Go See Vox Apologia III

The preceding post on euthanasia was written for Vox Apologia III. For those who don't know, Vox Apologia is a weekly symposium on different issues in apologetics. Obviously this week's topic was euthanasia. It will be hosted at different sites every week, so check out razorskiss.net to find out more. Check out Revenge of Mr. Dumpling for the rest of this week's installment. Enjoy!

Does "Quality of Life" Make a Difference?

Last year President Ronald Reagan died after a long battle with Alzheimer’s Disease. For weeks afterward we heard tales of his slow descent from a sharp, out-going man to the mentally and physically frail kind of person that Alzheimer’s always leaves in its wake. It was a sad time for Americans and the world, and it reminded many of us how much we want to avoid that sort of fate. It is not unusual for people to want to take matters into their own hands, or at least ask family members to do so. In other words, many would rather be euthanized than let nature take its course. But is euthanasia a morally viable option? Should it be legal?

The key question is this: can we rightly call euthanasia murder? Murder, as we all know, is the unjustified taking of a human life, but proponents of euthanasia often appeal to a person’s quality of life as a justification for the practice. So is euthanasia a justified killing or not? We must acknowledge that the concept of “quality of life” has a certain gut-level appeal in our culture. Even Christian people will nod in agreement when it is mentioned. If your quality of life is low, then you should be allowed to exit gracefully, or so the reasoning goes (notice how terms like “exit gracefully” can be used to deflect the arguments that euthanasia is murder).

It seems to me, however, that “quality of life” is a bit of a slippery concept. It has an inherent appeal to enjoyment or pleasure that seems to be problematic. According to some, if a person, say an Alzheimer’s patient, is not able to enjoy her life, then she should be euthanized, or at least have the option of euthanizing herself. This gives rise to a question: If quality of life the deciding factor, why should we not allow suicide for those with severe depression? Especially for those for whom therapy and/or medicine has had negligible effect? They are not enjoying life. Surely their quality of life is as low as the Alzheimer’s patient. Most people, however, will reject this idea. Why? It is because they think the life of the depressed individual still holds more promise than the life of the Alzheimer’s patient, and they may be right about that last point. However, I reject this as a reason for differentiating between the Alzheimer’s patient and the severely depressed. If we make life and death decisions based on potential for future actions we run into yet another problem. Once again, where is the line to be drawn? There are degrees of potential, are there not? Where should we draw the line as to who lives and who dies? Are people with higher potential, like a young Albert Einstein, more valuable than a more average person like myself? And if so, why stop with the terminally ill? Why not move forward to the mentally disabled?

Right about now I expect some are crying “slippery slope argument!” Though there may be a “slope” there is no fallacy here. I am not claiming that the execution of the mentally disabled will occur. Instead, I am saying that the same logic can be used to justify the euthanasia of the terminally ill and the mentally disabled. This indicates the flawed nature of this argument in favor of euthanasia. It leads to undesirable consequences.

Another argument for euthanasia relies on a system of morality that allows for the killing of those who are no longer useful for themselves or society. This kind of argument certainly does not follow the moral intuitions of most people, though that in itself does not mean the idea is false. It does, however, mean that we can feel free to treat it with skepticism. If the person who holds to this morality cannot give us a strong reason to abandon what we intuitively believe, it can be rejected. I must point out, however, that even if we do allow for this form of morality the person to be euthanized can still serve a useful purpose for society, if not for themselves.
For instance, caring for such individuals can positively shape the character of those who perform the care. When we care for those who cannot care for themselves we may develop empathy for those who are less fortunate in society. The benefits are obvious. Increased personal generosity could alleviate problems with poverty. We might also develop an appreciation for our own lives through the care for those in such need. Don’t misunderstand; I am not saying these things absolutely would happen. I am not that naïve. I am saying that with proper direction those involved in care for invalids can develop these positive character traits.

Noticeably absent from this essay so far has been any reference to physical suffering. We’ve covered issues stemming from psychological suffering, but we haven’t mentioned anything about pain. For instance, cancer can be an agonizing way to die. Why not let someone die to avoid the pain? I must point out that with modern medicine the pain is avoidable. “But,” someone may object, “often pain medicine leaves you in a stupor. You are not yourself for the rest of your life!” My response is to say that the section above applies to this sort of psychological suffering. Besides, it is clear that the person in the stupor is not suffering because they are not aware enough to suffer.

A better objection is this: “We certainly have this pain medication now, but what about in the past or somewhere where no anesthesia is available? Was allowing someone to suffer wrong then?” As a preliminary response I would say that people didn’t live as long with their illnesses in the past either, so suffering often wasn’t prolonged as it can be today.
Ultimately it comes down to your view of what it means to be human. Are we valuable in ourselves, or are we only valuable as long as we are useful? If we are valuable in ourselves no amount of pain can justify one of us taking another’s life (what can justify taking a life is another question entirely). If we are valuable as long as we are useful, then by all means eliminate the “useless.” Beware, however, because this logic will justify a long and gruesome future.

Carl Sagan and the Lithic Principle

One of my favorite topics to think about with regard to Christianity and science is what is known as the anthropic principle. Many of you may already know what the anthropic principle is, but for those who do not I will provide a short definition. The anthropic principle is the idea that science reveals the universe has been fine-tuned to be a hospitable place for intelligent beings like you and me. Further, this fine-tuning indicates the presence of a 'tuner,' namely God.

A while back I came across an interesting quote by the late Carl Sagan taken from his book Pale Blue Dot. In order to disparage the anthropic principle Sagan says this:

There is something stunningly narrow about how the Anthropic Principle is phrased. Yes, only certain laws and constants of nature are consistent with our kind of life. But essentially the same laws and constants are required to make a rock. So why not talk about a Universe designed so rocks could one day come to be, and strong and weak Lithic Principals? If stones could philosophize, I imagine Lithic Principals would be at the intellectual frontiers.

I thought on it for a while and I came up with what I might say in response. I'd like to start with the last sentence of his statement. "If stones could philosophize, I imagine Lithic Principals would be at the intellectual frontiers." I've never been one to be critical of intelligent people, but this statement makes me wonder if Sagan fully understood what the Anthropic Principle was really about. If rocks could indeed philosophize it would make perfect sense for them to come up with the Lithic Principle because the Anthropic Principle states that the universe was created in order to allow for intelligent life. If rocks were intelligent, then a Lithic Principle makes sense. The fact remains, however, that they are not and we humans are. Hence the Anthropic Principle.

Something else that supports the Anthropic Principle against Sagan's objection is the idea of Galactic Habitable Zones (GHZs). I'm taking this from Jay Wesley Richards, who works with the Discovery Institute. He has written a book with astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez called The Privileged Planet on the topic of GHZs.

In short, the book shows that our place in the galaxy is the best possible place from which the universe could be observed. So not only are the laws of nature such that we were able to come into existence, but these laws also show that the best place for us to come into existence will also be the best place in the galaxy from which to observe the rest of the galaxy! This demonstrates that the universe is not only structured so that things like rocks can exist, but it is also structured so that intelligent beings can exist and discover the nature of the universe itself. God has placed beautiful things throughout the universe, and He wants us to find them. This is in perfect harmony with passages like Romans 1:18-20.

Not only that, but this fact also tells us that God is intelligent and indicates that He loves His creation. Why else would He go to such a great extent to show His existence through His creation? I know what you may be thinking. "If God is omnipotent, how can we say that He went to a "great extent" to do anything? If God has all power isn't it just as easy for Him to do one thing as another?" In a word, yes, but then we must examine why God chose the option He did. Why didn't He just stick us somewhere where nearby stars would outshine the rest of the universe? God wanted us to see His works and conclude, "Wow, this must have come from somewhere!"

Parents indicted: story at eleven

An indictment of American parents: our children are being raised by idolators.

For the purposes of this post, let's say idolatry is defined as "anything we love more than we love God." This is going to be a tough one. I know because I am a parent and I see this trend becoming pervasive in our culture. Sadly, even as adults we are not immune to peer pressure. Even more sadly, peer pressure in America is no longer supportive of the Christian life. In fact, the opposite appears to be true.

Now let me present a couple of scenarios and when I am finished, use your first gut reaction to judge.

Scenario 1: A man is offered a sizable promotion by his company. With this promotion comes a lot of responsibility, but the income will be much greater. This man is a Christian and prides himself on his integrity. Before making the decision whether to take the job, he calls a family meeting and asks his wife and children how they feel about the situation. His wife is pleased and proud of her husband, but the children are distraught at the idea that the promotion will mean they have to change schools and leave their friends, their way of life, everything that is familiar to them. They would have to start all over in a new place and feel upset about the move in spite of the financial gain. The mother sees the distress in her children's eyes and tells her husband she is against the move. Money isn't everything, after all. He tells his employer the next day that he is not interested in the promotion if it means moving. He goes home that day at peace with his choice. He feels that he has made a selfless and nonmaterialstic choice.

Now judge the man.

Scenario 2: A mother is in a store with her two children, both toddlers. She clearly has her hands full. Another woman watches as she struggles to keep the children occupied while she shops. At last she has had enough. She raises her voice and says "You are being very bad! Now sit down or I will have to punish you!" The woman is appalled. She approaches the mother and says "I'm sure you don't mean that your children are bad. Using negative language like that just brings out more negativity." The woman comforts the children, saying "Now you will be good for your mommy, won't you?" The children nod and smile, and the mother, abashed, leaves the store.

Now judge the woman.

In both of these scenarios, the adults are idolators. What are they idolizing? The children.

Am I suggesting the father should take the money and run? Of course not, but before he asked his children, should he not have consulted God, and used his time in prayer and meditation to discern what the most prudent choice would be? Suppose after turning down this promotion his boss now feels he is not a team player, and he is passed over again and finally let go entirely? Now he cannot serve God nor his children. (See Lot's decision to move to Sodom as an example of acting without consulting God.)

Am I suggesting the mother should have yanked her children out of the buggy and spanked them into submission? Of course not. But the Woman in this scenario is the idolator. Children must be made to behave. Scripture tells us how to do so, though in my opinion discipline can be handed out without a "rod." Time out and restriction are perfectly adequate modes of discipline and are probably more effective, but parents have a RIGHT and a DUTY to discipline their children.

Proverbs 22:6 "Train [ Or Start ] a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it" II Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

p.s. I have spanked my children. My considered feeling now is that I wish I never had. Once a child is spanked, you can never unspank them, so if you have not, my suggestion is that you investigate other methods of discipline. Before you spank, think (not to be trite, but...) "what would Jesus do?" It'll at least give you time to cool down before punishing.

Making Sense of Slavery

An objection often raised by your garden variety skeptic has to do with slavery. "Why," they ask, "would God allow slavery? Isn't slavery an evil institution?" When it gets right down to it, this objection isn't that difficult to overcome. In fact, the skeptic often doesn't care if you answer his objection effectively; He simply moves on to the next one. That being the case, you can consider this post something for your own edification or for the rare person who is asking honest questions. We will look briefly at slavery in the Old Testament first, then we will move on to the New Testament.

The first thing we should do in addressing slavery in the Old Testament is to point out that slavery in Biblical times was not quite the same thing as the experience we had here in America. People often sold themselves into slavery in order to pay debts, and even then many had a degree of freedom. For instance, some of them could own property. Also, in the Ancient Near East (when and where the OT was written) the rights a master could exercise over his slave were regulated by concerns for human rights and social justice.

In another striking difference from Western slavery, the slavery of the Old Testament was installed to help the poor rather than the slave owner (see Lev. 25.35-43). Hebrew slaves were to be freed every six years, and when they were released their masters were to send them out with gifts to get them started on their way. Female slaves enjoyed even greater privileges than male slaves, as they were granted freedom in situations men were not (Ex. 21:10-11). Great care was taken in the Mosaic law to make certain that people were not being mistreated. Punishments for killing a slave were the same as the punishments for killing anyone else, which shows that slaves were given basic human rights.

In the New Testament the situation is different. The Roman institution of slavery was not as humanitarian as that of the Hebrews, but it is interesting to learn that some men, like Pallas, actually sold themselves into slavery in hopes of advancement in society. Apparently if you were purchased by a high ranking individual your chances for upward advancement increased. This obviously was not the case in America.

Another thing that is vital to understand regarding the New Testament and slavery is that the number one concern for a Christian is not his or her personal freedom, it is the declaration of the Gospel of Christ. If I am a slave and a Christian my first concern is to have a good testimony before my master so I can represent Christ to him. My own personal 'rights' are secondary. American Christians (and non-Christians) often have this idea turned on its head. We seem to think that becoming a Christian should leave us free to pursue our own ends, but our ends need to conform to God's. Sometimes this could mean remaining in a state that is unpleasant to our earthly sensibilities. That being said, Paul does encourage slaves to gain their freedom if they can. They can be of more use for the Kingdom of Christ that way. Keep in mind as well that many slaves during that time had two options: slavery and death. In similar situations most of us would choose survival.

It is evident, then, that the slavery objection does not carry the weight a skeptic might suspect. A little historical and biblical study will show that once again God's goodness and justice are vindicated.

There are two essays upon which I heavily relied for this post:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

"Christians Are Hypocrites!" And Other Such Challenges

How many times have you heard this phrase: "I would become a Christian or go to church, but all those Christians are such hypocrites!" Perhaps you've used the phrase yourself on a well-meaning Christian. One of the main problems Christians have today is that such complaints are justified over and over again. It's true, there are many hypocrites who do great harm to the faith. On the other hand, this complaint is just a shield some non-christians use to avoid dealing with the truth claims of the Bible. Let me explain.

When someone wants to argue against someone else's claim they have to deal with the facts. Take the judicial system as an example. Ideally, one lawyer lays out the case for one side, another lays out the opposite side, and a judge or jury decides which lawyer has the support of the facts.

What if a judge said, "Well, Lawyer Smith may or may not have the facts on his side in this case, but I know that he is a hypocrite in his every day life. Therefore, I will side with his opponent."

We would all recognize that the judge's decision is flawed. Just because someone has a problem in their personal life doesn't mean that the things they tell you are false. If the teachings of Christianity are true, whether or not some Christians live up to those teachings should have no effect on whether you believe them or not.

Look to the facts! When you realize that the claims of Christianity are in fact true, nothing should then stop you from accepting them. Anything less would be irrational.

How Could You, God?!?!

A number of people have been using the recent tsunami to re-ask the question, "how could a loving God allow people to suffer?" This is known as "the problem of evil" or the "problem of suffering." The conclusion they want us to reach is that because such suffering exists it is at least improbable that a loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God exists. We at the HAT think this is the wrong conclusion to reach and I would like to point you toward a short blog entry by Christian philosopher John Depoe that gives some good reasons why:

Why did God allow the tsunami to occur?