CalvinDude.com

There’s a scene in the movie Fargo where our intrepid car salesman, Jerry Lundegaard, sits behind his desk while a customer berates him. It seems that they had worked out an agreement on the price of a vehicle, but when the customer came in to pay for the vehicle, Jerry informed him that it would cost more than originally stated. This scene ends with the customer angrily calling Jerry a liar before angrily shouting: “Where’s my [expletive] checkbook? Let’s get this over with.”

I’ve come to realize that our government is Jerry Lundegaard. It’s always promising us a lot while delivering nothing. And we…well, we’re the customer demanding our checkbook so we can get this over with.

Taxes are a fact of life, more certain than death. And if we do not wish to live in anarchy, they are essential to the functioning of government. This is why Christ commanded His followers to “render unto Caesar.” Yet what happens when, after you render unto Caesar, nothing gets accomplished? What if you pay for services and they never materialize? In that case, you have the unjust theft of your money.

I live in Colorado Springs. Despite being a fairly conservative town, the Springs has recently gone through a budget shortfall. Not surprisingly, all the social services paid for with taxes are taking a hit. For example: snow plows are limited to “The Main Roads” this year (it took me a couple of snowfalls to realize that “The Main Roads” is apparently a proper name and not the set of roads used most often in the city), potholes are going unfilled, streetlights are being turned off at night (and burned out bulbs are not being replaced), and the transit service cut over 70 jobs and reduced hours of operation, including cutting both evening and weekend service entirely.

So Colorado Springs tried to pass a tax increase late last year (it was defeated). Somehow, immediately after the bill failed, the city accountants “discovered” an accounting error—they had an extra $4 million they didn’t realize they had. I should point out that this was before winter set in, before the transit service was gutted, before the snowplows were sent off the road. The city had $4 million in funds that they had not expected. Obviously this would be a good time to pay for road repairs, or subsidize the transit service for another year, or any number of these social programs that government so touts before they take your money.

But of course this is the real world. The money was spent on a dog shelter, to restore trash pickup service in the America the Beautiful Park, and on the mayor’s “youth initiative” (which, apparently, initiates youths or something). Meanwhile, the snows came down and roads were not plowed. Large potholes formed. People hit these potholes and tore out the suspensions on their cars. But now they couldn’t ride the bus to work because service was cut, and thus firings commenced. But at least the unemployed can take heart knowing they can get a dog and trot around America the Beautiful Park with all the youths who are picking up trash. That is, if they risk hypothermia by walking there.

I suppose that the government misspending $4 million isn’t that big of a deal anymore. But the real kicker came last week when I turned on the radio and heard that the city was graciously allowing people to “adopt a streetlight.” That’s right, if you paid a measly $100 in a residential area ($210 for businesses), you could adopt your streetlight and the city would maintain that light for you.

I don’t know about you, but I feel honored to be allowed to pay for a service that I already paid for with my tax money. It warms the heart.

This, however, shouldn’t come as a surprise. It is the natural outcome of socialism. The problem with socialism, as Margaret Thatcher once pointed out, is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. And when you run out of their money, you have to cut your social services—the very justification you used to take that money in the first place. The only way to keep these services going is to resort to the free market: those who can pay for the services can have them.

Congress just passed the health care abortion of a bill. If you want to know what will happen to the health care system, just look at the streets of Colorado Springs. Services will be cut, but those who are wealthy enough to pay for their health care twice (once in taxes, and once on the open market) will be the only people who will still have those services. Everyone else will just have to deal with the darkened lights, potholes, and snow drifts.

The photographs in this video were all taken by my mom. I think she’s got the best photographs in the world, and as I looked at several of them I got the theme from the hymn “Oh the Deep, Deep Love of Jesus” in my head (especially on the picture of the bridge in the fog). So I wrote a song with that theme and set it to my mom’s pictures. I’ll call it an early birthday present for her :-)

Oh, and yeah, I always wanted to make her cry. Figure this will do it. >:-D

We’ve recently seen another example of scientists jumping the gun by making absurd claims which only serve to backfire upon science as a whole. In this instance, the claims were made so quickly to the events that it is impossible for the claims to have even been peer-reviewed. Yet they have become “scientific truth” because of the authority of the scientists who made the claim.

Of what do I speak? I speak of the claim made by a NASA scientist (and apparently backed up by “NASA officials”) that the recent earthquake in Chile was responsible for moving the Earth’s axis by 8 cm and increased the rotation of the Earth such that our days have permanently become 1.26 milliseconds shorter, as documented in this article. We are told in very scientific terms that this axis is the “figure axis” and not the north-south axis, and that this figure axis “is the axis around which the Earth’s mass is balanced.”

I’ve mentioned in the past how science relies on both accuracy and precision, and what the distinction between the two is. Accuracy refers to how closely a measurement corresponds to reality; precision is the degree to which we are certain of our measurement. Precision is measured in science by the number of zeros after the decimal point in a number (as expressed in Scientific notation). So, 1.0 meters is not as precise as a measurement of 1.00 meters, because 1.0 meters could have been rounded from 0.9 meters while 1.00 could NOT have been rounded from 0.9.

When we deal with an object the size of the Earth, 8 cm is a very precise measurement. Let’s put this in perspective. Wiki says the Earth has an average diameter of 12,742 km. That’s precise to the nearest kilometer…but if we only have the measurement of the diameter of the earth to the nearest kilometer, we do not have the precision available to claim the movement of something by mere centimeters. (Note: I assume NASA has more precise measurements, but this is just to demonstrate my point regarding precision.)

Now here’s the thing. The rules of precision still apply, and they cross between types of measurement too. That is, if you want to know what temperature water boils at a given air pressure, you’re looking at two different measurements that require precision. First, you need to know the precision of how you measure air pressure (barometer); secondly, you need to know the precision of how you measure temperature (thermometer). Since your answer relies on both, even if you have an uber-precise thermometer, if your barometer is imprecise your final answer is likewise imprecise. Your answer can only be as precise as your least precise measurement.

So let’s move on to the claim by NASA that the Earth’s axis shifted 8 cm. Centimeters are units of length, but this axis is related to the mass of the Earth too. So we need to know a) precisely what the mass of the Earth was and precisely how it was distributed before the Earthquake and b) precisely what the mass of the Earth is and precisely how it is distributed now. And the precision of our measurement of mass must be precise enough to justify the claim of a move of a mere 8 cm. Thus, we need extremely precise mass measurements, and extremely precise length measurements. If we do not have both, we do not have a precise answer.

Just to show you the impossibility of the measurement, this requires NASA to know precisely the mass of the material that was moved in the Earthquake and precisely how far away from/toward the original figure axis this material moved.

What about the shorter day then? Is it possible to verify a shortening of 1.26 milliseconds in our day? Well, that has its own problems. If we measure sunrise and sunset, we have to account for such things as air temperature and humidity when determining how long light travels before it reaches our sensor, as well as the location of the horizon (i.e., perhaps we measure sunrise from the ocean—in which case, wave height comes into play—or from a hill, in which case plate tectonics and erosion come into play). All of these things cause miniscule precision errors, and we haven’t even talked about the inherent precision level of the sensor itself. All of which renders it impossible to verify that the days are 1.26 milliseconds shorter now then they would have been otherwise.

But in reality, the situation is even worse than that, for the claim that the Earth shifted 8 cm on its axis and days are 1.26 milliseconds shorter now is not based on any observational data at all. Rather we read: “The computer model used by Gross and his colleagues to determine the effects of the Chile earthquake effect…” etc (italics mine).

At this point, I have to wonder if the computer model even takes into account the fact that the earth is not a true sphere, but rather bulges at the equator. I certainly hope it takes that into effect. But even if so, there’s absolutely no way it accounts for all of the Earth’s topographical features—the mountains and the valleys—which help determine the distribution of mass on Earth. Nor could it take into effect all the various mine shafts that have taken mass from inside the crust of the Earth and moved it to some of the many millions of tons of building material on the face of the crust. Even if it did, it would have to be able to accurately show the composition of the Earth’s crust across the entire Earth (density of material would affect where the center of mass is, and thus where the figure axis is).

Finally, this came so quickly after the earthquake that it’s impossible for any of this to have been peer-reviewed. Instead, it’s just a NASA press conference. Which is fine as far as it goes, but when people assume you’re presenting a scientific point of view when you’re really just rushing a computer model out, that is a disservice to science.

And some other scientists have noticed. As reported here, several German scientists have questioned NASA’s conclusions. One said:

It is highly doubtful that these calculations are correct. The changes to the Earth’s axis caused by an earthquake would be so tiny that it isn’t measurable and therefore impossible to reliably detect.

Another said: “It is impossible that there could ever be such a severe earthquake which would observably move the Earth’s axis.”

Given all the factors involved, I would have to agree. It is true that we can know quite a bit. For instance, I have no doubt that we could probably get within several kilometers of where the figure axis of Earth is. We could also measure to within fractions of a second the exact length of a day. But “several kilometers” cannot justify “8 cm” and I doubt that we measure the time of day precisely enough to justify a 1.26 millisecond change. In other words, I agree with these German scientists that any effects from the earthquake would be unobservable.

The problem is, this is not what people will remember. What people will remember is that NASA claimed the Earth’s axis moved and days are now shorter. This is what the news ran with, even though it is highly dubious and not based on actual observations at all.

The greater problem is this is how most of science gets reported! From Darwinism to Global Warming to the Hole in the Ozone to the Fire Danger Levels of the Western U.S., possible scientific claims are made on shaky evidence and, if they fit the current paradigm, are given free reign to profligate until it appears that consensus has been formed. This is a disservice to the scientific method, and ultimately a disservice to everyone who relies upon science.

In The Making of an Atheist (2010. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers), James S. Spiegel engages in a task that is well-defined and focused, and perhaps maybe too focused. As a result, the book gave me mixed feelings, yet I cannot fault Dr. Spiegel as his book does exactly what he set out to accomplish. It is rather like being handed a scalpel: it’s the perfect instrument for surgery, but you wouldn’t want to carve a sculpture with one.

Thus, Spiegel’s book is very audience relative. There are certain books where I can give a blanket recommendation to everyone, as there will be “something for all types” in it. This book, however, requires one to know exactly who the audience is.

If that sounds harsh, don’t take it that way. Books that have “something for everyone” also have portions that everyone will dislike. On the other hand, with the proper context Spiegel’s book shines and I have read none better. As you can tell from that depiction, many of the things that I look at will have a relativistic factor to them: for some people they will be beneficial, for others not so much. Let me look at those first, and then get into the meat of the work.

The first “relative” factor in determining whether this book is good for you or not is the length. It’s only 130 pages long, plus some end notes after that. This makes it a fast read. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on what you want. If you’re like me and you’ve bought Calvin’s Commentaries, Luther’s Sermons, and the 2-volume works of Jonathan Edwards (you know the one I’m talking about—double columns filled with 6-point font text) then the shortness of this book is unappealing. But given that most of America today thinks that The Shack is a wonderful expression of theological thinking, this may end up being more of a benefit than a detriment to Christians as a whole.

The second “relative” factor is that, for those who have studied the issues, there was not much new information present in this book. This is related to its shortness, since Spiegel was forced to keep to the main points he tried to make without extraneous texts on rich alternate “bunny trails.” Again, this could be good or bad depending on what you expect from a book. It is good in the sense that Spiegel’s main points are very well defended and argued; it is bad if you think outside the box and want him to dig deeper into some of the implications, especially since his writing is so well done on his main points that you know he has the ability to treat those other issues quite well.

In any case, while there was little new information presented, if someone has never looked into Plantinga’s Reformed apologetics, or into modern presuppositional arguments, Spiegel is the perfect place to start. Indeed, Spiegel’s debt to Plantinga is acknowledged through the work, including the dedication page. And, having read both Plantinga and Spiegel, I can attest that Spiegel is much easier to follow. So once again, for the average reader, Spiegel’s book is going to be very beneficial.

Now let’s get into some of the details. As I said at the top, Spiegel has a very specific goal for this book:

…[M]y aim here is not to defend the Christian worldview nor even theism, for that matter. Rather, my purpose is to present a Christian account of atheism—an account that draws from the Bible, as any Christian doctrine properly does (p. 14)

The result is that this book is not a list of “arguments against atheists” but is instead an examination of what the Bible says about atheism. Spiegel does this by providing many proof-texts about unbelief from Scripture. The result is that whether you accept the validity of Scripture or not, if you read this book you will see that the Bible does make specific claims about unbelief.

Aside from the arguments of Scripture, Spiegel does have one interesting aspect to add. In his third chapter, he deals with the causes of atheism. This steps away from Scripture a bit and deals with some psychological reasons, the most common of which is the absence of a father-figure. As Spiegel says:

Is there any relevance to the fact that these two atheists grew up without a father? Some recent research strongly suggests that there is. In this chapter we will look at evidence for the claim that broken father relationships are a contributing cause of atheism. We will also consider evidence that immoral behavior plays a significant role in motivating views on ethics and religion (p. 63).

This is probably Spiegel’s weakest part of the book, as it relies heavily on anecdotal evidence. However, that said, it is a very strong “weak” point. In fact, while I read this chapter I was reminded of the line from the movie Fight Club where Tyler Durden (played by Brad Pitt) says: “Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God?” So that movie provided another bit of anecdotal evidence to the rest of Spiegel’s argumentation.

One must be careful with this sort of argument and Spiegel does take great pains to assure us that lacking a proper father-relationship does not guarantee atheism (p. 67). It does, however, seem to be very well correlated. This implies the question: why?

Spiegel answers:

Human beings were made in God’s image, and the father-child relationship mirrors that of humans as God’s “offspring.” We unconsciously (and often consciously, depending on one’s worldview) conceive of God after the pattern of our earthly father…. When one has a healthy father relationship and a father who is a decent moral model, then this metaphor and the psychological patterns it inspires are welcome. However, when one’s earthly father is defective, whether because of death, abandonment, or abuse, this necessarily impacts one’s thinking about God. Whether we call it psychological projection, transfer, or displacement, the lack of a good father is a handicap when it comes to faith (pp. 69-70).

This is one of those areas where I wish Spiegel could have spent more time. He did do a great job of giving background on several historical atheists, as well as many of the New Atheists, to illustrate this point (and I think those are worthwhile), but I would have liked to have seen more of the psychological science fleshed out. This is not because I think Spiegel might be wrong here. Rather, it’s because he’s right that I would have liked to see this point vigorously defended and expanded upon.

So, in the end, what are my final thoughts on this book? I think it’s a great book to give to anyone who wonders what the Bible says about atheism. Despite not directly attempting a rebuttal of atheism, I think atheists who read this book will be challenged by it too. One great thing about the book is that Spiegel is both faithful to Scripture and irenic toward atheists, and any offense that atheists might take would be the result of their dislike of what Scripture says rather than their dislike of Spiegel’s arguments.

Furthermore, since Spiegel largely pins his arguments directly on the text of Scripture, and uses Scripture that is both plain and non-contentious to orthodox Christian believers, this book ought to be acceptable to any mainstream Christian view. (Despite the use of the word “Reformed” in “Reformed apologetics,” Plantinga’s views are not synonymous with Calvinism, and thus one need not be a Calvinist to see the truth presented in Spiegel’s book. All Bible-believing Christians ought to agree with the conclusions presented, even if they disagree on other theological points.)

I also think this is a good book for anyone who has pondered reading Plantinga, Bahsen, or vanTil yet who is not studied in philosophy. This book gives a solid foundation to the basics of positions held by those three gentlemen in terms that most laymen can understand. It’s not in-depth enough to give anyone a full understanding of presuppositional and Reformed apologetics, but it will definitely get you a start in the right direction.

Unfortunately, for those who already do read Plantinga et al, you may not find much use for this book personally. But I also think that Spiegel didn’t intend to replace Plantinga, but rather to make Plantinga understandable to more people. And in that regard, I think he succeeds.