The Huntington Apologetics Team

the HAT: Protect Your Head

Monday, March 28, 2005

Lousy Moral Reasoning

As we all know the internet is full of forums for discussion, debate and downright mean-spirited argument. Moral arguments can be particularly contentious because the topics get so close to the every day lives of the parties involved. I have participated in my fair share of moral debates and I can't tell you how painful it is to see some of the arguments that are employed.

Of course we're all familiar with "gems" like, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" but I have a different one I've come across that drives me CRAZY. I have argued about the morality of homosexuality a few times, and since I'm a conservative Christian you can probably guess what stance I take.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit there are some fairly respectable arguments out there in favor of homosexuality. Some claims are serious and take serious responses. There is one claim however that makes me want to scream. It goes like this:

"I'm a Christian, and I used to think like you [i.e. that homosexuality is immoral]. However, that was before I met my friend Rob. He's the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet and my wife and I would trust him to watch our kids anytime. He'd give you the shirt off his back if you needed it. After meeting Rob I reconsidered and realized it's alright to be homosexual."

I hope at least most of you can see the error that leaps off the screen at me. What does the fact that "Rob" is a nice, giving guy have to do with homosexuality? How does his "niceness" relate to the morality of one area of his behavior? I don't see how it does. Just because someone is nice it doesn't mean that what they do is morally correct. Let's look at another example to demonstrate this.

"I'm a Christian, and I used to think like you [i.e. that cheating on my taxes is immoral]. However, that was before I met my friend Rob. He's the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet and my wife and I would trust him to watch our kids anytime. He'd give you the shirt off his back if you needed it. After meeting Rob I reconsidered and realized it's alright to cheat on your taxes."

Or substitute any thing you consider to be morally questionable in the paragraph. I hope that at least one person who thinks this way will read this post and purge this stinker of an argument from their arsenal.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Terri Schiavo and the Appeal to Emotion

This post is going to be less about apologetics per se and more about thinking clearly. Like many of you I have been following the story of Terri Schiavo fairly closely. In fact, I watched C-SPAN for an extended period of time for the first time in my life (well...other than watching Prime Minister's Questions once or twice) to listen to people debate whether Congress should mandate that her case be reviewed.

I was struck by the poor quality of the arguments a number of the Representatives displayed, and thought that Christians who want to think clearly should take care not to fall into this trap. The most common poor argument by far was the appeal to emotion. People on both sides of the issue said things like, "I am against killing Terri Schiavo because I am a mother/father and I can't imagine having to do this to my daughter." This is all well and good, but our love for someone is not a logical reason for performing a certain act. Let's look at another example that will clear up the confusion about appeals to emotion.

I have a two sons, one two years old and the other four months. Say my two year old has taken to smacking his little brother. I think we would all agree that I should reprimand my two year old. But what if I say to you, "I just love my son so much, I can't imagine reprimanding him." Does that sound like a good reason to let his behavior continue? Of course not! By the same token, it will not do for us to advocate Terri Schiavo's survival by talking about how much we love our children. We must come up with logical reasons for these sorts of things because emotions are notoriously untrustworthy. They can be used to "justify" all sorts of things.

Friday, March 04, 2005

It's All in Your Brain

It has become commonplace in the scientific world to think of our minds only as a function of our brains. What this means is that there is nothing non-physical about our mental processes. The reason that many scientists are motivated to think of our minds in this way is that they are materialists who believe that the only things that exist are physical. This also allows them to reject the concept of a soul or spirit.

There is an interesting way of arguing against that idea that I picked of from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason (see ministry links). Most everyone will agree that if two things are actually the same thing they will be exactly alike. That sentence may not be entirely clear. What it means is that if "Joshua Duncan" and "the writer of this article" (two things) are the same person (one thing) they will have all of their properties in common (being 5'9", having blue eyes, etc.). So, if the mind and the brain (along with its processes) are the same thing, they should have all of their properties in common.

Now, think of an image of your mother (this illustration was also suggested by Greg Koukl). What is she doing? What color is her hair? Her clothing? If we split your head open and looked at your brain or hooked you up to a machine watch the processes would we see that image of your mother? Obviously not. But the image exists nonetheless. So we see that the mind and the brain do not share everything in common. Therefore, the mind and the brain cannot be the same thing. This leaves the door wide open for the existence of the mind and the soul.