August 18, 2012

Everyone’s a critic, and some of them are trolls

So it appears that Josh Stein, a.k.a. the philosotroll, was not a fan of my most recent appearance on Life Report.  Well, can’t please em’ all I suppose. But I was curious as to what Stein found so objectionable in my appearance on episode #150 where I discussed the question, “What makes human beings valuable?”

Stein first attacks my discussion of the “imago dei” as being a sufficient reason to grant the right to life to unborn children and, in the end, all humans. According to this view, human beings are valuable because they are made in God’s image and are given a special value, or sacredness, because they stand in a special relationship to God.  I suspect that Stein is an atheist and so that is why he considers the view so objectionable. But aside from ridicule, he gives us no reason to reject the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic that humans are valuable because God created them.  

Even secular, pro-choice philosophers like David Boonin admit that this argument would work if God exists. Boonin evaluates the following pro-life argument in his book A Defense of Abortion:

P1. The fetus is a human life from the moment of conception
P2. Every human life is sacred
P3. If the life of an individual is sacred, then the individual has a right to life.
C. The fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception

Boonin says the argument is “plainly valid” and he assumes that P1 is true.  The question is whether P3 and P2 are true and follow from one another.  Boonin writes, “If ‘sacred’ is used in the religious sense in P2, then, as I have suggested, P3 may well seem reasonable.” [David Boonin. A Defense of Abortion. (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003) 31.] So if the religious assumptions could be grounded or proved, then we would have a good moral (but not necessarily legal) argument against abortion.

Stein says I “aggressively ignored” how to explain the imago dei to an atheist, but I for the life of me can’t see what he means.  Of course, I would have to present some compelling reasons to believe that God exists in order for an atheist to understand or accept the imago dei argument. The atheist may disagree with those reasons, but that doesn’t mean he’s right.  For someone who thinks I’m so ignorant of Kant (or at least neo-Kantian philosophy) he seems to forget that the moral argument for God (though not the form I use) came from Kant himself so it isn’t some crackpot argument but has real merit that is explored by contemporary philosophers.

Stein then argues that my claim that objective truths must be grounded, and especially that they must (or even can) be grounded in God is “audacious” and “unjustified.”  Really? What about theists like Robert Adams, Phillip Quinn, and Jerry Walls who argue for moral realism based on theism.  Or, consider atheists who reject moral realism because moral realism would entail the existence of God.  J.L. Mackie, an influential atheist who wrote in his book The Miracle of Theism that, Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of properties and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful god to create them.”  [J.L. Mackie. The Miracle of Theism (Oxford, Clarendon: 1982), 115]

Stein says that I ironically begged the question when I said that using the Bible to prove abortion is wrong would be a fallacious appeal to authority but the imago dei is not such a fallacy. Here I simply disagree and would say that I have independent reasons to believe that God exists and endows humans with value (unlike the circular reasoning found in Biblical fundamentalism). So no, I haven’t begged the question at all.

Next, Stein says that I am completely mistaken that atheistic moral realism assumes that moral facts exist as brute facts without explanation. Here he is partially correct. I should have been clearer and said that under atheistic moral realism moral facts either have no explanation in any other facts (i.e. brute facts) or they are explained by themselves. After all, someone could be a Platonic moral realist who believes that moral facts or objective values exist as eternal forms and explain their own existence just as God explains his own existence. Even if this were true, we would still need the brute fact that explains why we should be morally compelled to follow platonic virtues like love and courage instead of platonic vices like hate or cowardice. Plato proposed the GOOD as that which grounds the other virtues. I just drop one of the “O’s” and I think we’ve found the answer.

So in regards to morality being a brute fact, that’s why during my appearance on the show I cited Dartmouth philosophy professor Walter-Sinnott Armstrong who answers the question, “Why is it wrong to cause harm without a good reason?” by saying “It just is, don’t you agree?” (Page 47) To me, this seems to be an appeal to the self-evident truth that it is wrong to cause suffering. But there’s no reason why it’s wrong. It just is -- or it’s a brute fact. Atheist Erik Wielenberg who authored the book Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe, writes:

Of the ethical states of affairs that obtain necessarily, at least some are brute facts. That pain is intrinsically bad is not explained in terms of other states of affairs that obtain. Moreover, at least some necessarily obtaining brute ethical facts are not trivial but substantive. Therefore, I have an ontological commitment shared by many theists: I am commit­ted to the obtaining of substantive, metaphysically necessary, brute facts. (Page 26)
(And a note to Stein: I have taken nominalism such as the kind advocated by people like Quine and Sellars seriously. I just think it’s a false view in metaphysics. Also, while popular, is certainly not a majority view in philosophy today.)

Stein also says that the future-like-ours argument does not work because some traits we have do not persist through time. For example, he writes, “Trent would not claim that the moral standing of a six-year-old is the same as the moral standing of a thirty-year-old when it comes to, for example, culpability.” Of course not, because moral culpability is a property that emerges from other properties and traits (such as intelligence, experience, and moral awareness).  Culpability refers to psychology so yes, it would be fluid and not persist through time in a constant fashion, but the FLO argument refers to metaphysics and Stein simply has not refuted it.

In the end I would say that in this post I’ve only seen complaints, and not arguments, that are supposed to refute the position I presented on Life Report.

February 19, 2012

Hello! Good News!

I’m not sure if anyone is still reading this blog, and if you are, well, it must be a boring read since I haven’t updated in a while. The reason for my absence is that I am creating an apologetics ministry complete with a website that will have hundreds of pages of content, so it’s a lot of work!

However, something big has happened for me in that time. I got engaged!

Yes, my girlfriend Laura is now my fiancée, and while this is old news for some, it is still amazing and I want to post it here on my blog. Scumbag Blogger won't let me link to my Facebook album, but I'll simply say that I asked Laura after giving her a combination of flowers, a memorized passage of prose about marriage, a diamond ring, and Melting Pot. I think it was Melting Pot that tipped the scales for Yes (both of us agree it's so good!). However, I thought I would list the reasons, in no particular order, why I am marrying Laura.
  1. She makes me laugh.  Seriously, I would be miserable if I spent my life with someone who did not have a sense of humor. I have never met another girl that can make me laugh until my gut hurts and I doubt I ever would.
  2. She makes me holy.  Laura is so focused at keeping God at the center of our relationship and I am so thankful that she motivates us as a couple to go to mass or adoration.  “Many are the women of proven worth, but you have excelled them all. Charm is deceptive and beauty fleeting, but the woman who fears the LORD is to be praised." (Proverbs 31:29-30)
  3. She’s just really fun.  We’ve had some funny adventures together and maybe if you’re with us in person, we can regale you with tales of our exploits. But I am so happy to marry someone with a sense of novelty and adventure.
  4. She is extremely sweet and kind.  Laura always takes time to help and talk to the homeless regardless of how off-putting they may be. She doesn't just do it out of duty, but she loves the downtrodden as valuable persons who are made in God's image.  She has really motivated me in this area and I am eternally grateful for that.
  5. She loves her family. You can tell how you will be treated in marriage by how your fiancée treats her family, and I can tell that I will be treated very well and hope to treat her with the same affection and care.
  6. She listens but doesn’t back down. I’m glad that Laura listens when I have a problem and doesn’t just force her own will or bend for my will all the time.  She puts me in my place when I need it and I actually like it (maybe not at that moment but I do respect it).
  7. She enjoys argument and debate, including pro-life apologetics.  If only you could see the two of us at a Justice for All exhibit. I love watching her destroy people in arguments. It's pretty awesome.
  8. She is smart.  I like to talk about dorky things, including philosophy, and I’ve rarely met a girl who can follow these concepts. Laura is really really smart.
  9. Laura is really good looking. Seriously.
  10. She is willing to follow God and trust him. I love that Laura will just go for something if she feels that God is calling her in that area. Whether it’s wanting to do a mission trip or work for JFA, if she feels called Laura will go for it.
  11. She is forgiving. I sometimes get shortsighted and too focused on work and I’m glad that Laura has been so forgiving of the times I become neglectful. I want her in marriage to be my everything and the focus of my earthly life, but I know that forgiveness is what makes marriages work and I am glad she practices that.
  12. She puts up with all of my weirdness. Considering how much I annoy myself sometimes, I wonder why she would ever want to marry me! But her smile and hug when I see her reaffirms what I know is buried deep in her heart towards me.
  13. She's just Laura Beeson.  Unique and irreplaceable. Who else could I marry?
Basically, I see marriage as two people becoming a permanent team in life so that they face the good and bad together until death do them part. I know Laura will be an awesome mother, wife, encourager, spiritual mentor, and simply my best friend to face life with. You all have no idea how honored I feel to get to marry her.  Can’t wait to post wedding stuff as it moves forward!

October 19, 2011

Respect Life Course Assignment #1

This is an assignment for the students enrolled in my "Philosophical Foundations for Respect Life" course being hosted in Phoenix. However, any readers who want to do this assignment for fun are more than welcome.

Assignment: Debate Review
Due Date: November 10th
Submission Guidelines: Email as a MS Word doc to
Objective: Write a 750 - 1000 word review of ONE of the following abortion debates linked below. In your review summarize the arguments made by each side and then review the performance of each debater in terms of the strength of their argument and the persuasiveness of their appeal (voice, tone, rapport, clarity, organization, confidence, civility, etc.). Finally, explain how you would or would not have argued the pro-life position differently than how it was argued in the debate.

Here are the debates you can choose from:


Scott Klusendorf vs. Nadine Strossen

Alan Shlemon vs. Cecili Chadwick 


Peter Kreeft vs. David Boonin

Patrick Lee vs. David Boonin


Don Marquis vs. Michael Tooley

Leave a comment if you have any questions about the assignment or feel free to email me at

October 10, 2011

Where do they get these ideas?

On October 8th Ann Rose’s article “Fertilized Eggs Are NOT People!” appeared on the pro-choice blog RH Reality Check. Rose claims the unborn at fertilization are not persons and tries to argue by means of a reduction ad absurdum that fetal personhood would lead to unacceptable consequences.  She uses the upcoming vote in Mississippi to define the unborn as persons as her springboard. Here are my responses to her. She writes (in red):

Here are some examples that come to mind of the possible impacts this amendment would have.  Add your own insane scenarios in the comments section:

September 20, 2011

"We Trust Black Women"

Watch this video where Ryan Bomberger of the Radiance Foundation is shouted down by pro-choice advocates.

The hypocrisy is revealed near the end of the video where they shout down a black woman who wants to hear both sides of the issue. Right, you trust SOME women . . . the ones who already agree with you.

Also, this is philosophically one of the worst arguments for abortion I can imagine.

1. Black women's decisions involving the lives of human beings they are caring for are beyond   moral scrutiny (we trust black women)
2. Abortion is a decision that involves the life of a human being that is being cared for
3. Therefore, a black woman's choice to have an abortion is beyond moral scrutiny.

Premise 1 is obviously false. Conclusion is not supported but asserted. Pro-choice FAIL.

Stephen Hawking vs. God

This past weekend I led a retreat at the ASU Newman Center. It was an apologetics retreat called God is Real and I hope to use it to teach Catholics that science, philosophy, and history can provide good evidence that God exists and that he has revealed himself in the person of Christ. I’ve been busy in the last few weeks preparing for the retreat as well as a talk on God’s existence that I gave at the Newman Center last Thursday. But since that is over, I’ve had a chance to view the recent Discovery channel show Curiosity and their first episode “Did God Create the Universe?" hosted by Stephen Hawking. Hawking is a world-famous physicist, but most people know him as “the smart guy in a wheelchair who sounds like a computer.” 

So how would I summarize the show and Hawking’s view on God? Basically, “religion was something stupid people used to explain the universe, but now science has answered everything and we don’t need God. In fact, God couldn’t have made the universe even if he tried.” . . . Okay, let me make a few points:

September 16, 2011

How Far Away is the Moon from the Earth?

If the earth were the size of a basketball and the moon was the size of a tennis ball, how far apart would you have to hold them to keep everything to scale? What do you think most people think the scaled distance is? Watch this fun video to find out.