Proving A Negative

A revelation I've had recently regarding substantiating or disproving claims is whether or not one can prove a negative claim or that something doesn't exist. In general, it isn't good argumentation or reasoning to try and prove a negative, or to formulate an argument that something doesn't exist and try to "prove" that it doesn't exist. This is because, for example, if one tries to argue that God doesn't exist, there could always be another god around the corner that one is unaware, or if one tries to prove that leprechauns don't exist there could always be a leprechaun, however unlikely, hiding somewhere in the corner of the universe.

What is better, and provides for better argumentation and reasoning, is to make an opposite positive claim which would necessarily entail that assumption, which can met with a burden of proof. Instead of simply making the claim that the Christian god doesn't exist, one could rightly claim that the Christian god is a mythical figure made up by men and provide evidence that supports that assertion. If this claim is justified this would obviously entail the assumption that the Christian god doesn't actually exist as an existential being in our reality. Several lines of evidence could be given to support this assertion, such as the nature of god in the Bible reflecting the nature of man, how the Bible seems to be anything but divinely inspired by an omnipotent supernatural god, the millions of unanswered prayers, etc. 

Abiogenesis, Intelligence, and DNA

The origin of the code for all living things, DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid, is a controversial mystery among inquiring minds who want to know the origin of all living things. Some say an intelligence created it because it is far too complex to have been created by accident, while others insist more naturalistic processes were the cause. Others will simply say they don't know its origin and leave the discussion at that.The controversary and positions are understandable, since DNA as those who espouse origin by intelligence like to point out, is almost unexaggeratedly unfathomably complex. This is certainly a truth that can't be denied, even by those who are not convinced its origin is by intelligent design, and anyone who would deny this would be laughed out of the discussion by parties on both sides of the debate. Regarding this discussion I believe it needs to be established that there really are only two options; either an intelligence formed DNA as it currently is or it happened by purely naturalistic (I would dare say chemical) processes. I do not believe this is a false dichotomy because based on the context this seems to be the only two logical options that could be possible. If I am wrong and someone convinces me I will glady correct myself.

The position taken by those who would claim an intelligence created DNA or formed it as it is is certainly not an unwarranted or unreasonable conclusion for someone to jump to. As already stated DNA is unfathomably complex, the result of a very very very long complex chain of chemical reactions, all orderered and structured in such a way that they result in the creation of a living breathing organism, and in the case of humans a living breathing organism that is cognizantly aware of its enivornment and existence and has feelings, emotions, aspirations, etc. From the complexity of the human brain down to the trillions of complex cells that make life possible many are awed into the belief, understandably, that DNA which is far far more complex than anything intelligent humans have created must have been created by an intelligence itself. How could DNA, which is so intricately and complexly structured and ordered for life to exist, have been created by chance? How could it work in the beginning if everything is ordered in such a way that if anything would change it would no longer work? These are the questions the intelligent design propopnents reasonably ask.

On the other side are those who propose the hypothesis of DNA occuring through naturalistic (again dare I say chemical) processes. They see no need to assume a designer intelligently designed it, even if they don't know precisely how it originated, because as DNA stands and works now it is a completely self-sustaining biochemical process that requires no intelligent intervention from an outside source. The driver of life and the thing that propels change in the genetic code of DNA, evolution, is also completely self-sustaining and does not require the outside intervention of an intelligent source to run it. True, an intelligence could have started it and then let it run on its own afterward, but to this side the assumption seems unwarranted and unnecessary because everything we know about DNA and evolution which shapes it is self-sustaining biochecmical processes that do not require and intelligence to run. It also does not appear that an intelligence created a DNA code specifically for each type of organism since every organism's genetic code will eventually change through time and eventually become a different code for a different species.

There are good points to be had by both sides, to be sure, but personally while I understand the reasoning of the intelligent design camp and I don't fault them for the conclusion they come to I believe DNA formed through naturalistic chemical processes. Notice I said I BELIEVE, not I KNOW, because there is a difference between believing something and knowing something to be an unequivocal fact. I believe something when I see enough proponderance of evidence to warrant that conclusion, but I KNOW something when it is an unequivocal fact, such as 2 + 2 equals 4 or that DNA exists for example.

Before I get to my reasons for believing DNA occurred through naturalistic chemical processes I want to explain Occam's Razor, a principle in general logic. Occam's Razor simply states that the most simple explanation for a phenomenon is the most likely to be true, simple not meaning the easiest to understand but the explanation requiring the fewest amount of assumptions, or in the way I like to put it the explanation that is most consistent with everything we already know and requires the least amount of assuming anything that we don't know.

Let's apply Occam's razor first to the intelligent design camp. True, we know intelligence exists, and that intelligence creates incredibly complex structures akin to how DNA is so unfathomably complex, and on the surface this sounds like it should be compatible with Occam's razor. 

If we know intelligence exists, and that it creates incredibly complex things, it's valid logically to assume an intelligence created the incredibly complex DNA right? Not necessarily. The issue with Occam's razor and the argument for intelligent design for DNA is that the intelligence being espoused for the creation of the complex structures akin to DNA are the results of HUMAN intelligence, who are themselves the result of DNA. The only intelligence that is unequivocally known to exist is the result of DNA itself. Sure, some might believe in a god or gods who are intelligent, but if this was an unequivocal fact like DNA itself there would be no dispute about its existence and it would be a reasonable assumption to make because we would know for a fact that it exists. We do not know for a fact that a human-like intelligence outside of DNA exists. This argument is positing intelligence which is a result of DNA as the origin of DNA itself.  

This argument is also assuming some sort of intelligent being and/or deity existed who was intelligent enough to create something as complex as DNA, a being whom we know nothing about nor how that being itself even came into existence, or how that being took all of the molecules and somehow formed them into DNA as if it were in a modern day laboratory setting and playing with molecules and their reactions with one another like a high school chemistry classroom. 

This argument also uses the false equivocation fallacy of comparing human-made static structures with self-replicating biological organisms that have a built-in system that can gradually change them over time through purely naturalitstic processes, or how those structures are made from a top-down design rather than a bottom-up design which is how evolution could very well have occurred because it is self-replicating and can change over time through biochemical processes.

For these reasons, even with how incredibly complex DNA is, I believe the intelligent design hypothesis fails Occam's Razor. 

Regarding the naturalistic hypothesis, there are many more consistencies with things we know and fewer assumptions regarding things we don't know. 

First of all, due to the very virtue of DNA and even life existing we know it's possible for molecules to replicate themselves. We don't know if the first self-replicating molecules would have started with a more primitive form of DNA, or RNA, or some other system but the fact that we know that molecules do this means it is not far-fetched to imagine that the first organisms were self-replicating molecules and this is consistent with what we know at the current time. 

Furthermore, there are two facts that are consistent with what we know that can explain how molecules transitioned from simpler to more complex and led to DNA as we know it today - Natural selection and that the environment of the earth was very different billions of years ago. We know how natural selection works due to its role in evolutionary change, and that it can take things from simpler to more complex, and that natural selection in combination with the changing atmospheres and conditions of the early earth could have easily caused these self-replicating molecules to change and become more complex over time as the population of molecules adapted to the new conditions. This could also explain how eventually the self-replicating molecules developed a system complex enough to not work if any of it was change, since it gradually changed over time and gradually became more complex. 

This theory invokes more things that are already known, such as natural selection, self-replicating molecules, and that the atmosphere and conditions of the early earth were changing, versus assuming an unknown intelligence outside of DNA that may or may not exist created it through unknown means or with unknown mechanisms.

Whack A Hovind

 Lately I've been watching videos on "Dr. Dino" Kent Hovind, including his "Whack and Atheist Wednesday" videos. Kent Hovind is a Fundamentalist, Bible-believing creationist who believes the earth was created in 6000 years and that dinosuars lived with men. He believes Noah's flood, which version I'm not sure of, literally happened. He also believes evolution is the "dumbest and most dangerous" thing taught today and that it is a religion and not science. He has debated over 250 evolutionists and from what I have gathered he uses the same lines over and over again when debating them, ignoring their clear explanations and continuing with his polished script that keeps him on track. The goal of this post is to go through that script and show how Kent Hovind lies about evolution and how wrong his arguments are, despite his claim that he can't find one atheist with more than one functioning brain cell and that atheists won't be clear and honest on their position.

1) Hovind creates made-up terms so he can group abiogenesis (origin of life) and physical cosmology (origin of the universe) with evolution to create a strawman argument to more easily attack evolution. He calls abiogenesis chemical evolution and physical cosmology cosmic evolution. Throwing the word evolution in these made-up scientific terms allows him to group all three together when evolution means something completely different in all three scenarios, one discussing how the universe started as well as how planets and stars formed, another discussing how the first forms of life appeared through chemical processes, and the third discussing how speciation occurs through natural selection. While debaters are wanting to debate on how evolution is an adequate explanation for how new species form Hovind is attacking abiogenesis and physical cosmology, completely different subjects, and then refuses to discuss the Bible because that is "off topic". He says he did this because evolution is a "slippery term" and it needs to be more rigidly defined, despite the fact that it is simply discussing how speciation occurs through natural selection. Instead he made it a slippery term by making evolution refer to three completely different subjects.

2) He says evolutionists believe we came from a rock. There are a few different problems with this scenario. At times Hovind says the puddle that "sprang to life" was composed of minerals from dissolved rocks, at other times he says that the puddle was the result of rain coming down on the rocks for millions of years and then the puddle comes to life.  Going by the second explanation even "if" a puddle "came to life" on a rock that doesn't mean it came from a rock. If my mother and father had sex on a bed that doesn't mean I came from a bed. Another problem with this argument is that it again has absolutely nothing do with evolution but rather he is attacking abiogenesis. Even if evolutionists believe we "came from a rock" that has zero bearing on whether or not evolutionary theory is an adequate explanation for how speciation occurs. Really this point is just going deeper on his strawman argument from point one.

3) He says the geological column does not exist and that bones in the ground (fossils) can only tell you that something died. No, Kent, a fossil in the ground tells you that a species was alive at a certain point in time based on the age of the strata it was found in. That animal had to be a member of a species after all. It may not tell you it had offspring, as Kent claims a fossil cannot do, but it does tell you that it had to have parents, and those parents had to have parents, etc., and no a fossil won't tell you that it gave birth to something completely different than it because that isn't how evolution works, which leads into the next point. As far as the geological column not existing, well, I will leave that to common sense since it would involve getting into lots more fine detail about how the layers are formed and dated and I don't want to make this blog post so long no one wants to read all of it, but judge for yourself; Kent Hovind who has been using these false arguments already or thousands of professional paleontologists?

4) He uses the same worn argument that you never see dogs produce anything but dogs or humans anything but humans ad nauseum, and completely ignores explanations that this is not how evolution works. A species always gives birth to the same species and this does not contradict evolution through natural selection at all. Small minor variations or changes occur in individuals in a population that are advantageous for their survival. As a result these changes spread through the population until the entire population has the minor variation or change. This process happens over and over for millions of years and the changes gradually accumulate every generation until the descendant species is so different from the ancestral species that they would no longer be able to interbreed. This is when speciation occurs. Hovind is actually ironically agreeing with evolutionary biologists when he makes this worn out argument, no one has ever seen dogs produce anything but dogs. He just pretends it is debunking evolution when he is only attacking his own warped version of it. He also ridicules the idea that this process takes millions of years, as if making fun of it somehow makes it any less true.

4) Hovind uses a misrepresentation of punctuated equilibrium to claim that evolutionary biologists believe one "kind" of animal will give birth to a completely different "Kind". In a video I watched Hovind began by describing punctuated equilibrium as evolution happening very fast, which is a surprisingly accurate and honest description of punctuated equilibrium, but then proceeded to show a picture of a bird hatching from a reptilian egg. Punctuated equilibrium is NOT a different version of evolution, is still the process of evolution as described in point 4, it's just evolution happening at a faster pace, meaning the changes are spreading more rapidly through the populations and creating new species at a faster rate, and then this is followed by long periods of statis in which very few if any changes occur in the population of a species.

5) Hovind claims evolution is a religion. I don't really have to get into very much detail about why this is stupid, other than the fact that evolution is a scientific theory that is observed and discussed and experimented on professionally versus a relgion where adherents gather together in groups and worship a higher power or have some sort of creeds and doctrines that they believe and follow without the using the scientific method to test or falsify them, typically from a book like the Bible or the Quaran. This is just a weak attempt of Hovind's to discredit evolutionary theory by making up something completely untrue and then talking as if it is.

6) Kent Hovind uses faulty reasoning to discredit homology as evidence for evolution. The thinking behind homology is that if two species evolved from a common ancestor relatively recent you should expect to find the same or similar bone structures adapted for different purposes in each species, since they inherited this bone structure from their common ancestor. This is indeed the case, as birds, humans, whales, and dogs for example all have the same forearm structure with the same five digits (some of them are fused together in birds admittedly) at the end of it. The five digits are fingers for humans to grasp things, toes for dogs to walk, bone structure for whale flippers for swimming, and are a part of the wing structure for birds to fly. Hovind says common sense says common design proves a common designer. If there is a common designer however there is no adquate explanation for why the common designer would give the same forearm humans have for grasping things and birds use for flying to whales who live in the ocean, instead of giving whales the same skeletal structure as the fish that live in the ocean. There is also no adequate explanation for why birds would have the same forearm as humans since their limbs have a completely different purpose than human limbs do. The theory of evolution has adequate explanatory power for why this is while the argument of a common designer simply begs unanswerable questions, but Kent would never admit to this because it would put a hole in his narcissistic ego.

If I were to debate Kent Hovind these would be my terms for the debate: 1) We are discussing evolution not abiogensis or physical cosmology. The debate is whether or not evolutionary theory is an adequate explanation for how new species form. Any attempt to discuss the origin of the universe or the origin of life will be off topic. 2) Kent MUST answer my questions before we move onto another topic. Any attempt to change the topic will be cause for disqualification. 3) When I bring up a rebuttal point Kent MUST give a rebuttal to my point with no exceptions. Once we have both done our rebuttals we will move onto the next point and stay on topic.

It is my conclusion after watching debates between Hovind and listening to several of his "whack an atheist" vidoes that he is not misinformed nor willfully ignorant, he is a conman and a liar. He did go to prison for ten years for tax evasion and was arrestd for domestic abuse. I believe however that even moreso than the money he is feeding his narcissistic ego. He has his own "Dinosaur Adventure Land" park where his volunteers practically worship him and watch and cheer him on as he spouts lies about evolution during his "whack an atheist" videos, and you can see the smug look on his face before he even watches these videos as he's about to feed his ego and make his audience worship him even more. He has his minion volunteers that live at DAL and worship him. His entire ministry for the past 30+ years has clearly been built around feeding his narcissistic ego and nothing will get in his way, including the truth.

Thoughts on Abortion

    One of the most controversial issues that has been raging for decades and is still raging is abortion. Most anti-abortion or "pro-life" advocates claim it is heinous and murderous, that innocent babies and children are being murdered. Abortion advocates or "pro-choice" advocates argue that it is a matter of personal privacy and that women should not be told what they can or cannot do with their bodies by the government, especially with something as personal as a woman putting her body through a pregnancy. With this issue constantly raging and seemingly not going away anytime soon, I decided I would offer my own two cents on the issue.

    First, like any other issue I do believe there are extremes on both ends. Many pro-choice abortion advocates believe pro-life advocates are out to blatantly destroy women's rights, when what the (hopefully most but at least some) pro-life advocates are really doing is acting on a genuine conviction that abortion is morally or sinfully wrong. Likewise, many pro-life advocates will have an attitude that pro-choice individuals are out to kill as many babies as they can and that every woman that gets an abortion is an immoral murderer who for whatever reason is absolutely into killing babies. While I don't know how there could ever really be a compromise between both extreme parties, I do believe it would do everyone a lot of good if there could be more understanding from both sides as to why both sides believe what they believe so strongly instead of immediately making the opposition an enemy.

    As for my two cents, however, practicality and common sense steer me where it must and I can say strongly that I am with the pro-choice party on this issue. Here are the following reasons why:

1) The claim that abortion is murder has no actual basis to support it. It's easy to have an emotional reaction and immediately claim something is murder, but it's another thing to actually know what murder is and what causes something to be considered murder. Murder is, according to criminal law, the unjustified killing of one person by another (https://www.britannica.com/topic/murder-crime). It is also an unlawful killing of one person by another. This accords with common sense and everyday experience; we don't consider someone killing another person murder if it is in self-defense or for the defense of another person's life. Both the situation and overall context determine whether killing is murder or not, and the context is whether the killing was lawful and justifiable. One person killing another is not in and of itself automatically murder.

Generally you will find that killing is not murder when killing is the inherent consequence of another individual exercising their rights, for example when one individual kills another in self-defense because they are exercising their right to protect their life. Any rights the perpetrator would have had to live their life become irrelevant compared to another individual's right to protect theirs. It's the old adage "Your rights end where mine begins". The bottom line though is that we know for a fact there are times when one human killing another one is not considered murder because it is both lawful and because there is a justifiable reason for doing so. In regards to abortion it is both lawful and justifiable; lawful because, well, it's lawful, and justifiable because the woman is exercising her constitutional right to not be forced to do things with her body against her will. Simply killing the fetus does not automatically make abortion murder., the context must dictate it. Just like it is not murder if any individual is exercising their right to protect their life, it is not murder if a woman is exercising her right to not have another human body inside of her using her resources, potentially causing her medical problems, changing the physical state of her body, etc. Just like a grown man is not lawfully allowed to force a woman to do things with her body against her will, a fetus does not have the right to do things with the mother's body without her consent, and according to the constitution neither does the government. If the fetus dies as an inherent consequence of the mother exercising this right then it is not murder.

2) No matter how you cut it, someone's right are getting trumped. Due to the inherent nature of abortion, even if the fetus has any rights including a right to life these rights are in direct conflict with the rights of the mother. Whichever individual you pick, the fetus or the mother, someone's rights will be violated. It is my personal belief that it is ludicrous that a fetus who hasn't even had any life experience and will suffer no inconvenience from an abortion should have rights that trump a fully grown autonomous individual who is actively living in the world and can suffer permanent psychological or even physical damage or have the rest of their life negatively affected otherwise if they are forced to go through with the pregnancy. Since it has to be either the fetus's rights or the mother's, I am siding with the mother's rights out of common sense and respect for the dignity of the mother.

3) Abortion is a private medical decision. Pregnancy is something that drastically alters the composition of a woman's body. She has another individual in her using her resources, causing her pain and discomfort, etc. Abortion as a result is a medical decision and as such a woman has the right to do what she believes is medically best for her body. Not all reasons for abortion are inherently a medical reason, but nonetheless abortion is certainly a private medical issue because of how pregnancy affects a woman's body, and a woman should not be forced to make a private medical decision that so greatly affects her body.

These are my thoughts on abortion. 

Reflections on the inauguration

     After experiencing the politically charged arena for the last four years I thought it would be refreshing to watch the inauguration of our next president, something I hadn't done before. As it happened I turned on Youtube just as Kamala Harris was finishing her oath to office. What happened was interesting to say the least, and it underscores what I believe is the root of a lot of problems in our country today, as I will explain further in this post.

    First, for what I have been told is supposed to be a "secular" nation there were things that to me seemed like they should have no place in a political ceremony for the swearing in of the leaders of our country. From presidents and vice-presidents swearing in on a Bible or Bibles to Garth Brooks singing Amazing Grace and a reverend performing a lengthy, clearly Christian prayer, there was a very strong religious tone for the ceremony. To be clear, I believe individuals should absolutely have the right to practice whatever religion they want to practice, because trying to force individuals to practice a certain religion or only practice approved religions or no religions at all would lead to a kind of tyranny that would be bad for everyone. I just simply believe that given how our country is supposed to be a secular country this overtone is not appropriate for a political ceremony. Religion is not supposed to drive our government, hence what I mean by a secular nation, but clearly it has an undue influence simply by watching the inauguration alone. Christianity should not be shown favoritism in the inauguration ceremony for that reason alone. Some might argue that the president should have the right to swear in on a Bible if he chooses to, and fair enough I could grant that, but even that could be done without inculcating the entire ceremony with a religious overtone.

   I do find it ironic however that given the history of violence and racism in our country our leaders have traditionally sword in on a book that is full of racism and violence. What I suppose though bothers me about the religious overtone, and overlapping with the fact that religion is not supposed to have undue influence our government, is that it would clear make it extremely difficult for someone that is not a Christian, be it a Muslim, Jew or atheist, to ever become president because that it would cut against the grain of the favoritism that is shown to the Christian religion. Further, if a Muslim ever did get elected and wanted to swear in on a Quran and sing a song of praise to Allah and have a Muslim prayer toward Mecca Christians would be besides themselves, which actually leads to my next reflection from the inauguration.

    After seeing how much favoritism is shown to Christianity in the inauguration it's not surprising why Christians have such an entitlement attitude in our country. It's actually understandable why they think they can dictate things like same-sex marriage and abortion, that everyone should be forced to operate according to their personal convictions, and why they threw a fit when the Ten Commandments were taken down from public court houses. This is why if most Christians got what they really wanted their religion would be running the country and everyone would have to live according to their religious values, hence the swath of support from Christians to Donald Trump because he seemed to them like the person that would make that happen. Their religion HAS been shown favoritism and so now they are upset when the playing field is being evened out, and like a child that has been spoiled rotten and is throwing a tantrum when the parent finally puts their foot down, you actually want to blame the parents more than the child. 

    On a more refreshing reflection, however, it was refreshing to see Trump's successor swearing in and the last of Trump's circus officially coming to a close. Some vindication was felt in the fact that Trump's manipulation did not work and this country can get a fresh start for at least the next four years. Unfortunately it seems inevitable that at some point in the future the same situation will happen again since people are people, but we can all breathe for at least the next four years. I WANT to think better of humanity, but unfortunately I am too unrealistic for such an endeavor, and people will always be easily manipulated by political leaders. As I said, however, at least we can breathe for the next four yeas and get a break from the Trump circus.

Of Course It's In The Bible...Or Not

     One might be surprised to find out how many moral issues are not actually addressed directly or even indirectly in the Bible, given how it is touted as such a moral standard that individuals should live by. Many hot top issues today are not even mentioned, or passages are misused / taken out of context in an attempt to control peoples' behavior when Christians don't approve of what they are doing, or the references used to show something is a sin are vague and not nearly as clear as one would expect given how fervent Christians are on certain moral issues. Or an issue is prevalent throughout the Bible but it is never condemned as evil as Christians say it is.

    Sex before marriage. I found this out personally as a believer when I questioned where in the Bible it actually the issue of having sex before marriage. It was such a given in our culture and was so heavily taught to be a sin to have sex before one is officially "married" to another that it seemed like a given that it would be very clearly wrong in the Bible. I was surprised to find that there was no specific proscription given regarding this issue for Christians in the New Testament, with the only references I could find upon an internet search being whenever the New Testament epistles condemn "sexual immorality". While this certainly could possibly include sex before marriage, it seems odd the issue is never directly addressed at all and it has to be inferred from a word that it may or may not apply to. One single sentence making it clear that having sex before a man and woman are joined together as one would have sufficed. The only time the issue of having sex before marriage is directly addressed is in the Old Testament Law, one law being that a woman that is betrothed is to be stoned to death if she has sex with another man, and another being that if a virgin (that is a woman that has not been promised to another man) has sex the man who has sex with her must marry her and cannot divorce her. It's also implied this man has raped the virgin as well. One is referring to a woman that is already promised to another man, and the other forces the man and woman who have sex to stay married the rest of their lives. Regardless, these rules were rules for Israel in the Old Testament and do not apply to Christians in any case. Lastly, it was also interesting when I found out there were people that didn't even believe in the sin of having sex before marriage; rather, there are Christians that believe sex is what actually marries two people  by making them one flesh and if two people have sex and stay together and committed to one another they are not sinning because they are faithfully married to one another. At the end of the day the Bible seems much more concerned about people who are already married having sex outside of marriage rather than people who are not married having sex with other unmarried people, and the Bible does not give any specific directions for what even makes two people married, let alone if two people who are committed to one another are sinning by having sex, or if they are technically married by the act of having sex with one another.

 Pedophalia. The Bible does not mention sexual molestation of children. Not even one time, not even in the the laws of the Old Testament. I can't even cite any verse that are misused or taken out of context because there aren't any. This seems like a very important moral law to forget, especially in the Old Testament when God is giving His people Israel His rules for holy living and for how the Israelites are to treat one another. Gathering sticks on the Sabbath can get you stoned to death in a hot minute, committing adultery can get you stoned to death in a hot minute, but there is absolutely no punishment for raping or molesting a child. A child however can be stoned to death for being unruly toward his parents. Personally it seems like the God of the Old Testament's moral priorities are a bit skewed. There isn't much else to say because the Bible, well, doesn't say anything.

Living together before marriage. A certain hot topic of the day that Christians love to try and apply to the Bible even though the Bible never addresses the issue, likely because the issue wasn't an issue during the time the Bible was written. It's not addressed, not hinted at, and is never treated as an issue in any way shape or form. Only one verse is typically taken out of context and misused to try and apply to this issue (1 Thessalonians 5:22), and the idea of the interpretation, "Avoid all appearance of evil" is so vague and impractical one couldn't even live by it because just about anything could appear evil to anyone. "Avoid every form of evil" is a much more likely correct interpretation. Again, there isn't much else to say on this issue because, well, the Bible doesn't say anything.

Abortion. Another hot topic of the day that is not mentioned in the Bible, and for how big of an issue this is among the Christian community one would have thought there would have been enough foresight to specifically address it for Christians in the Bible. Oddly enough, throughout the Old Testament God Himself does not seem to particularly care about the life that is developing in the womb. He blesses a man for running a spear through a woman who just had sex and could very well have conceived, and He does not even give any laws in the Old Testament for Israel that condemns abortion. The closest thing to abortion is a law where if two men are fighting and one man strikes a pregnant woman in the stomach and she gives birth prematurely and injury occurs (either to the woman only or either her or the child depending on the interpretation) the man must pay according to the seriousness of the injury (Exodus 21:22-25). Even if this is referring to the idea of the man paying for causing a fatal premature birth, it may simply be because the man caused it to happen which was a violation of the husband's property (hence he could be fined the amount the husband determines). If God was actually concerned with fetal life He would have created a specific law for Israel banning abortions under any circumstance, not just one law covering one specific situation that wasn't even likely to happen. There's not much else to say on this topic because the Bible doesn't say anything else.

Slavery. Although slavery is of course mentioned repeatedly throughout the Bible, even with rules governing how it is to work in the Old Testament, slavery as an institution is never condemned in the entire Bible. In fact, not only is it not condemned in the New Testament but slaves are told how to act toward their masters. Perhaps that was because slaves couldn't change their status so they were told how to act under a situation they couldn't change? That would actually be a very plausible and sensible explanation, however Christian "Masters" are also taught how to treat their slaves (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1)! In the book of Philemon the Apostle Paul is sending back a runaway slave that has converted to Christianity, and when he writes to the slave's Christian master he does not write to educate the master that owning slaves is an immoral things for a Christian to do. Don't let Christians fool you, the Bible does not condemn slavery; Christians that fought to end slavery did so in spite of what their book actually teaches not because of what it teaches, whether they realized that or not. If they had been consistent with their holy book they could not have justified fighting to end slavery.

Although I'm sure there are many more, these were just a few of the issues that are either not mentioned in the Bible or are not condemned in the Bible explicitly. The next time a Christian attempts to correct your morality in any of these issues simply ask them where in the Bible it actually says that behavior is wrong. The answer may be interesting...

Critical Thinking In A Busy World

     We live in a world where things are always pulling us in one direction or another, telling us to believe one thing or not believe another. Whether it's politics, religion, tradition, or just our brains contemplating the truth of something, it can seem overwhelming and burdensome to come to the correct conclusion about many claims when there are so many around us vying for our belief, and this isn't even taking into consideration the hectic and busy lives many individuals live as is. In such a hectic and already busy world where we have so many different things pulling us in so many directions, how do we practically have the time to know everything that is true, or everything that is false that we are told to believe? 

    I believe people can generally go in one of two opposite extremes with the previous question; they can either throw their hands in the air and not bother to care about most of the things they are told to believe, or they can believe everything they are told. The first extreme is unsatisfactory because people could be missing out on vital information that could improve their lives, or they could be setting themselves up to believe something dangerously false at a later point because they are never trained to think rationally and critically. The other extreme is unsatisfactory because someone who believes nearly everything they are told is like a boat being tossed to and fro by the waves with no direction whatsoever. My goal in this post is to give people some helpful guidelines for making rational conclusions toward subjects in their midst of their hectic and busy lives, so they can neither fall into serious and dangerous error in belief nor feel they have to be complacent and never know what they even truly believe about different important topics. The following are general guidelines and principals to help with rational thinking in the midst of a busy and hectic life.

    The first guideline is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you are faced with a claim that is extraordinary in nature, if it defies everything we know about how the world and the universe works, for example the claim that a man walked on water or the claim that a man rose from the dead after being dead for three days, this claim should be held with extreme critical scrutiny because of the unlikelihood of it being true. The more far-fetched a claim is the more skeptical you should be of its truth, and the stronger evidence you should require for believing it.

    KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. Otherwise known as Occom's razor, this principal states that when choosing between multiple explanations for an event the most rational choice is the explanation that requires the fewest amount of assumptions. In other words, keep things simple and stick with the explanation that is most consistent with the known and proven data and requires the least amount of assumption in things that aren't proven or verifiable. An example would be the current debate about whether or not the election was rigged - it is a much simpler explanation that a wealthy multi-millionaire who has always gotten what he wants and has made clear he doesn't like losing is simply trying to do whatever he can to win the election or make himself and his supporters believe he did, versus having to assume somehow a person or a group of persons was able to pull of a widespread massive conspiracy theory which there is no evidence for, and that spanned multiple states and was so well performed that it fooled even Republican judges, the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and even some of the most staunch Trump supporters. When in doubt, go with the simples explanation.

    You do not always have to have an answer. It is ok to sometimes say you simply don't know an explanation for something, or whether or not something is true. Sometimes the only option you may have is to simply withhold belief in a claim or explanation even if you don't know what the actual truth is. It is better to withhold belief than to believe something that is false. In this regard strive to be informed, not perfect in knowledge; perfect knowledge is impossible, no one can know everything that is everywhere 100% of the time. Even if you can't be everywhere all the time to know 100% that ghosts don't exist, you are still rationally justified in withholding belief in the claim that ghosts exist until you would be given convincing evidence that they do. Be ok with simply saying you don't hold to the belief in a claim even if you can't prove that the claim is false.

    Pick your battles wisely. Some issues and claims just aren't worth fussing over. They are time wasters and they aren't issues that are going to have any kind of impact on your day to day living or even your long-term living. Knowing and understanding this can help keep you from getting caught up in these unnecessary webs that could stress you out mentally and/or emotionally.