withallyourmind.net

Ben Witherington has recently provided a series of posts called The Architecture of the Postmodern Mind. The concluding Part IV was an analysis of postmodernism by guest contributor, Dr. Steven Mizrach, a professor of Cultural Anthropology at Florida International University. As someone who is sometimes puzzled by contemporary art, I was particularly interested in his comments on postmodern art. The following comments are from that section in which he addresses postmodern aesthetics:

The key concept of modern aesthetic appreciation was that intentionality did not matter and that representation had nothing to do with resemblance. In literature, this meant the “New Criticism” and “the Death of the Author,” where critics would deal strictly with what was on the page, as an autonomous structure of schemas, devices, and tropes. Modernist poets eagerly experimented with various schemes of abandoning canonical schemes of rhyme, meter, and metaphor and metonymy. In the plastic arts, it meant “art for its own sake,” and each painting or piece of sculpture was to be appreciated for its purely aesthetic features (curves, lines) and its geometric structure and not for “resemblance” to anything else. Hence cubism, abstraction, Action Painting, expressionism, futurism, surrealism, and Mondrianism.

Postmodern art takes the daring experimentation of modernism, but passes over its hesitant boundaries. It questions the boundaries between the process of creation and the completed act, between the creator/presenter/provider and the audience/appreciator/receiver, and between the private museum or gallery and the place of ‘public exhibition.’. Postmodern art is about appropriation, about the Dadaists taking their urinals and putting them on display, about Warhol taking a Campbell soup can or Marilyn Monroe’s lips, about Man Ray borrowing eyelashes and fingers from other photographs, about rap artists ’sampling’ 1940s show tunes and turning them into bass rhythms, or Klein taking anything and making it his art by painting it with International Klein Blue. It is about John Cage sitting down at his piano for roughly five minutes, without touching a key, and receiving applause. Not because he has played a single sound, but because he is John Cage. For the postmodernists, intention is everything, and reception is everything, but content is nothing. For most modern artists, this makes postmodern art one big fraud.

Tom Gilson, at Thinking Christian, asks, “What does hate really look like?” We often hear in the media of how Christians hate gays? Of course, hate in the context must have some other meaning if we are to take it seriously (for example, Christians “disagree” with the gay rights agenda).

Anyway, Tom, quotes this article detailing a recent attack by gay rights activists on a Lansing, Michigan church. His two excerpts are brief but illustrative of the situation.

I read with a slight chuckle this recent news story about the bus ads planned for the Christmas season by the American Humanist Association. Starting next week and running through December will be ads placed on the sides of buses which state, “Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness’ sake.” Of course, the reference is to the lyrics of the children’s holiday song, “Santa Claus is Coming to Town.”

It seems the athiests and agnostics are feeling a little left out and lonely during the Christmas holidays. According to a spokesman for the humanist group:

We are trying to reach our audience, and sometimes in order to reach an audience, everybody has to hear you…

Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of nontheists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.

The Humanist Manifesto III (available at the AHA website) defines humanism as…

… a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The first question, which Christians can be confused about, is whether atheists and agnostics can even be good. The answer to this question is, “Yes, of course.” There is an objective moral law grounded in God’s character which is able to be followed by anyone regardless of their religious beliefs. When an action measures up to that law, it is a morally good action. When it violates that law, it is a moral evil.

The more interesting question is how an atheist can ground his concept of goodness and morality. He may claim some arbitrary standards of behavior which he defines as ethical, but he lacks any ultimate grounding for those standards. The term “good” is floating in mid-air with no adequate basis for establishing what good is. Why should one atheist accept what another atheist says is good? What “responsibility” do I have to others if I disagree with their lofty humanist aspirations? Responsibility only makes sense when it is directed toward a moral God in whom is the foundation of what is good and evil.

It turns out that even being “good for goodness’ sake” is a problem for the athiest since “good” turns out to be an arbitrary goodness without any ultimate ground. To all the atheists, sorry to spoil your holidays! Perhaps, the loneliness you fell this time of year is the lack of a relationship with the God who grounds morality and provides the motivation and reason for living good, moral lives.

This CNN article indicates that among the very first actions Barack Obama may take once he assumes the oval office will be to reverse two of President Bush’s executive orders. The first of these is the order restricting embryonic stem cell research. The second order he wishes to immediately overturn, according to CNN, is the policy which prevents taxpayer dollars from funding groups that perform or promote abortions overseas. This saddening piece of news is certainly not unexpected given Obama’s record and statements on such issues. In 2007, Obama told planned parenthood that one of the first things he would do as President is to sign the freedom of choice act (FOCA), which would eliminate all state regulation of abortion–including waiting periods, parental notification, and other very modest measures.

President-elect Barack Obama could reverse some of President Bush’s most controversial executive orders, including restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, shortly after taking office in January.

Two other executive orders from Bush — one dealing with a so-called “gag” order on international aid organizations regarding abortion, the other with oil and gas drilling on federal lands — also are receiving increased scrutiny.

Obama’s transition team is reviewing hundreds of Bush’s executive orders, according to John Podesta, Obama’s transition co-chair.

New presidents often use executive orders to put their stamp on Washington quickly. Unlike laws, which require months to complete and the consent of Congress, presidents can use their executive authority to order federal agencies to implement current policies.

“Much of what a president does, he really has to do with the Congress — for example, budgeting, legislation on policy — but executive actions are ones where the president can act alone,” said Martha Kumar of the White House Transition Project, a nonpartisan group established to help new presidential administrations.

Obama is expected to use his executive authority to reverse Bush’s order limiting the types of embryonic stem cell research that can receive federal tax dollars.

Advocates for those suffering from a host of diseases — including diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and spinal cord injuries — are eagerly awaiting the Bush-era restrictions to be lifted.

“We have every reason to believe — if not on Day One, then in the very near future — they will be issuing an order rescinding this policy,” said Amy Comstock Rick, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research.

I cannot begin to understand how pro-life Christians who voted for Obama can possibly justify their vote. Untold numbers (millions?) of innocent human beings will be killed by the earliest actions of our president-elect. The twisted logic (offered in defense of Obama) that some of his social programs will somehow bring about a fewer number of abortions despite his policies that will allow virtually unlimited access to abortion is sadly mistaken. Discounting abortions, how about those human persons who are created for the sole reason that we can experiment on them for the (promised) health benefit of others?

With a couple of flicks of his magic pen, the new president will bring about the slaughter of uncounted innocents. Considering this fact and the additional fact that he will most likely appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices who will be very pro-abortion, it is a sad era for those most helpless individuals who cannot stand up in their own defense. The complicity of Christians in this occurrence is truly disheartening.

The following poem was written by Irish poet, Joseph Mary Plunkett. It was forwarded to me by my son, Jeremy, who used to provide a poem of the week every Monday on this site. It is called “I See His Blood Upon the Rose:”

I see his blood upon the rose
And in the stars the glory of his eyes,
His body gleams amid eternal snows,
His tears fall from the skies.

I see his face in every flower;
The thunder and the singing of the birds
Are but his voice—and carven by his power
Rocks are his written words.

All pathways by his feet are worn,
His strong heart stirs the ever-beating sea,
His crown of thorns is twined with every thorn,
His cross is every tree.

This is the twenty-second and last in a series of posts summarizing and commenting on Shaun Nichols’ Teaching Company lecture series Free Will and Determinism.

The debate over free will and determinism has long been a central issue in law. One of the most famous cases which illustrates this concern is the case of two teenagers from wealthy families, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, who murdered a 14 year-old body, Bobby Franks. Clarence Darrow’s 1924 closing statement includes the following:

Why did they kill Bobby Franks? Not for money, not for spite, not for hate. They killed him as they might kill a spider or a fly, for the experience. They killed him because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite processes that go to the making up of the boy or the man something slipped…

Let’s take Dickie Loeb first… What had this boy to do with it? He was not his own father; he was not his own mother; he was not his own grandparents. All of this was handed to him. He did not surround himself with governesses and wealth. He did not make himself. And yet he is to be compelled to pay.

He further claimed:

I know the future is with me, and what I stand for here; not merely for the lives of these two unfortunate lads, but for all boys and all girls;… I know… the future is on my side. Your Honor stands between the past and the future. You may hang these boys; you may hang them, by the neck until they are dead. But in doing it you will turn your face toward the past.

Darrow won the case. He was also a little prophetic. In Commowealth v. Pirela (2007), neuroimaging was introduced to show that Pirela had abnormalities in his frontal lobe. His death sentence was overturned on the basis of this evidence. The aim of naturalistic neuroscience is to show that all behavior can be understood solely in terms of brain activity. If every action is caused by a deterministic chain of of chemical processes then no one is truly guilty.

Some, such as University of Pennsylvania law professor Stephen Morse, have argued that using abnormal variables in brain function to excuse behavior is the “fundamental psycho-legal error.” The fact that one has less inhibition about hurting people is no more an excuse for murder that identifying a brain region that indicates that he has less inhibition. Even libertarians allow that there are causal influences on behavior. But, there is more to behavior than simply causal influences.

The phenomenon of moral luck is another issue with which we must deal. We typically praise or blame someone based on their intentions and not the outcomes. However, a good or bad outcome may depend on luck, and it seems inappropriate to blame someone for luck. On the other hand, consider the case of two parents, each of whom leaves his baby in the tub briefly to answer a phone call. In one case the baby drowns, in the other, he doesn’t. Luck does seem to affect our sense of blameworthiness in this case. Consider also two drunk drivers, one of which through bad luck hits a pedestrian. Or consider the case of attempted murder, which may be less serious only because the attempt failed due to pure luck.

Darrow was right to anticipate more appeals in the future which are similar to his. However, it is yet to be seen if the future is on his side. The debate over free will, determinism, and moral responsibility rages as strongly as ever. If men are convinced by science that free will is an illusion, we seem forced to accept a conclusion which is unacceptable: that all criminals should be excused for their crimes. Determinism, in whatever form, seems unable to ground moral responsibility. Mere indeterminism fares no better. Randomness is indeterminism, but randomness would not make us free and responsible.

[Postscript: I have not been meticulous in separating the teaching of Shaun Nichols and my own thoughts. I have tried to make it clear when possible. I will add this disclaimer at the end of this series: None of the opinions expressed in this series is necessarily the view of Professor Nichols.}

This is the twenty-first in a series of posts summarizing and commenting on Shaun Nichols’ Teaching Company lecture series Free Will and Determinism.

Free will aside for a moment, what kind of punishment works? Well, vengeance at first seems irrational, must some maintain its value as a warning to others. This type of punishment signals that one will not tolerate being cheated or harmed which may work in favor of one’s long-term interests. Since very few would advocate returning to a vengeance type system of punishment, what about more contemporary models.

Nichols points out that in the U.S. a lengthy prison sentence is the central means of punishment for serious offenses. For most of last century, the emphasis has been on reform and rehab. Unfortunately, the statistics state that this is not very effective. Recidivism rates are quite high. People who go to prison are much more likely to commit crimes once released than other comparable individuals. With such dismal results, many have now returned to focus on a retributivist view of punishment, i.e., that certain actions deserve certain punishments.

Experiments have been performed to see if people would be willing to punish others at a cost to themselves. In a standard economic game, four people are each given an equal amount of money, from which they can contribute to a common fund. For every $1 contributed, each person gets 40 cents - a net gain for the group, but a net loss for the individual. Anonymity is maintained throughout. In one case, after the game was over each was able to punish other players in the round. For each $1 paid, the person would be penalized $3. For the most part, people punished those that contributed little or none to the common cause. Since their was no personal gain to be had, this was termed “altruistic punishment.” Another game involves three participants who play the role of dictator, recipient, and observer. The dictator is given money and decides how much to give to the recipient. The observer is also given a sum of money. At the end, he can keep it all or spend some to punish the dictator. When the dictator gave less than 50%, over half the observers punished. It’s natural to think of the punishment here as retributive in nature.

Experiments such as these do seem to indicate that retributive punishment works. People played the economic goods game described above. For 10 games, noone could punish. At first, over 50% of the total funds were given to the public fund. By 10 games, however, this was down to 20%. After game 11, people were told they could punish others as above. Contributions in the 11th game grew to 60%. Eventually, contributions grew to over 90% of the available funds. So, contribution diminishes without punishment and increases with punishment. Interestingly, the mere knowledge that punishment is possible leads to greater contributions. The anticipation of punishment is a deterrent.

While nothing about the above proves free will, I find it interesting that the most effective model for punishment coincides with the view which is dependent upon free will for its coherence. This at least seems to indicate the strong intuitive sense which people have that we do have free will. While this evidence is certainly not the end-all, it seems for now that free will skeptics must follow a system of punishment which they find distasteful, or even barbaric. The existence of free will fits extremely well with all we know about the way people act.

This is the twentieth in a series of posts summarizing and commenting on Shaun Nichols’ Teaching Company lecture series Free Will and Determinism.

In Professor Nichols’ discussion of Punishment, the underlying assumption is for the most part that people do not have free will. If men do not have free will, it is easy to see that ethical questions of punishment become much more muddied. Their are a number of theories of punishment, which will be briefly surveyed here.

The earliest approach to punishment is regarded to be vengeance, of which blood feuds are an example. In blood feuds, individuals are harmed who themselves did no harm. This, however, is not central to vengeance. The aim is to do such great harm on the enemy that retribution is less likely. Nichols argues that blood feuds and vengeance do not depend on free will and responsibility and are therefore immune from the problem of free will. Very few modern people will encourage a return to vengeance and blood feuds as the best system of punishment.

The idea of retribution eclipsed vengeance and blood feuds as the major approach to punishment. The motto lex talionis is at the heart of retributory justice (the root for retaliation can be seen in talionis). “An eye for an eye,” which also sums up this theory, does not imply literally that one’s eye be plucked out for causing blindness in another. Rather, the focus is that the punishment is to fit, or be proportionate to, the crime. Central to this approach is the idea that people who do wrong deserve to be punished. This does seem to depend on free will as it presupposes that the person freely chose their action. Critics view retributionism as inhumane based on their denial of free will. It seems inappropriate to punish people for bad luck, which is all we can say about someone who was determined to be a criminal. Often critics think of criminals as ill, being no more responsible for his crimes as a sick person is for his illness (although much of modern illness is directly traceable to poor lifestyle choices which cause their illness).

Both vengeance and retribution are backward-looking theories of punishment. Appropriate punishment depends on who did what in the past. Forward-looking theories look to the future asking what effects will punishing the person have in the future. One such approach is utilitarianism. On this account, no one deserves punishment. Punishment is the ethical choice insofar as it produces good consequences and unethical if it produces bad ones. Punishment may be initiated if it is felt it will deter future crimes. This view is also immune to considerations about free will. As previously considered, however, Utilitarianism as an ethical system is unpalatable. Guilt and innocence become morally insignificant. If someone commits a horrible crime, but punishing that person will bring about bad consequences, he should not be punished. If punishing an innocent person brings about good consequences, that person should be punished. One could also argue for wildly disproportionate punishment in a Utilitarian system as well.

Other forward-looking alternatives are also offered. The rehabilitation theory views the criminal as ill and in need of medical treatment or rehabilitation. Punishment for any other reason is cruel and unjustified. Free will is not felt to be a significant issue in this account of punishment. Another possible theory of punishment is that of quarantine. Just as we are justified in quarantining those who have contagious illnesses, so we are justified in quarantining those who pose a danger to society. Again, free will is not an issue here.

All forward-thinking theories are counter-intuitive in the sense that they consider only future considerations. The guilt of the person or the severity of the crime is of no concern. The rehabilitation theory is certain the most intuitive of all the theories of punishment and this theory depends on the existence of free will for coherence.

Maureen L. Condic, Senior Fellow of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person and Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine, has written a white paper called When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective. John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, in his foreword for this paper, says the following:

It is really far past time to clear the air of the smog that obscures and confuses debates about abortion, embryonic research, cloning, and related issues. Among the chief obfuscations and confusions is the claim that we do not know when human life begins. This frequently takes the form of claiming that the question is a matter of faith or religious belief. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as is lucidly and convincingly demonstrated in this White Paper.

When a human life begins is a question of science. The ethicist Peter Singer of Princeton University is famous, or notorious, for his advocacy of selective infanticide for babies who are born and then found to be defective in a way that makes them unwanted. Most people will find that argument morally abhorrent. But Singer is right about one thing. As he has said on many occasions, he and the pope are in complete agreement on when human life begins.

The debate in our society and others is not over when human life begins but is over at what point and for what reasons do we have an obligation to respect and protect that life. Before we can get to that argument, however, we need to clear the smog surrounding the question of when human life begins. This White Paper makes an invaluable contribution to that end.

It is sometimes said that the abortion debate is about “values” rather than “facts.” An honest debate about abortion, however, is about values based on facts. If we don’t get the facts right, we will not get our values right. Establishing by clear scientific evidence the moment at which a human life begins is not the end of the abortion debate. On the contrary, that is the point from which the debate begins.

Condic, thoroughly and systematically, provides to the reader the pertinent scientific facts concerning fertilization and embryonic development. Although some of the information will be challenging to those with little scientific background, this white paper is helpful to those interested in answering the important question of when life begins.

One particularly important point made by Dr. Condic is that people often think of the embryo as something being manufactured - that up until a certain point it is just an assemblage of parts being pieced together to make a whole. This, however, confuses the actual process of embryonic development with our understanding of modern manufacturing processes.

A car is not a car until it rolls off the assembly line—until then it is a bunch of parts in the process of becoming a car, but not there yet. Similarly, a cake is not a cake until it comes out of the oven—until then it is a variously gooey mass of flour, sugar, eggs, and butter that is gradually becoming a cake.

However, a profound difference exists between manufacturing and embryonic development. The difference is who (or what) is doing the “producing.” The embryo is not something that is being passively built by the process of development, with some unspecified, external “builder” controlling the assembly of embryonic components. Rather, the embryo is manufacturing itself. The organized pattern of development doesn’t produce the embryo; it is produced by the embryo as a consequence of the zygote’s internal, self-organizing power. Indeed, this “totipotency,” or the power of the zygote both to generate all the cells of the body and simultaneously to organize those cells into coherent, interacting bodily structures, is the defining feature of the embryo.

This is a key insight into this question of when life begins. Condic further states:

Once a concession has been made to the concept of manufacture and to an arbitrary point at which development has proceeded “far enough” along the assembly line to generate a human being, the precise positioning of this point becomes purely a matter of preference, convenience, and the power to enforce one’s view.

In contrast, if the embryo comes into existence at sperm-egg fusion, a human organism is fully present from the beginning, controlling and directing all of the developmental events that occur throughout life. This view of the embryo is objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other, and it is consistent with the factual evidence. It is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.

There remains the issue of what rights should be afforded human life at its earliest stages of development. But the scientific question of when life begins has been firmly answered.

On this day when we all fulfill our duties of and enjoy the privileges of citizenship in a free republic, Al Mohler offers instructions for an appropriate election day prayer. He lists 10 things we should pray for. As usual, his remarks are helpful and insightful. Here is a condensed version:

First, we should pray that God will bless America with leaders better than we deserve.

Second, we should pray that Americans will be motivated to fulfill the responsibilities of citizenship, yet also that we will be stripped of an unhealthy and idolatrous confidence in the power of government to save us.

Third, we must pray that Americans will vote by conscience, not merely on the basis of celebrity or emotion.

Fourth, we must pray that Americans will vote to defend the least among us — and especially those who have no vote.

Fifth, we should pray that God will prick the conscience of the nation on issues of morality, righteousness, and respect for marriage as the central institution of human civilization.

Sixth, we should pray that God will protect these candidates and their families.

Seventh, we should pray that the election is conducted with honor, civility, respect, and justice.

Eighth, we must pray that Americans will be prepared to accept the results of the election with respect and kindness.

Ninth, we should pray that this election would lead to even greater opportunities to preach the Gospel, and that the freedom of the church will be respected, honored, and protected.

Tenth, we must pray for the church, praying that the church of the Lord Jesus Christ would be strengthened in the truth, grounded in the faith, and empowered for witness and ministry.