All posts by Richard

Cosmology, Easy Listening, Genesis, Iron Maiden, Keep it Metal!, Philosophy of Mind, Revelation

This is now.

2 Comments

(Suppose, for the sake of argument.) God created the heavens and the earth … the sun, the moon, the stars, the skies, the land, the seas … the plants, the animals … and mankind. All in the space of six days! (By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.)

How did he do it?

To some it may seem presumptuous even to ask how God went about the business of creation. But mankind is a curious creature. His inquiring mind wants to know. Humans (some of them) thirst for knowledge for knowledge’s sake. That’s why we have philosophy and science and why, today (thank God), we live in a technologically advanced age. The gains in scientific knowledge made since the Enlightenment are nothing short of stupendous.

And now we know.

We now know, for example, that the several references in the Old Testament to God “stretching out the heavens” refer to the metric expansion of space which is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology. We now know that the Universe had its origin in a moment of creation some 13.75 billion years ago.

Let it be said, however, that cosmology is a better example of human ignorance than human knowledge. We’re still in the dark about so many of the fundamentals. Dark matter and dark energy are aptly named. But in other branches of science we know a great deal more. We know so much, in fact, that we can, and do, “play God”. To illustrate this point, here is a recent news headline.

In First, Software Emulates Lifespan of Entire Organism

We’ve mapped the human genome. We’ve mapped the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium and run software simulations of the entire organism. We’ve even constructed artificial life (assuming, of course, that a virus can truly be called a living thing), building it from scratch in a laboratory, one RNA molecule at a time. And this is only the prelude to what is to come.

We know how animals (albeit, very small ones) are made. We know how they work. We can simulate them. We can even build them ourselves.

Where am I heading with this? Actually, this post is for my co-blogger, Tim. God made animals, but he also made the human mind. I anticipate that one day we will find out how the human mind is made. We’ll run a simulation of a human mind on the powerful computers of the not-too-distant future.

The time is short.

Ayn Rand, Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Theism

That was then.

20 Comments

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the first day.

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the second day.

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. ” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning —the third day.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning —the fourth day.

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the fifth day.

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. ”

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning —the sixth day. (NIV)

So goes the (main) Biblical account of creation. Implausible? Perhaps so. But no more so than the atheistic alternative.

I love the theory of evolution. Darwin’s theory of evolution (or the modern evolutionary synthesis, as it’s called these days) is a monumental intellectual achievement. It’s a thing of great beauty and power. Modern biology would be lost without it. (So, too, would modern atheism!) Nonetheless, as creationists never tire of reminding us, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis.

I’ve studied biology. I’ve studied the philosophy of biology. I understand both the theory of evolution, and its philosophical implications. But most people don’t. (Most people haven’t read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.) Ayn Rand didn’t understand the theory of evolution. Or, she understood it well enough, and didn’t like its implications. I suspect the latter. Her one-time lieutenant (and lover) Nathaniel Branden recounts

I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, “After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis.” I asked her, “You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms — including humans — evolved from less complex life forms?” She shrugged and responded, “I’m really not prepared to say,” or words to that effect.

Not prepared to say? Isn’t that evasion, Miss Rand? Surely not!

I have serious doubts about the theory of evolution. Because it has serious flaws. (I don’t like its implications, either.) Fatal flaws? I’m really not prepared to say.

Christian Libertarianism, Expulsion, Keep it Metal!, Paul, Religious Toleration

Expulsion

Leave a comment

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

Heroism, Libertarianz, Love

Wim Verhoeven’s funeral

Leave a comment

So I had a week off blogging … last Wednesday was Wim Verhoeven’s funeral, perhaps that had something to do with it. Wim’s now having an eternity off everything (according to the majority view of the familiar faces at the funeral). It makes you think.

The funeral celebrant told us that now is a time for mourning Wim’s death, but it is also a time for celebrating Wim’s life. This is no mere euphemism. In the words of Kahlil Gibran (The Prophet)

Your joy is your sorrow unmasked. And the selfsame well from which your laughter rises was oftentimes filled with your tears. And how else can it be? The deeper that sorrow carves into your being, the more joy you can contain. Is not the cup that holds your wine the very cup that was burned in the potter’s oven? And is not the lute that soothes your spirit, the very wood that was hollowed with knives? When you are joyous, look deep into your heart and you shall find it is only that which has given you sorrow that is giving you joy. When you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight. Some of you say, “Joy is greater than sorrow,” and others say, “Nay, sorrow is the greater.” But I say unto you, they are inseparable. Together they come, and when one sits alone with you at your board, remember that the other is asleep upon your bed. Verily you are suspended like scales between your sorrow and your joy. Only when you are empty are you at standstill and balanced. When the treasure-keeper lifts you to weigh his gold and his silver, needs must your joy or your sorrow rise or fall.

This post is my small tribute to Wim. Some other tributes are here and here.

Was Wim’s life a success? Did he live a life worth celebrating? I think the answer is a resounding yes. Wim certainly ticked all his own boxes!

I didn’t know Wim particularly well but we conspired to overthrow the government at many, many Libz events and meetings. For a time, Wim hosted our regular meetings in his own home after we got kicked out of The Quiet Lady in Karori. I think it was fitting that after the funeral, half a dozen or so of the Libz members (past and present) who attended held an impromptu Libz meeting at a nearby coffee shop. Wim’s dead, but the cause of freedom, to which Wim contributed so much, is still very much alive. Onward Christian (and non-Christian) soldiers!

Easy Listening, Keep it Metal!, Luke, Motorhead, New Testament, Paul

Play the hand you’re dealt

1 Comment

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. (1 Corinthians 12:4-11)

… From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:48)

Fish, Fruit, Property, Regulation

Killing Whales To Save Them (Part 2)

5 Comments

Killing Whales To Save Them (Part 1), was about animal welfare. Part 2 is about conservation. It’s about not depleting our ocean fisheries of fish. And it’s about not driving species (such as whales) to the verge of extinction.

Today’s post was partly triggered by TVNZ 7: Freedom has a Price, a recent post by atheist Mark Hubbard on his blog Life Behind the IRon Drape. Damien Grant has it exactly right in his comments on Mark’s post. Since he’s pretty much pre-empted what I was going to say, I’ll copy and paste.

But I like fish!

I do not want them to die and I have no faith that fisherman will act in their own best interests.

Save the Flake! Regulate! (repeat)

If the fish had an owner they would not be farmed to extinction. The solution is simple, they need an owner.

It does[n’t] really matter who, but if there is an owner the market can work. If there is no owner you get the tragedy of the commons.

Getting the fish an owner may require some impure statist intervention, but all property, historically, has been acquired … with some impure statist intervention.

Once done you … have fish and freedom!

Well said, Damien. If the price of freedom is no fish, then freedom is unaffordable! Mark says that no fish might, indeed, be the price of freedom, but, thankfully, he’s wrong. And Damien is wrong about the statist intervention being “impure,” for reasons I briefly alluded to.

We need privatisation.

… ocean fish are not the products of men’s minds. But they’re scarce. Scarcity, not production, is the basis of property rights.

I’ll spell this out explicitly … after lunch.

So, yeah. Scarcity, not production, is the basis of property rights. (There are more than two theories of property and property rights, and variations of each, and hybrid theories, but this is a blog post, not a doctoral dissertation.) Let’s compare the scarcity theory of property with the production theory of property.

The production theory of property says that if you produce something, or add value to something, it’s yours. The scarcity theory says that if it’s a scarce commodity, and the prevailing social convention says it yours, it’s yours.

If you’re shipwrecked and find yourself alone on a tropical desert island, the production theory of property says that the mangoes you pick from the tree, or the fallen mangoes you pick up off the ground, are your property, but the mangoes you leave on the tree or leave on the ground are not your property. The scarcity theory of property says that none of the mangoes is your property, simply because there is no need for a social convention to allocate mangoes.

The scarcity theory of property, you see, is the answer to a pressing question, viz., how do we allocate scarce resources in a free society? Whereas, the production theory of property is not the answer to anything. It says that if you produce something, or add value to it, then it’s your property, whether you like it or not. I don’t know about you, but if I found myself alone on a desert island, I would eat mangoes. It wouldn’t worry me, or anyone else, in the slightest that they either were or weren’t my mangoes. (Actually, it would worry me if they were my mangoes. I’d be asking myself, why on earth are these my mangoes? And then I’d eat them. To ease my metaphysical anxiety.)

But let’s get back to fish … before I get the urge to pop across to the supermarket for some mangoes.

So, yeah. Two common types of property are tangible goods and land. Both are in scarce supply. The scarcity theory of property handles both types of property. The production theory of property, however, struggles with land. Either it relies on “improvements” to the land to make it property, or it relies on an ad hoc “finders keepers” add-on to the theory. Elegance is an epistemic virtue, and either version of the production theory applied to real estate is inelegant, don’t you think?

Now let’s go to the fish. Ocean fish are not the products of men’s minds. Someone who subscribes to the production theory of property plus the “finders keepers” add-on can say that ocean fish become property as soon as they’re caught. They can say that the fish belong to no one until such time as they’re caught. But this way of thinking leads quickly to the tragedy of the commons. Like a gold rush, there’s a fish rush. And, soon, there are next to no fish left. Casting a net for fish becomes like panning for gold. There’s an occasional fish here or there in a net full of nothing. Seemingly, only the heavy hand of statist intervention can rectify the situation and save the fisheries. And libertarianism is severely compromised.

It need not be so! The scarcity theory of property tells us that ocean fish are a scarce commodity and should, therefore, be privatised! How this privatisation is implemented is not as important as the privatisation itself. Allocating quotas, or particular species, or geographic areas of ocean, to interested parties who apply for commercial fishing licences solves the problem of the tragedy of the commons which is the natural outcome of applying the production theory of property to ocean fish. A Ministry of Fisheries (albeit, a very small one) is a legitimate arm of government.

Privatise the whales, too! This can be done by literally tagging whales, there’s so few of them left. And privatise kiwis! If private enterprise was permitted to farm kiwis for food the kiwi would no longer be an endangered species. (Imagine what a hit real kiwiburgers would be with the tourists!) It’s all so common sensical it’s no wonder the government hasn’t seriously considered the proposal.