Monday, February 11, 2013

Astrobioethics

There are different secular value theories. One is social contract theory. That imposes a uniform code of conduct. However, it’s arbitrary. It varies in time and place. Different societies with different social mores, or even the same society with different social mores at different times.

Another is evolutionary ethics. A problem with that is the even if natural selection could confer moral instincts, this wouldn’t make our instinctive predilections objectively right or wrong. Moreover, moral instincts would vary according to the species. Different species with different moral instincts.

Let’s consider both these positions from another vantage point. Alien invasion is a common theme in the SF genre. In one variation, earth has a rare natural resource which the aliens need to survive or flourish. In another variation, aliens use humans as experimental test-subjects.

From a secular standpoint, there’d be nothing wrong with a technologically superior alien civilization exploiting us. The alien race has its own social contract, based on alien cultural values. Likewise, the alien race has its own species-variable moral instincts.

There’d be nothing wrong with aliens using humans for involuntary medical research, just as we use animals. We experiment on humans rather than animals because we value humans more highly than animals. Why experiment on humans if an animal will suffice? Better to sacrifice an animal for our benefit.

Likewise, there’d be nothing wrong with aliens exterminating the human race to monopolize our natural resources. They have a different social contract: a social contract by and for aliens.

32 comments:

  1. From a secular standpoint, there’d be nothing wrong with a technologically superior alien civilization exploiting us.

    I've encountered some atheists who bite the bullet and admit that, assuming atheism, an extra-terrestrial species that's superior to us 1. intellectually and 2. in technological might would be morally consistent to treat humans like animals, just as humans treat lower animals beneath them (like how we make hamburgers out of cows).

    Yet, they inconsistently grumble and complain when we talk about God, who is even more supremely intelligent and powerful than advanced ETs (God being omniscient/omnisapient and omnipotent) and His exercise of Sovereignty in election and predestination.

    Maybe to become consistent with their principles all anti-Calvinists should stop eating meat and become Vegans.

    Anyway, there are other difference between ETs and the Calvinist God.

    1. God created us from nothing (ex nihilo), whereas ETs (at the most) could have only "made" us by genetic experimentation/manipulation. God as THE Creator has the right to deal with His creation in a greater way because of His ontological and metaphysical superiority.

    2. God is the standard of goodness, whereas ETs are not and could not be. ET morality (assuming atheism) cannot overcome the Euthyphro Dilemma like Divine Essentialism or Divine Command Essentialism can.

    3. Even if Divine Essentialism were not an option and we had only Divine Voluntarism, the source of creaturely morality would be singular and not be arbitrary (even if people might complain the content of the morality as being arbitrary) since it's transcendent. Whereas ET morality would admittedly be relative (a cacophony of competing moral voices). For example, some in their society might belong to PETH ([extra-terrestrial] People for the Ethical Treatment of Humans) who oppose those who enjoy eating manburgers with frenchman fries and a diet soft drunk. *g*

    4. ETs would not be the greatest conceivable being and therefore wouldn't possess (individually or collectively) the great-making properties God does.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Let’s consider both these positions from another vantage point. Alien invasion is a common theme in the SF genre. In one variation, earth has a rare natural resource which the aliens need to survive or flourish. In another variation, aliens use humans as experimental test-subjects."

    Let's not! How about we focus on things of more substance and cast this foolishness into the ash heap of aburd speculations which is where is belongs. What are a profund waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed Dingess said:

      "Let's not! How about we focus on things of more substance and cast this foolishness into the ash heap of aburd speculations which is where is belongs. What are a profund waste of time."

      Actually, Ed, your comment is itself a bit unsubstantial. For starters, you don't even bother to explain why you think this post is "foolishness," "a profound waste of time," etc. Is it a waste of time because it's speculative? What's wrong with speculation? Is it foolishness because it's fiction? What about Jesus' parables? And so forth. It seems to me you're just ranting and raving here.

      By the way, based on your comment here and previous comments, you might want to consider whether you're holding a grudge against Steve. It comes across that way at times.

      Delete
    2. Ed, we're not here to please you. Apologetics uses thought-experiments.

      Delete
    3. Now that is an excellent question that every "apologist" should consider. Lately (for the last year ot two) I have had to ask myself that question nearly every day. What is it about these complex subjects that captivates my attention so? What is the attraction. I read this quote from a scientist who had observed comet Hyakutake, "We have our work cut out for us in explaining these data - but thats the kind of problem you love to have." I could not help but wonder if I have loved the complex for the wrong reason. To solve a problem that few can solve is indeed gratifying, and perhaps sinfully so to the fallen nature, or at least the temptation exists.

      I suppose the answer is that I see a need to discipline the intellect, not just in the area of pride and lust. Those are obvious as far as it goes. But in this area of speculation. I think Calvin had an excellent perspective on the subject of speculation. I continue to ask, does this behavior honor God? Is it edifying to my fellow believers? How complex is too complex and how simple is just downright intellectual sloth?

      As for the example, man seems to be capable of raising objections ad infinitum to justify why they can live as they please. It has nothing whatever to do with genuine intellectual endeavor. It is entirely ethical from top to bottom. I wonder if it is okay to pretend that it isn't ethical. I wonder if it is ever okay to pretend that men are fully capable of reasoning rightly apart from divine revelation in nature and in Scripture. Am I inferring that it is ipso facto wrong to engage unregenerate reason? Not at all. I do it all the time. However, I think it is unsafe to pretend that any approach to the gospel is outside the authority of Scirpture. Is it okay to frame things up the way you have? If I step into the illustration, I will have a very difficult time answering the athiest. For he will say, in that situation, God is not, and I am worse off than he. For indeed, if aliens invade earth and torture humans, having their own social contract, it would be clear that Christian truth would have more explaining to do than the atheist. Or do we think that presence of a social contract in aliens would serve as theistic proof for God even in those circumstances?

      I find the illustration completely detached from reality, from what is possible. I wonder what Paul would have said if he heard such a defense of Christianity. Because the argument is pure speculation, and because it creates as many, if not more problems for Christianity than it solves, I find it utterly absurd and entirely useless. I am not making a judgment about your intellect, your character, your faith, or you as a person. So far as I know, you are a Son of the King. That commands a certain degree of respect and honor from me, a fellow servant of Christ. My rule has come to be: my goal is to show the same love, respect, and honor on the web as I would in Sunday school. If I wouldn't disagree with my pastor or an elder that way, in person, in church, then I should not do it here either. The rules of kindess are the same everywhere as far as I can tell.

      Delete
    4. Paul was very adaptive. A master of cross-cultural evangelism.

      Many people enjoy science fiction. So we can use science fiction scenarios in apologetics and bioethics.

      Delete
  3. Ed Dingess said:

    "I wonder what Paul would have said if he heard such a defense of Christianity."

    I see the post more as a critique of secular ethics. But maybe I'm mistaken.

    "Because the argument is pure speculation, and because it creates as many, if not more problems for Christianity than it solves, I find it utterly absurd and entirely useless."

    1. I don't see how invading aliens would necessarily be so problematic for Christianity. It could be God created these aliens. It could God chose not to redeem these aliens.

    2. Sometimes what was science fiction yesterday is science today, and it's possible what's science fiction today could be science tomorrow. Take marine exploration. Or people landing on the moon. Or robots. Or geosynchronous satellites. Or bioengineering. So there could be a fine line between speculation and reality. (Of course, sometimes the speculative is indeed simply absurd.)

    3. You might not believe aliens exist, but many secularists do. So there's at least some sort of common ground to enter into dialogue with some secularists by posing these sorts of scenarios.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose I may tend to focus on the utter irrationality of believing that aliens exist but God does not.

      MY approach is to spend a decent amount of time in the discussion. I focus a lot of my exchange on morality. It is a tough argument for atheists to handle. When the argument turns to absurdities, I practice the mandate of not casting my peril before swine. There is a point where we not only should exit, but according to Jesus, we must. I do think it sinful to spend your time in an endless debate with someone who has no interest in the truth. Those people are easier to spot that we sometimes care to admit. God's truth is precious. That was Jesus' point.

      I am not necessarily opposed to finding a language that people can relate to. I think that is necessary. The question is precisely that though. Do we have to resort to these kinds of discussions? Have we left behind all semblance of intellectual thought when we start to enter such discussions? I see people given over to this kind of irrational thought as potentially under a divine delusion. I will give them the gospel, but I am not going to set around over a beer or two and waste a ton of time answering one rediculous unfounded belief after another. That is where I am coming from.

      Delete
    2. The thought-experiment isn't based on the actual or probable existence of E.T.s. Ethicists often use hypothetical situations which may not be realistic, precisely because an artificial illustration can precisely focus the issue, without extraneous considerations.

      Delete
    3. Ed Dingess said:

      "I suppose I may tend to focus on the utter irrationality of believing that aliens exist but God does not."

      Speaking for myself, I don't see good evidence for the existence of aliens. At the same time I don't think it's necessarily utterly irrational, a waste of time, or sinful to speculate about their possible existence in the context of apologetics. Sure, it can be. But I don't see how it necessarily is so.

      Anyway, you obviously disapprove (loudly!) of this sort of speculation. But for all your derision I still don't see any reasons for why you think so. I just see a lot of huffing and puffing.

      In any case, I do apologize for getting us off topic. What I've said is at best secondary to Steve's post.

      Delete
    4. Mingled vanity and pride appear in this, that when miserable men do seek after God, instead of ascending higher than themselves as they ought to do, they measure him by their own carnal stupidity, and neglecting solid inquiry, fly off to indulge their curiosity in vain speculation. Hence, they do not conceive of him in the character in which he is manifested, but imagine him to be whatever their own rashness has devised. [John Calvin and Henry Beveridge, vol. 1, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845), 59.]

      I do not mean to be loud about it. However, I do intend to make the case that human reasoning is subject to the Christian ethic. It must be. And it is right for us to ask the question not "if" speculation can cross the line, but rather "when" it crosses the line. I would argue that it crosses the line when it ventures into areas that have been clearly marked off-limits by God's intentionally NOT choosing to reveal them to us. Some things we can never know! Now, as shocking as that may sound, it is the truth. God has a right to keep some things to Himself. I would suggest that speculation about the existence of aliens somewhere in the universe and their potential invasion of humankind is baseless speculation. I don't mean to sound harsh. I simply mean to drive home this point.

      Every human behavior is subject to the Christian ethic.
      Speculation is a human behavior.
      Therefore, human speculation is subject to the Christian ethic.

      All that is left is to show what Scripture says about human speculation. The secret things belong to the Lord, but the things revealed belong to us. In other words, stay away from those things which the Lord had not revealed.

      Is it wrong to examine our heart motives for why we revel so in such unanswerable complexities? Why do they tease us so? What is it about these complexities that we find so irresistibly seductive? I am not making an indictment. I am encouraging a litte introspection in light of Scripture, in light of the metaphysical reality of God's revelation, and what He has chosen NOT to reveal. Curiosity toward what He revealed, passionate curiosity. Respect for what He has not! That's all.

      Delete
    5. Ed Dingess said:

      "I would argue that it crosses the line when it ventures into areas that have been clearly marked off-limits by God's intentionally NOT choosing to reveal them to us. Some things we can never know! Now, as shocking as that may sound, it is the truth. God has a right to keep some things to Himself. I would suggest that speculation about the existence of aliens somewhere in the universe and their potential invasion of humankind is baseless speculation...In other words, stay away from those things which the Lord had not revealed."

      So Steve's thought-experiment is "clearly marked off-limits" simply because God hasn't revealed it to us in his word? Well, God hasn't revealed a number of things to us in his word. For example, he hasn't revealed how to build a car in his word. He hasn't revealed computers or the internet in his word. He hasn't revealed the intricacies of mathematics and physics in his word. He hasn't revealed the art of calligraphy in his word. He hasn't revealed the details of how to perform surgery in his word. He hasn't revealed American history and politics in his word. He hasn't revealed Christian literature like the Pilgrim's Progress or Narnia in his word. Is it therefore utterly irrational, a waste of time, and sinful to speculate about these subjects?

      Delete
  4. Steve said...
    Ed, we're not here to please you. Apologetics uses thought-experiments.

    As Steve and others have pointed out in the past, the Apostle Paul used a thought experiment in the sorites argument he uses when he spoke hypothetically of the consequences that would result if Jesus didn't rise from the dead (1 Cor. 15:12ff.)

    Ed Dingess said...
    For indeed, if aliens invade earth and torture humans, having their own social contract, it would be clear that Christian truth would have more explaining to do than the atheist.

    Christian truth would have more explaining to do, but an alien invasion wouldn't disprove that the Christian God exists. Since, it's logically and theologically possible that both are true.

    Ed Dingess said...
    Because the argument is pure speculation, and because it creates as many, if not more problems for Christianity than it solves, I find it utterly absurd and entirely useless.

    By that reasoning Paul's hypothetical thought experiment does worse. Paul's hypothetical assumes for the sake of argument that Christ didn't rise from the dead. Which would mean either that the messiah didn't live sinlessly, or that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, or that the Christian God doesn't exist, or that no God/gods exists at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul never assumed for the sake of argument that Christ did not raise from the dead. The entire context of 1 Cor. 15 has nothing to do with a hypothetical experiment. That is anachonistic through and through.

      Delete
    2. If you want to believe that it is theologically possible that aliens could actually invade earth and that somehow such a view comports with Scripture and that somehow you feel completely justified in thinking that such a thing is possible, by all means, go ahead. Just make sure you disclose this fact to any church that is thinking of hiring you or to any board that is thinking about ordaining you. Let the chips fall where they may.

      Ah, the world of theory, where we can speculate about whatever we want, where our thoughts are absolutely free to wander wherever they please. As for me, I will gird up the loins of my mind and use it only to the glory of God. I prefer to pour over the things God has revealed. Deut 29:29 clfearly informs us that there are things about which we are not permitted to speculate. The secret things belong to the Lord. There is a reason He did not reveal them to us. I personally think that reason is humility. God wants us to humbly accept what He has given us and respect the limitations He has put in place and honor His right NOT to venture beyond those boundaries. I think a case can be made for that from Scripture.

      Delete
    3. Once again, Ed Dingess, you sure are taking a lot of umbrage over something you assume without argument is wrong, i.e., that it's wrong to speculate about certain things. After all, if a case can be made to support your heated denouncements of speculation, thought-experiments, and the like from Scripture, then why not make it? For example, how does Deut 29:29 forbid speculation of the sort that Steve's post is about? Otherwise, if you keep pronouncing these sorts of judgments and woes upon people absent argumentation, you're behaving irrationally (to say the least).

      Delete
    4. Ed, my point was that there's nothing in the Bible that would make the existence of extra-terrestrials impossible (even though it's highly unlikely given what **is** revealed in Scripture). In which case, if they did exist, then there's the logical possibility of their invasion. In which case, humanity would have to defend themselves just as we have when attacked by newly discovered and spreading infectious diseases.

      Paul never assumed for the sake of argument that Christ did not raise from the dead.

      Paul explicitly states, "And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" (1 Cor. 15:17). This clearly seems to be a case where Paul used a thought experiment to show the logical consequences of what would happen of Christ didn't actually rise from the dead.

      Ah, the world of theory, where we can speculate about whatever we want, where our thoughts are absolutely free to wander wherever they please.

      Paul says we are to cast down arguments and "speculations" (2 Cor. 10:5 NASB) and make them captive to the obedience of Christ. If Christian scholars didn't study the speculations of the unregenerate, then they wouldn't be able to cast them down and refute them. For example, if Christian scholars and apologists refused to study the Documentary Hypothesis, then Christians at large would be vulnerable to its errors. For Christians to hide their heads in the sand, thinking that ignoring the challenges will make them go away, would be to capitulate to unbelievers. Yet, Paul was familiar enough with Pagan sources that he quotes Menander, Epimenides and Aratus (and possibly Cleanthes).

      Delete
    5. I don't need to study every counterfiet that comes along in order to refute it. All I need to know is the truth. I am not suggesting we should not be acquainted with unbelieving arguments. However, at the end of the day, they go off course at their roots, at their basic presuppositions. It is familiarity with these basics that is enough. I do not think we close our eyes to objections. On the other hand, I do not think we chase every skeptical rabbit that comes running out of the hole either. Who has time for that nonsense?

      You positioning of Paul's argument is off the mark. Paul used the fact of the resurrection of Christ to rebuke the heresy that there is no such thing as a resurrection. If there is no resurrection, then Christianity is an absurd position. If there is no resurrection, then Christ is not raised and if Christ is not raised, then your faith is in vain. Some of the Corinthians had trouble believing in the resurrection of saints and Paul showed how such a view ultimately destoryed the faith. It is not presented as a real hypothetical. In other words, the alien conversation concerns what is actually theoretically possible. Paul was in no way implying that his conditonal sentence was an actual possibility. Nor was he assuming the position of the skeptic, pretending everyone is netural, and arguing people to faith in the resurrection. It was a good old-fashioned rebuke. A correction in love away from hereitical nonsense. I suppose one could say that the Corinthians were engaging in sinful speculation concerning the resurrection of the saints. :-)

      Delete
    6. Rocking,
      First of all, there are numerous episodes in Scripture where woes are pronounced without a single solitary argument. Second, I am far more concerned with being ethical than I am with some logician's assessment that I am being irrational. Third, I am actually not being irrational if I am announcing what is true. To be irrational is to go against reason. It does not follow that I have to formulate a syllogism in order to have an argument. One of the chief goals of reason is to look for the arument in the passage. I think what you mean is that you do not like my dogmatic approach where I state a proposition without bothering to provide the kind of evidence you want. Exegete Deut. 29:29 and then 2 Tim. 2 and let me know if you find any basis whatsoever that directs beleivers to be careful about speculation, not to mention the constant entanglement of intellectual joisting. As attractive as it is, it can lead to spiritual ruin the same as any other autonomous behavior.

      Delete
    7. Ed Dingess said:

      "First of all, there are numerous episodes in Scripture where woes are pronounced without a single solitary argument."

      I recall our Lord himself doing so. But I'm quite sure you're not the Lord!

      "Second, I am far more concerned with being ethical than I am with some logician's assessment that I am being irrational."

      First off, I'm hardly asking you to become some high falutin' "logician" or scholar or what not. (Although this is ironic considering your Blogger profile indicates you hold "BTh ThM ThD" degrees and are a "Member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society.") I'm simply asking you why you think thought-experiments like the one in Steve's post are so wrong. So far all you've done is huff and puff, and then cite Deut 29:29 as if citing a proof-text ipso facto answers the question.

      Also, you're the one who originally said speculation of the kind in Steve's post is "irrational." Not to mention "absurd," "entirely useless," "foolishness," deserving of being "cast...into the ash heap," "a profound waste of time," and "sinful." So you're free to call speculation and thought-experiments like the one in this post "irrational," but you retreat into a sort of holier-than-thou attitude or mock piety and say you're "far more concerned with being ethical" when I challenge you to make sense of what you've said?

      Earlier you said: "Just make sure you disclose this fact to any church that is thinking of hiring you or to any board that is thinking about ordaining you. Let the chips fall where they may." Perhaps you should show your fellow elders or parishioners your comments in this thread. Is the attitude and behavior you're exhibiting here becoming of a Christian?

      "Third, I am actually not being irrational if I am announcing what is true."

      But the most obvious problem is you're not actually "announcing what is true." Again, you're merely proof-texting.

      Delete
    8. "Exegete Deut. 29:29 and then 2 Tim. 2 and let me know if you find any basis whatsoever that directs beleivers to be careful about speculation, not to mention the constant entanglement of intellectual joisting."

      Actually, you didn't exegete Deut 29:29. But that's besides the point because I accepted your interpretation for the sake of argument. You took Deut 29:29 to indicate we should "stay away from those things which the Lord had not revealed." But that's problematic for the reasons I point out above.

      "As attractive as it is, it can lead to spiritual ruin the same as any other autonomous behavior."

      Sure, I suppose it's possible speculation and thought-experiments might "lead to spiritual ruin" for some. Just like many other things in life including otherwise licit things (e.g. there's nothing wrong with browsing the internet but perhaps for some it could "lead to spiritual ruin"). But the problem is you're assuming speculation and thought-experiments like this one necessarily "lead to spiritual ruin" for everyone.

      By the way, you've described how "attractive" this sort of speculation is for you. How "irresistibly seductive" it is for you. How these "tease" you so. But that's not necessarily the case for everyone. For instance, I sometimes find thought-experiments interesting. But I wouldn't say speculation and thought-experiments are "irresistibly seductive" or "tease" me or that I "revel" in them.

      Yet you "encourage" people to "examine our heart motives for why we revel so in such unanswerable complexities." As such, it seems to me you're tempted by something many people aren't tempted by, which is fine. But it seems to me the problem is you want to forbid speculation and thought-experiments in others too.

      It's as if you're a guy who is tempted by sports. So you denounce watching sports or participating in sports. You say watching sports is irrational, a profound waste of time, and sinful. You say it can lead to spiritual ruin. But that's hardly the case for many if not most people.

      Delete
    9. I have provided evidence for my conclusions below. Concerning speculation and conjecture, I have said nothing new that has not already been said by the Apostle Paul or by John Calvin, a man who detested speculative imaginations.

      Contextually, we are discussin the idea that it is ok to continue to engage atheists who are so determined to reject God that they would accept life on other planets but not the existence of God. My point is that when men turn to such folly, it is a sure sign the conversation is over. Secondly, to posit that it is theoretically possible and theolgoically congruent that aliens do exist is foolish. Why? We have no reason whatever to even allow our imaginations to wonder about such nonsense.

      Your approach seems to deny that ethics apply to the practice of speculation at all. Your language indicates that you might even think the area ethically neutral. If not, then by what objective means do you determine when speculation or intellectual investigation turns sinful? By what standard? By what authority? From what I am reading, you almost seem to infer that human reason is the standard by which human reason should conduct itself. That is to say, reason is self-attesting, self-authoritative.

      I am suggesting that it is not! By the way, my elders would have no problem with me attacking a view like I have. While I have used direct adjectives to describe my position on this proctice, I think my view soundly biblical, according to Paul's instructions and I used the very same language he used to describe it. I have disparaged no person's character or their intelligence. That would be immoral. See my comment at the bottom to understand where I am coming from. I have a diploma or two on my wall, and I am working on another. I am a member of the EPS. I believe in academic excellence. I believe is using my reasoning skills to very best of my abilities. I believe in sound arguments and being able to recognize unsound ones. However, I do not trust my motives and I find myself constantly placing them under the microscope to make sure I am growing in sanctification. Some men have a bent to lie, others to cheat, others to lust or steal, and some have a bent to pride, to idolatry of the intellect. We are all sinners in constant need of accountability and correction.

      Delete
    10. AP is right. Paul does assume the non-Resurrection for the sake of argument. He poses a hypothetical he doesn't believe in to illustrate the consequences if you carry that hypothetical to its logical conclusion.

      Delete
    11. Ed Dingess said:

      "Contextually, we are discussin the idea that it is ok to continue to engage atheists who are so determined to reject God that they would accept life on other planets but not the existence of God."

      No, contextually we're discussing Steve's post. (Besides I've already apologized for taking us off the point of Steve's post.)

      "Secondly, to posit that it is theoretically possible and theolgoically congruent that aliens do exist is foolish. Why? We have no reason whatever to even allow our imaginations to wonder about such nonsense."

      Your vehement disapproval isn't equivalent to an argument let alone a reasonable argument.

      "Your approach seems to deny that ethics apply to the practice of speculation at all. Your language indicates that you might even think the area ethically neutral."

      That may be your interpolation, but that's not my position.

      "If not, then by what objective means do you determine when speculation or intellectual investigation turns sinful? By what standard? By what authority?"

      Obviously Biblical ethics is my ultimate ethical standard. But why are you attempting to turn this around to me? You're the one who originally lambasted Steve's post.

      "By the way, my elders would have no problem with me attacking a view like I have. While I have used direct adjectives to describe my position on this proctice, I think my view soundly biblical, according to Paul's instructions and I used the very same language he used to describe it. I have disparaged no person's character or their intelligence. That would be immoral."

      On the contrary, you have disparaged a "person's character or their intelligence" in this very thread. Implicitly. For instance, you say it's "irrational," "a waste of time," and "sinful" to engage in speculations like this. Well, then, the implication is those who engage in these sorts of speculation are irrational, time-wasters, and sinful.

      Delete
  5. Ed Dingess said...
    I suppose the answer is that I see a need to discipline the intellect, not just in the area of pride and lust. Those are obvious as far as it goes.

    Agreed. Calvin wrote:

    “Almost all men are infected with the disease of desiring useless knowledge. It is of great importance that we should be told what is necessary for us to know, and what the Lord desires us to contemplate, above and below, on the right hand and on the left, before and behind.

    The love of Christ is held out to us as the subject which ought to occupy our daily and nightly meditations, and in which we ought to be wholly immersed. He who holds in possession of this alone, has enough.

    Beyond it there is nothing solid, nothing useful– nothing, in short, that is right or sound. Go abroad in heaven and earth and sea, you will never go beyond this without overstepping the lawful bounds of wisdom.”

    –John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, trans. T.H.L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 169. Calvin is commenting on Ephesians 3: 18-19.

    Another translation:

    "Almost all men are infected with the disease of desiring to obtain useless knowledge. It is of great importance that we should be told what is necessary for us to know, and what the Lord desires us to contemplate, above and below, on the right hand and on the left, before and behind. The love of Christ is held out to us as the subject which ought to occupy our daily and nightly meditations, and in which we ought to be wholly plunged. He who is in possession of this alone has enough. Beyond it there is nothing solid, nothing useful, — nothing, in short, that is proper or sound. Though you survey the heaven and earth and sea, you will never go beyond this without overstepping the lawful boundary of wisdom."
    -http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iv.iv.iii.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here is the evidence support my argument that over-indulgence in arguments and the practice of baseless speculation and unjustifiable conjecture could actually be sinful.
    Deut29:29 clearly forbids human effort to penetrate the border of Divine revelation. 2 Tim. 2:14 commands us NOT to be overly quarrelsome about words. Paul calls is useless and spiritually destructive. In v. 16 he says we should avoid (not indulge) empty chatter. In 1 Tim. 6:4-5 Paul warns about those who have a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words. He says they create strife. He describes these men as those who are engaged in constant friction. Contextually he is speaking about men who have depraved minds. I argue that Christians should behave differently than these men who set the human intellect up as an idol and then purport to call on Paul’s preaching and disputes to justify the behavior of continuous arguments over the most absurd concepts. Then again in 1 Tim. 6:20, Paul tells Timothy to guard the truth that has been entrusted to him and to avoid pointless chatter and anything that contradicts, that is false knowledge. In 1 Tim. 1:4 he says we are not to give any attention to myths, legendary stories, normally about supernatural beings, etc. These give rise to “mere speculation.” They give rise to useless speculation rather than the advancement of the administration of God.
    Useless speculations exist. Christians have a mandate not to engage in useless speculations. Therefore, Christians must identify useless speculation so they can avoid it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. As a quick note, you didn't solely call the speculative thought-experiment "sinful" but also "irrational" as well as a number of other things.

      2. I don't see the relevance of every verse or passage you've cited to the topic at hand. For example, I don't see how 1 Tim 6:4-5 or 2 Tim 2:14 are relevant to this post. I don't see a quarrelsome or contentious spirit marking Steve's post at all.

      3. I don't agree with every interpretation you've made. For example, I don't see how 1 Tim 1:4's myths refers to "supernatural beings." Plus, it's not as if aliens are necessarily supernatural beings. Let alone fictitious aliens from a scifi scenario which was what was posited in this post. But let's leave that aside for the moment.

      4. More to the point, I could easily agree with your conclusion that useless speculation should be avoided. However, even if I do, this doesn't necessarily mean Steve's thought-experiment is an instance of "useless speculation." You still haven't made the connection. You still haven't "identif[ied]" his post as "useless speculation."

      What makes this post "useless speculation"? Simply because it's a thought-experiment involving aliens? Is the thought of aliens or alien invasion itself verboten? How does considering the point of Steve's post "create strife" or "engage in constant friction"? How does it "set the human intellect up as an idol"? Why isn't criticizing secular ethics like Steve's post does part of "the advancement of the administration of God"?

      Delete
    2. 1. An irrational arugment is an argument that is not rational. The argument was irrational because it was incongruent with Paul's literary device.

      2. You don't see the relevance because you don't want to see it. I am not saying this post in and of itself is contentious. I am saying that the constant practice of engaging men like these atheists who come up with a plethora of objections to Christianity is a bad practice. We have to end the conversation eventually. We are not permitted to continually bicker back and forth with them.

      3. Look at the word MUTHOS. Then you will understand what Paul had in mind when he used the word. If it applies to those kind of myths, surely it is not illegitimate for me to apply it to aliens.

      4. Useless speculation is speculation that seeks to exceed the limits of revelation and that does nothing to advance the adminstration of God. I think it is possible Steve's does both, but at a minimum I think it does the former.

      I once debated an atheist that I finally got to admit that crushing a soda can was the moral equivalent of crushing a baby's head. I did not press any farther than that. That was enough. I politely thanked him for the conversation, told him I prayed and hoped that God would open his eyes, and walked away.

      Jesus forbad His disciples from this constant back and forth. Once it was determined that a city or a house wasn't going to listen, they were to leave, shake the dust off their feet and go. I have been involved with apologetics for 20 years now. I am convinced that for the most part, not only is our perspective on the subject wrong, our practice is not consistent with Scripture. My opinion.

      Delete
    3. You're pretty quarrelsome yourself, Ed. You're an ankle-biter. You don't do apologetics, but you savage those who do. You've made no constructive contribution to this debate. You try to sabotage what others are doing. You're becoming a tool of the devil. Don't come back.

      Delete
    4. No Steve, I am not a tool of the devil. What an unbelievable wicked thing to say to a fellow Christian. I just don't do apologetics the way you do them. That makes me a tool of the devil. I hope everyone is pausing and taking note of that remark. This is EXACTLY the kind of behavior Scripture condemns. You spend tons of energy on intellectual argument, and abolutely none on letting your words be seasoned with salt. You are free to criticize my views, and demonstrate they are unbiblical. Scripture is our authority after all. But to call a fellow Christ a tool of the devil because you don't like something they said is unacceptable behavior for anyone, Steve, even you.

      Delete
    5. Ed Dingess said:

      "I am not saying this post in and of itself is contentious. I am saying that the constant practice of engaging men like these atheists who come up with a plethora of objections to Christianity is a bad practice. We have to end the conversation eventually. We are not permitted to continually bicker back and forth with them."

      As you say, Steve's post is not "bicker[ing] back and forth" with atheists here. So I don't see why you brought it up in the first place.

      "If it applies to those kind of myths, surely it is not illegitimate for me to apply it to aliens."

      Paul in 1 Tim 1:4a says, "nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies."

      Check out Philip Towner and George Knight III's commentaries on the pastoral epistles for starters. Knight briefly notes: "Furthermore, the context of 'myths and geneaologies' in the PE suggests not gnostic aeons but matters relating to Jewish speculations and given an erroneous religious significance."

      If this is correct, it's not as if Steve's thought-experiment about aliens here is susceptible to being given "an erroneous religious significance."

      "Useless speculation is speculation that seeks to exceed the limits of revelation and that does nothing to advance the adminstration of God. I think it is possible Steve's does both, but at a minimum I think it does the former."

      Once again, your say-so doesn't make it so. You can keep saying Steve's post "exceeds the limits of revelation" or whatever till the cows come home. But it doesn't prove anything without further elaboration.

      "Jesus forbad His disciples from this constant back and forth. Once it was determined that a city or a house wasn't going to listen, they were to leave, shake the dust off their feet and go."

      Speaking of which, I'm sorry to say but I've been foolish enough to keep engaging you on this. There are more important things to do.

      Delete
    6. How Jason and I spend our time is none of your business, Ed. Yes, you're becoming a tool of the devil. You don't offer a better version of apologetics–since you don't have one to offer. You just cut down Christians who do apologetics. Cut down Christians who are doing the work you shirk. You're a fifth column for the cause of infidelity.

      You are wasting Jason's time and mine on your hobbyhorse. You can ride your hobbyhorse in your attic all day long. But don't continue to siphon off time we could be putting to better use. Every comment we waste on you is time we could have spent on something else, something better. And we'll never get that time back.

      I don't share your obsession. I have my own priorities. Further comments from you will be deleted. Go back to your own blog, where you belong.

      Delete