn't change their sense of self. There was a fundamental core, that no matter what he did to the brain, remain the same. So, he said there was something he couldn't reach.
He asked the question, why are there no intellectual seizures? When people have epilepsy, commonly a person will have jerking of a muscle. Sometimes so many muscles jerk that they actually go unconscious. Sometimes they have a tingling on their skin, or sometimes they'll have a funny smell, or sometimes they can even have a little behavioral tick.
But they never start doing calculus. They never contemplate, justice or mercy. They never think about Shakespeare. So Penfield says, why aren't there intellectual seizures? If the mind comes from the brain entirely, the mind is material in some sense, then you ought to have seizures that make you do addition. Or think about politics. But you don't. What that implies is that the intellect is not the brain.
4) vegetative state brain function
Neuroscientist Adrian Owen looked at brain function in people who were in persistent vegetative state, Persistent vegetative, where a person has such severe brain damage that they show no sign of consciousness. And sometimes their caretakers will say something like, *I get the sense that the person is there that they understand things*, but there's no clinical evidence for it. Doctors would examine them, but there's no sign of any reaction at all and scan their brains are shrunken and obviously severely damage.
So Owen did a fascinating experiment. He used the technique called functional MRI imaging, which is mRI machine that images changes in blood flow in the brain that seems to correlate with brain function. So if you're moving your arm, the part of your brain that involves moving your arm lights up on the functional MRI. If you're thinking about stuff, your frontal lobe, slide up, things like that. So what Owen did is that he took a woman who had been diagnosed for several years and persistent vegetative state from a car accident, who showed no sign at all of any awareness, deep common, put her in the MRI machine and ask your questions. He said, pretend that you are playing tennis. Or imagine that you're walking across the room. He asked her to imagine all these things, and her brain kind of lit up in places.
But you could say that the brain lighting up, doesn't mean she was understanding anything. Maybe the sound coming into her ears, was causing a reflex or something. So, he took 15 normal people. And he did the same thing with them. Stuck them in a machine, put an asked the same questions. And then he asked, neurobiologists to look at the functional MRI images of this woman and the 15 normal people, And see if you can tell a difference between the two and they couldn't. Her pattern of reaction was identical to the normal people. That seemed to imply that she could understand what he was asking.
But perhaps the lighting up of areas in her brain and the lighting up of the area is a normal people's brains was just because of the reception of the sound, and didn't really understand. So what he then did is he took the same words that he had asked her before, but he took away the semantics. And just left some syntax. And her brain stop stopped reacting. As did the normal controls. Her brain only reacted when what he said to her made sense. It didn't react from just sound.
And this has been repeated by a number of different investigators that show the same thing that he found. That even when your brain is so massively destroyed and there's no clinical evidence for any mental activity at all, functional MRI can find that these patients are capable of thinking. Some patients who can do mathematics, ask "what's six plus six" and then give them different answers and when you hit the right answer of the brain lights up. So, very clearly, there are aspects of the mind that cannot be destroyed by severe brain damage. That's what Owen's work is showing us. It's showing us our aspects of the mind that aren't connected tightly to the brain, our minds are immaterial.
Conclusion
So not only is this a blow to a naturalistic understanding of the world it is also evidence for the existence of the soul, since in religion and philosophy, the soul is often considered to be synonymous with the mind or the self.
And while this doesn't show how an immaterial mind could interact with the physical brain in A Scientific Case for the Soul Robin Collins offers some idea how the immaterial mind can interact with the material brain - see sections 4 & 5.
This added with the argument that Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting is additional evidence that a physical only view of the world is not sufficient to explain it; i.e. there must be some supernatural, nonphysical, element at play in the world
These 7
facts prove that slavey as outlined in the Bible was indebted servitude, not
chattel slavery.
Definitions
Chattel
slavery - allows people to be bought, sold and owned, even
forever
Indentured servitude - a form of labor where a voluntarily person
agrees to work without pay for a set number of years
The
seven facts
1) Ebed - The English word "slave" and
"slavery" come from the Hebrew word Ebed. It means servant, slave, worshippers (of
God), servant (in special sense as prophets, Levites etc), servant (of Israel),
servant (as form of address between equals.; it does not necessarily mean
a chattel slave in and of itself, thus it is incumbent upon those who say it
does to provide the reasons for that conclusion if they are going to use.
Whether "ebed" mean indentured servant, chattel slave, or something else would have to be determined by the context.
2) Everyone was an Ebed - From the lowest of the low, to the
common man, to high officials, to the king every one was an Ebed in ancient
Israel, since it means to be a servant or worshipper of God, servant in the
sense as prophets, Levites etc, servant of Israel, and as a form of address
between equals.
It's
more than a bit silly to think that a king or provincial governors were chattel
slaves - able to be bought and sold.
3) Ancient Near East [ANE] Slavery was poverty based - the
historical data doesn’t support the idea of chattel slavery in the ANE. The
dominant motivation for “slavery” in the ANE was economic relief of poverty
(i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--not by the "owner"--and
the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery,
where individuals were used for building projects).
The
definitive work on ANE law today is the 2 volume work (History of Ancient Near Eastern Law -
HANEL). This work surveys every legal document from the ANE (by period) and
includes sections on slavery.
A few
quotes from HANEL:
"Most
slaves owned by Assyrians in Assur and in Anatolia seem to have been debt
slaves--free persons sold into slavery by a parent, a husband, an elder
sister, or by themselves." (1.449)
"Sales of wives, children, relatives, or oneself, due to financial
duress, are a recurrent feature of the Nuzi socio-economic scene…A somewhat
different case is that of male and female foreigners, who gave themselves in
slavery to private individuals or the palace administration. Poverty was
the cause of these agreements…" (1.585)
"Most of the recorded cases of entry of free persons into slavery are by
reason of debt or famine or both…*A common practice was for a
financier to pay off the various creditors in return for the debtor becoming
his slave.*" (1.664f)
"On the other hand, mention is made of free people who are sold
into slavery as a result of the famine conditions and the critical economic
situation of the populations [Canaan]. Sons and daughters are sold for
provisions…" (1.741)
"The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement [Neo-Sumerian, UR
III] was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows,
selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy…There
are also examples of self-sale. All these cases clearly arose from
poverty; it is not stated, however, whether debt was specifically at issue."
(1.199)
[If
interested, HANEL is available for download for free at academia.edu
- see here - though you might have to
resister]
Quotes
from other sources
Owing to the existence of numerous designations for the non-free and
manumitted persons in the first millennium BC. throughout Mesopotamia in
history some clarification have the different terms in their particular nuances
is necessary the designations male slave and female slave though common
in many periods of Mesopotamian history are rarely employed to mean chattel
slave in the sixth Century BCin the neo-babylonian
context they indicate social subordination in general [Kristin
Kleber, Neither Slave nor Truly Free: The Status of Dependents of
Babylonian Temple Households]
Westbrook states: At first sight the situation of a free person given and
pledged to a creditor was identical to slavery The pledge lost his personal
freedom and was required to serve the creditor who supported the pledges labor. Nevertheless
the relationship between the pledge and the pledge holder remained one of
contract not property. [Rachel Magdalene, Slavery between Judah and
Babylon an Exilic Experience, cited in fn]
Mendelshon writes: The diversity of experiences and realities of
enslaved people across time and place as well as the evidence that enslaved
persons could and did exercise certain behaviors that would today be described
as “freedoms”, resist inflexible legal or economic definitions. Economic
treatises and legal codes presented slaves ways as chattel while documents
pertaining to daily life contradict this image and offer more complex picture
of slavery in the near East societies. Laura Culbertson, Slaves
and Households in the Near East
Some of the misunderstanding of the biblical laws on service/slavery arises
from the unconscious analogy the modern Western Hemisphere slavery, which
involved the stealing of people of a different race from their homelands,
transporting them in chains to a new land, selling them to an owner who possess
them for life, without obligation to any restriction and who could resell them
to someone else. Weather one translates “ebed as” servant,
slave, employee, or worker it is clear the biblical law allows for no such
practices in Israel [Stewart Douglas, Exodus - NAC]
So, it
would seem that there was no need to go through the trouble of capturing people
to enslave them since a lot of people were willing to work in exchange for
room/board.
But it
gets worse for an Israelite if he wanted to make one a chattel slave because of
the...
4)
Anti-Kidnap law -Whoever steals a man and
sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”
[Exodus 21:16, see also 1 Tim 1:9-10]
This is clear that selling a person or buying someone against their will into
slavery was punishable by death in the OT.
5)
Anti-Return law - “You must not return an
escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, he may live
among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers;
you must not oppress him.” [Deuteronomy 23:15–16]
Some
dismiss DT 23:15-16 by saying that this was referring to other tribes/countries
and that Israel was to have no extradition treaty with them. But read it in context and that idea is nowhere
to be found; DT 23 Verses 15-16 refers to slaves, without any mention of their
origin.
I'll
quote from HANEL once again, Page 1007: "A slave could also be freed by
running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned
to his master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and
he must not be taken advantage of. This provision is strikingly different from
the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations, and is explained as due to
Israel's own history as slaves. It would have the effect of turning
slavery into a voluntary institution.
**The importance of Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law**
These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery. With the anti-kidnap law, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned. LV25:44-46 is the main verse critics use to argue for chattel slavery, but given these two laws, it's reasonable to read that passage through the lens of indentured servitude.
6)
Anti-Oppression law- “When a stranger sojourns
with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the
stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him
as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your
God. [Leviticus 19:33-34]
You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for
you were sojourners in the land of Egypt [Exodus 23:9]
The fact is Israel was not free to treat foreigners wrongly or
oppress them; and were, in fact to, commanded to love them.
In two
most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh
charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their
midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do
themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their
ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory
of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for
compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the
Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the
economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities."
[Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Campbell, Ken (ed). InterVarsity
Press: 60]
7) The
word buy - the word buy - The word
transmitted “buy” refers to any financial transaction related to a contract
such as in modern sports terminology a player can be described as being bought
or sold the players are not actually the property of the team that has them
except in regards to the exclusive right to their employment as players of that
team - [Stuart, Douglas K. Exodus: (The New American Commentary)
The verb buy/acquire [qanah] in Leviticus 25:39–51 need not involve selling or purchasing foreign servants. For example, the same word appears in Genesis 4:1 Eve’s having “gotten a manchild and 14:19 - God is the “Possessor of heaven and earth” Later, Boaz “acquired” Ruth as a wife (Ruth 4:10). So you are trying to force a narrow definition onto the word. And as noted earlier, "buy" can refer to financial transactions, as in "work for x amount of time for x amount of debt to be paid off".
Objections
A)TheAnti-Kidnap
law has Nothing to do with slavery
The
response: in order to enslave someone, you must take and hold
them against their will. So, Exodus 21:16 does apply to slavery
B)
Exodus 21:4 says that a woman and her children are slaves for life!
The
verse: "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or
daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out
alone.
The
response: Ex 21 was for protection of the rights of both worker and
employer. The provisions for what you refer to is: if an already married
servant contracted for a term of service, that servant should have built into
the contract some provisions for the keeping of a spouse (i.e., the boss had to
figure in the costs of housing, food, and clothing for the spouse as well). But
if a boss allowed a woman already serving him to marry the servant he had hired
while single, there had to be a compensation for the boss's costs incurred for
that woman servant already serving him. Her potential to provide children was
also an asset—considered part of her worth—and had to be compensated for as
well in any marriage arrangement. Therefore, as a protection for the boss's
investment in his female worker, a male worker could not simply “walk away
with” his bride and children upon his own release from service. He himself was
certainly free from any further obligation at the end of his six years, but his
wife and children still were under obligation to the boss (“only the man shall
go free”). Once her obligation was met, she would be free. [Stewart Douglas,
Exodus - NAC]
C) Deut
20:10-15; if you sack a city you can enslave them!
The
verse: ″when you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of
peace. 11If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be
subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12If they refuse to make peace
and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13When the Lord your God
delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14As for the
women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may
take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your
God gives you from your enemies. 15This is how you are to treat all the cities
that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.”
The
response:
The
surrounding text makes clear that these nations live at some distance outside
the territory of Israel. Israel was allotted the land, but the boundaries were
quite clear and quite restricted by God. Their dominion (via vassal treaties)
could extend further, but their ownership could not. There was almost
zero-motive, therefore, for Israel to fund long-distance military campaigns to
attack foreign nations for territory, or for the economic advantages of owning
such territory.
Dominion could be profitable since it left people to work the land for
taxes/tribute; but war always siphons off excess wealth, thus reducing the
'value' of a conquered country, but displacement, ownership, colonization was
much more expensive. These cities (not nations, btw) are enemies of Israel,
which can only mean that they have funded/mounted military campaigns against
Israel in some form or been key contributors to such.
"...the verse indicates that the Israelites were to offer to the
inhabitants of such cities the terms of a vassal treaty. If the
city accepted the terms, it would open its gates to the Israelites, both as a
symbol of surrender and to grant the Israelites access to the city; the
inhabitants would become vassals and would serve Israel." [New
International Commentary on the Old Testament]
"Offer it shalom, here meaning terms of surrender, a promise to spare
the city and its inhabitants if they agree to serve you. The same
idiom appears in an Akkadian letter from Mari: 'when he had besieged that city,
he offered it terms of submission (salimam).' In an Egyptian inscription, the
prostrate princes of Canaan say shalom when submitting to the Pharaoh. The same
meaning is found in verse 11, which reads literally "If it responds
'shalom' and lets you in," and in verse 12, where a verb derived from
shalom (hislim) is used for 'surrender'" [Tigay, The JPS Torah
Commentary]
"Literally,
as 'forced laborers.' Hebrew mas refers to a contingent of forced
laborers working for the state. They were employed in agriculture and public
works, such as construction. In monarchic times, David imposed labor on the
Ammonites and Solomon subjected the remaining Canaanites to labor...see 2 Sam
12:31; 1 Kings 9:15, 20-22; cf. Judg. 1:28-35. When imposed on citizens, such
service took the form of periodic corvee labor.[corvee meansunpaid
labor - as toward constructing roads - due from a feudal vassal to his
lord] Solomon, for example, drafted Israelites to fell timber in
Lebanon; each group served one month out of three (1 Kings 5:27-28). It is not
known whether foreign populations subjected to forced labor served part-time or
permanently." [Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary]
"The
likely meaning is that the city, through its people, was to perform
certain tasks, not that individual citizens were to be impressed." [The
Torah, A Modern Commentary, Union of American Hebrew Congregations]
"Israel must give its enemy an opportunity to make peace. Those who
accepted this offer were required to pay taxes, perform national
service, and, if they were going to live in the Land, to accept the Seven
Noahide Laws." [Tanaach, Stone Edition]
This
forced, or corvee labor (cf. Gibeonites in Josh 9), but this would hardly be
called chattel slavery since it is also used of conscription services under the
Hebrew kings, cf. 2 Sam 20.24; I Kings 9.15).
So, no
Deut 20:10-15 does not support/endorse chattel slavery
D) Deut
20:14 says the Israelites could rape women since they are plunder
The
verse: See above.
The
response:
Notice
that nothing is said about rape, and no reference to sexual intercourse is made
in the text. However, in the next chapter this is not true.
When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God
delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the
captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take
her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house,
and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall also remove the
clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father
and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband
and she shall be your wife. It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then
you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her
for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. (Deuteronomy
21:10-14 NASB)
The captives in Deuteronomy 21:10 are the women and children in Deuteronomy
20:14. The event of chapter 21 is an example of case law. That is, in the event
that one of the captives pleases the male who took them. It is not the case for
every female whom he captured. The Scripture concerns one man and one woman.
Some critics presume that because the text says the Israelite has “a desire for
her” (the woman POW) that he already has raped her, but this isn’t so. At least
the Hebrew cannot be made to indicate that he raped her. The Hebrew word (H2836) means to love, be attached to, or long
for. The word is used eleven times in the Old Testament, and never used
for raping a woman.
"The
position of a female captive of war was remarkable. According to Deuteronomy
20:14, she could be spared and taken as a servant, while Deuteronomy 21:10-11
allowed her captor to take her to wife. While the relationship of the Hebrew
bondwoman was described by a peculiar term (note: concubine), the marriage to
the captive woman meant that the man 'would be her husband and she his wife.'
No mention was made of any act of manumission; the termination of the marriage
was possible only by way of divorce and not by sale." Hebrew
Law in Biblical Times. Falk, Ze'ev 127]
E) Exodus 21:7- a father can sell his daughter into sex slavery!
The
verse: 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as
male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for
himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to
foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his
son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another
woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital
rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go
free, without any payment of money.
The
response: Most critics stop reading at verse 7 but if they continued,
they'd see that this is about marriage not sex slavery. If the family was poor
and needed money, they could give her away in marriage to an interested suitor
(v. 8) where there was a dowry.
This ensured that the woman was to be cared for in a family system that had
enough, and that the family could be cared for by the dowry. Even today the
dowry system exists in many cultures, and it has its benefits.
But if the new husband found her to be bad or evil (the meaning of
“displeasing” in the text v. 8), then he was not to divorce her and give her
away to someone else for a dowry of his own. That would be evil as already he
is “acting treacherously” towards her. But the family could get their daughter
back and return the dowry if she was found to be bad/evil.
If the man got her as a wife for his son, then the man must deal with her as
full rights and provisions of a daughter. He is not to deal with her any other
way. She has the full privileges of family.
And if the man (or his son presumably) takes another wife, in no way was he to
reduce his care for her. He is to make sure she has equal food, clothing and
marital rights as the first wife. If he does not provide fully in these areas
for her, she is free to leave and return home and the family is under no
obligation to return the dowry money.
Verse 11
states “she shall go free for nothing, without payment of money.” The
husband and his family cannot invoke the card of her being formerly a servant
and therefore she’s obligated to stay and work for them. This is where the
normal protocol of marriage is important mentioned in verse 9. In the instance
where she has the right to leave her husband under the conditions of verse 10
and 11, since there are the normal customs of marriage back then, she can go
back to her family who have the dowry from the husband and thereby she can
survive - she has more protection than a male servant!
F) Leviticus
25:44-46: says you can buy foreign slave and you can bequeath them to your
children!
The
verse: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations
around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the
temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your
country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your
children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must
not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
The
response: First one would have to ignore
points 1-7 above to reach that conclusion. One must assume, without any
rational basis, that “ebed” must mean “chattel slave”. But as argued
above the passage can mean, and most likely does mean "servants". As
Stuart notes [fact 7 above] "buy" means financial transaction related
to a contract. And note that vs 45 and 46 say that they may be
your property and bequeath them to your sons. It doesn’t say must or will, it
wasn't required or nor could it be imposed by force. Given that, this passage
loses all of the bite that critics assume it has.
They were not considered property in the same sense as an ox or coat because escaped slaves were not to be returned (Deut. 23:15-16) but an ox or coat was to be returned (Exodus 23:4; Deut. 22:1–4). Since they were not considered strict property nor chattel slaves, it must be that the work these inherited slaves produced was considered the property of the master.
Furthermore, Leviticus 25:47 states that the strangers living within Israel could “become rich.” In other words, a foreign slave could eventually get out of poverty, become self-sustaining, and thus wouldn’t have to be a slave anymore. While foreigners in Israel could serve for life, serving multiple generations if they wanted (just like an Israelite slave could), the Torah didn’t require that. Third, except for automatic debt cancellation in the seventh year, foreign slaves were afforded the same protections and benefits as Israelite slaves, including protection if they decided to leave at any time.
To properly evaluate passages Leviticus 25, we have to look at the regulations God gave previously as a foundation and they completely destroy any idea that Leviticus 25 is talking about chattel slavery.
First would be the anti-kidnap law: “*Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death*” in Exodus 21:16,
Second the anti-return law in Deuteronomy 23:15–16, “You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.”
Critics ignore these two foundational laws and try to interprete the practice in Lev 25: 44-46 sans this foundation. That is their error.
What Lev 25: 44-46 is saying is, peoples from other nations were going to volunteer themselves into the hands of the Israelites - it was permissible to only "purchase" men and women who voluntarily sold themselves into indentured service, which is a big difference from being held against one’s own free will. Voluntary service doesn't equal chattel slavery.
And remember, any bond-servant purchased from the Gentiles had the right to flee their master, and receive the protection of the Law of Moses if they did so:
But yes, one could make a debt slave permanent if that was the desire of both sides. One side gets an experienced servant and the other gets security.
G)
Slaves could be beaten
The
verse: "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and
the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a
day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. –
Exodus 21:20-21
The
response:
Corporal
punishment has nothing to do with the slavery question since free persons could
be beaten as well. You have moved the goalposts from chattel slavery is
condoned/endorsed in the Bible to the question of whether corporal punishment
is bad.
The law
allowed disciplinary rod-beating for a servant (Ex 21.20-22), apparently under the same
conditions as that for free men:
If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does
not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held
responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff;
however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he
is completely healed. If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and
the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be
punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his
property (ksph--"silver"; not the normal word for property, btw).
Free men could likewise be punished by the legal system by rod-beating (Deut
25.1-3; Prov 10.13; 26.3), as could rebellious older sons (Prov 13.24; 22.15;
23.13). Beating by rod (shevet) is the same act/instrument (flogging (2 Sam
7.14; Ps 89.32). This verse is in parallel to verses 18-19. If two people fight
but no one dies, the aggressor is punished by having to 'retributively' pay
(out of his own money--"silver", ksph) for the victim's lost economic
time and medical expenses. If it is a person's slave and this occurs, there is
no (additional) economic payment--the lost productivity and medical expenses of
the wounded servant are (punitive economic) loss alone. There was no other
punishment for the actual damage done to the free person in 18-19, and the
slave seems to be treated in the same fashion. Thus, there doesn't seem
to be any real difference in ethical treatment of injury against a servant vs a
free person.
H)
Scholar X or the consensus of scholars say the Bible
endorses/condones chattel slavery
The response:
First, scholarship disagrees on almost every subject.
Second, to accept a claim merely because a scholar says so is not critical thinking - one must examine the arguments presented.
Third, this objection presumes that a scholar or a scholarly consensus cannot be wrong, this is most assuredly wrong.
Fifth, I cited multiple scholars in my argument. I don't mean to imply a tit-for-tat scholar v scholar, just that my view is supported by scholarship.
I) I can't believe yet another Christian is trying to defend slavery!
The response: No, what I am doing is defining slavery. "Slavery" can mean different things: chattel slavery, indentured servitude, a hired servant, etc, I'm arguing that forced, involuntary labor [i.e. chattel slavery] is outlawed in the bible.
J) Indentured servitude is evil!
The response:
So, one should not work to pay off a debt? this seems likely to encourage people to incure a debt that they know they won't have to pay back.
K) Your argument is full of "disingenuity, red herrings, obfuscation, false comparisons, and fallacies"
The response:
I asked if they would specify where exactly where the "disingenuity, red herrings, obfuscation, false comparisons, and fallacies" were; they replied "No" - So this can be dismissed as a baseless accusation
It's an easy thing to say that my argument was "dissected and destroyed"; much more difficult to prove it. But it sould be easy for you since all you have to do is copy/paste wha you think refutes it.
L) Lev 25:46 says "...but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly". This seems to imply that God is okay with being ruthless to others just not your fellow Hebrews.
The response:
You are reading too much into the verse. The Bible says treat one's wife with respect - does that imply that we can be dis-respectful to all others? No. The Bible says not to exasperate our children, does that imply that we can be exasperate all others? No.
In context the prohibtions are: Do not make him work as a indentured servant. Do not take interest of any kind from him, You must not sell him food at a profit. [Lev 25:35-46]
Conclusion: History shows that chattel slavery was rare in the ANE, there were so much poverty that there was no need to go out and capture another for forced labor as people were willing to work for food to pay a debt or simply for food and shelter.
The word translated as slave or slavery has a wide range of meaning that doesn’t necessarily mean “chattel slave”. One would have to show from the text what that meaning is.
The Biblical text is clear that kidnaping/buying/selling/possessing someone is punishable by death. And that if a slave escapes they are not to be returned, and all slaves are not to be oppressed. The word “buy” doesn’t have to mean buying a person, but can mean buying one’s services/labor.
Thus, it is clear that the Biblical text and history do not support the idea that the Bible or God endorsed, sanctioned, or condoned chattel slavery. In fact, God and the Bible outlawed chattel slavery
Offering an inference to the best explanation occurs when we conclude that the best available explanation of the current data is probably true because it’s the best addresses all or most of the data or observations. A little more formally:
S is a state of affairs; a collection of data, facts, observations, givens. H hypothesis, would, if true, explain S. No other hypothesis [A, B, C] can explain S as well as H does. Therefore, it is probable that H is true.
Inferences to the best explanation are common in all fields of inquiry, including scientific, and everyday life. For a more thorough exploration:
We may be choosing the best of a bad lot, and that we have no way of knowing whether the truth is contained in our set to begin with.
Reply: Scientists don't claim to have completely certainty on any scientific fact, no fact from any field of inquiry does. We've gone from Newtonian physics to special and general relativity, and guess what? Einstein's work is likely to only be partially correct. Qualms with IBE on this account are off base. Abductive inferences [IBE] are used in every field of inquiry, including science, history, linguistics, and everyday life,
Explanations help us to understand why something happened, not simply convince us that something happened. However, there is a common kind of inductive argument that takes the best explanation of why x occurred as an argument for the claim that x occurred. For example, suppose that your car window is broken and your iPod (which you left visible in the front seat) is missing.
The immediate inference you would probably make is that someone broke the window of your car and stole your iPod. What makes this a reasonable inference? What makes it a reasonable inference is that this explanation explains all the relevant facts (broken window, missing iPod) and does so better than any other competing explanation. In this case, it is perhaps possible that a stray baseball broke your window, but since (let us suppose) there is no baseball diamond close by, and people normally don’t play catch in the parking garage you are parked in, this seems unlikely.
Moreover, the baseball scenario doesn’t explain why the iPod is gone. Of course, it could be that some inanimate object broke your window and then someone saw the iPod and took it. Or perhaps a dog jumped into the window that was broken by a stray baseball and took your iPod. These are all possibilities, but they are remote and thus much less likely explanations of the facts at hand. The much better explanation is that a thief both broke the window and took the iPod.
This explanation explains all the relevant facts in a simple way (i.e., it was the thief responsible for both things) and this kind of thing is (unfortunately) not uncommon—it happens to other people at other times and places. The baseball-dog scenario is not as plausible because it doesn’t happen in contexts like this one (i.e., in a parking garage) nearly as often, and it is not as simple (i.e., we need to posit two different events that are unconnected to each other—stray baseball, stray dog—rather than just one—the thief). Inference to the best explanation is a form of inductive argument whose premises are a set of observed facts, a hypothesis that explains those observed facts, and a comparison of competing explanations, and whose conclusion is that the hypothesis is true. The example we’ve just been discussing is an inference to the best explanation.
Explanation: The hypothesis that a thief broke the window and stole your iPod provides a reasonable explanation of the observed facts.
Comparison: No other hypothesis provides as reasonable an explanation.
Conclusion: Therefore, a thief broke your car window and stole your iPod.
Notice that this is an inductive argument because the premises could all be true and yet the conclusion false. Just because something is reasonable, doesn’t mean it is true. After all, sometimes things happen in the world that defy our reason. So perhaps the baseball-dog hypothesis was actually true. In that case, the premises of the argument would still be true (after all, the thief hypothesis is still more reasonable than the baseball-dog hypothesis) and yet the conclusion would be false.
But the fact that the argument is not a deductive argument isn’t a defect of the argument, because inference to the best explanation arguments are not intended to be deductive arguments, but inductive arguments. That isn’t a defect of an inductive argument, it is simply a definition of what an inductive argument is! As we’ve seen, in order to make a strong inference to the best explanation, the favored explanation must be the best - i.e. the most reasonable.
But what makes an explanation reasonable? There are certain conditions that any good explanation must meet. The more of these conditions are met, the better the explanation. The first, and perhaps most obvious condition, is that the hypothesis proposed must actually explain all the observed facts.
Commonly acknowledged criteria for inference to the best explanation
1. Explanatory scope. The best hypothesis will explain a wider range of data than will rival hypotheses.
2. Explanatory power. The best hypothesis will make the observable data more epistemically probable than rival hypotheses.
3. Plausibility. The best hypothesis will be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths than rival hypotheses.
4. Less ad hoc. The best hypothesis will involve fewer new suppositions not already implied by existing knowledge than rival hypotheses.
5. Accord with accepted beliefs. The best hypothesis, when conjoined with accepted truths, will imply fewer falsehoods than rival hypotheses.
6. Comparative superiority: The best hypothesis will so exceed its rivals in meeting conditions (1) through (5) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis’s exceeding it in fulfilling those conditions.
Evolutionists often raise the "Why did god make nipples on a male" question as an objection to the concept of a creator God. After all, if there were an all-knowing Creator, why would He design men with a structure for which they have no use? In females, the nipple has an obvious function, that is, to breastfeed a baby. So what’s the purpose for nipples on males?
Very early in the maturation process, male and female human embryos are essentially the same. All these embryos have structures that will ultimately form the defining physical characteristics of male and female.
In the early stages of development, all embryos have both the Wolffian duct and the Mullerian ducts, for instance. Under the influence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system develops into the internal and external structures of male anatomy, and the Mullerian ducts regress. Conversely, in the absence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system regresses considerably, and the Mullerian system develops to its full potentials, forming many of the female anatomical structures.
It should be clarified, however, that embryos do not all start out female. The genetic makeup of each individual is in place from the time of fertilization. Thus, the programming for male and female is determined from the outset, and the anatomical gender is simply a result of the expression of those genes.
The mammary duct system and the associated nipple is likewise the same in both genders, developing during the sixth week. The rudimentary mammary duct system remains indistinguishable at birth. Male and female breast tissue remains poorly developed until influenced by estrogen in the early stages of puberty in the female.
Useless male nipples?
If nipples and breasts are useless to males, they are equally useless to prepubescent girls, and for that matter are useless to any woman who is not breastfeeding a child. It should be noted that male nipples are not useless, as has been suggested; nipples respond to sexual stimulation in both sexes.
Male nipples as vestigial organs
Furthermore, to say that male nipples as vestigial is problematic, as they are fully vascularized and have more than adequate nerve supply. Why would this be so if they were, in fact, a worthless by-product of our evolutionary ancestry?
If male nipples are vestigial, they must have had a more robust function in the past. Does the evolutionist actually suggest that our male evolutionary ancestors breast-fed newborns, and that somehow as evolution progressed, this ability was lost? What is the evidence for this?
Male nipples as nascent organs
If male nipples are nascent, what developmental changes has the male nipple undergone since in the last five million to seven million years? If there has been no evidence of development, why believe that they are nascent?
Do evolutionists have any explanation that fits their theory and is backed by the evidence?
Alternatively, the evolutionist could argue that our ancestors were all females, that modern males diverged from this all female population, and that in this process they lost the ability to lactate; but again where is the evidence?
Actually, evolution posits that mammals evolved from reptiles and that the divergence of male and female was already in place in reptiles. Why then would another divergence occur as humans began to evolve, since there were already male/female reptiles?
Far from being a problem for creationists, it is in fact, the evolutionists who have a problem with this issue, as they can provide no reason for the existence and persistence of male nipples in an evolutionary scenario. The creation model provides a far better explanation for the presence of nipples in males than any evolutionary model. Especially since the evolutionist never offers a theory for male nipples that is backed by the evidence.
If Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, does that mean it’s okay?
First, Jesus didn’t need to say anything about homosexuality. No first century Jew questioned whether homosexual sex was morally permissible. That’s because every Old Testament reference, poem, or metaphor that addresses sex and marriage positively presumes heterosexual relations. Furthermore, every reference to homosexuality in the Old Testament is negative. There was no debate as to what the biblical witness was on that behavior. God-fearing Jews already believed homosexual sex was prohibited.
Second, even if it turns out Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so what? What follows from that? Jesus’ silence on the matter wouldn’t mean He approves of homosexual sex. That would be an argument from silence, a type of faulty reasoning. Besides, Jesus didn’t speak about every immoral behavior. Should we infer that drunkenness, child sacrifice, and neglecting the elderly are morally appropriate since Jesus never said anything about them either? That would be absurd. Jesus addressed moral issues of His day as they arose in conversation.
Third, we know what Jesus would have said about homosexuality if asked. Jesus was an observant Jew living during the Mosaic Law. He had not yet instituted the New Covenant. That’s why He often referenced the Law. For example, Jesus cited the two greatest commandments of the Law (Matthew 22:37-39) and told the rich young ruler to uphold the commandments of the Law (Mark 10:17–22). Therefore, if asked what He thought about homosexuality, Jesus would have cited the Mosaic Law again (Leviticus 18:20 & 20:13), which unequivocally states that homosexual behavior is a sin.
Fourth, Jesus did voice His opinion on matters of sex and marriage. When asked about divorce, Jesus cited the Genesis creation account: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:3–6).
Jesus believed that God’s design in Genesis, making male and female join together to become one flesh, was the intended blueprint for sexuality even for His day. His view about sex and marriage is one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime. Indeed, Jesus emphasized that the one-flesh union described in Genesis is a God-ordained institution (“What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate”). A male-female union has the Father’s stamp of approval. If that was Jesus’ view on sex and marriage, then every other type of sexual act, including homosexual behavior, is disqualified.
Fifth, Jesus does basically say homosexual behavior is a sin. In Mark 7:21–23, Jesus says, “For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery...all these evils come from inside and defile a person.” The Greek word translated “sexual immorality” is porneiai, which is a term that includes many sexual sins, including homosexuality. First century Jews who heard that word would think of the sexual sins listed in the Mosaic Law, which includes homosexual sex.
Sixth, saying “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality” mistakenly presumes that the words of Jesus are more authoritative than the rest of Scripture. But it is the Holy Spirit—God Himself—who inspired all the words of Scripture. That means Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, and 1 Timothy 1:9–11, where homosexual behavior is specifically condemned, are also inspired by the Holy Spirit and are the authoritative word of God. Since Jesus and the Holy Spirit co-exist in the Godhead and are in perfect communion through all eternity, we can be confident that Jesus agrees with the Holy Spirit about what He’s inspired to be written in Scripture.
So, yes, the Bible and Jesus did say something about the homosexuality, and He condemned it as sin.
The argument is that a perfectly Loving God who has created this perfect world would not create worms that eat children's eyes. Thus, a perfectly Loving God doesn't exist.
Where do you get the idea that this world is what God intended? It's not, it's a fallen world. This atheist's error is presuming that we live in a perfect world.
So this "argument", is based on a strawman fallacy - distortion of someone else's argument or view by exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's position, it's much easier to attack their view and present your own position as being reasonable; but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
The fact is, that God created various forms of life according to their kinds, with the ability to reproduce and fill the earth (Genesis 1:21– 22, 24–28). This view includes the concepts that God had purpose in what He created and that it originally was very good (Genesis 1:31; Isaiah 45:18). Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and "bad bugs" like the worms referenced are descendants of that which was non-harmful. We now live in a fallen world, and all creation “groans” under the consequences of our sin (Romans 8:22).
Why would a loving God "create" a worm that destroys children's eyes? This is what is known as a loaded question - a complex question that contains an assumption or accusation that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with, or a question that has a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty.
The most famous example is: Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes, and at best, you are a former wife-beater. But this is the tactic used; the question assumes that God created the worm in question. But, He didn't.
Furthermore, the question posed by those in the vid is valid; if one thinks that only the physical exists [i.e. Philosophical Naturalism] - and thus every event/action in the world must be the result of the interaction of particles in antecedent physical states, in accordance to the physical laws - how can they say that anything is bad or evil? All actions/events are just the result of unguided, unintentional, unintelligent, purposeless, goalless process.
So in their worldview, how can anything be said to be bad or good?
A further problem is, how can they say that they are reasoning or thinking critically - defined as "careful thinking directed to a goal" [per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] if they have no dominion of their thoughts? They cannot make any molecule act in a manner inconsistent with the physical laws; i.e. their thoughts must come via interaction of particles in antecedent physical states in accordance to the physical laws. Again, all actions/events [including human thought] are just the result of unguided, unintentional, unintelligent, purposeless, goalless process.
Rationality Rules seems to assume Philosophical Naturalism, which leads to used two self-refuting statements; the existence of morality and the existence of reason are not grounded in Philosophical Naturalism. Rationality Rules used that plus two logical fallacies to try to refute Christianity. So, FOUR fatal errors in one short vid - an interesting strategy by a You-tuber by the name of "Rationality" Rules.
[this assumes that Rationality Rules is a Philosophical Naturalist - but given his vids with regard to miracles, it's likely true]
