"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."
C.S. Lewis
"The fingers of your thoughts are molding your face ceaselessly."
Charles Reznikoff
"Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere."
G.K. Chesterton
"Humility enforces where neither virtue nor strength can prevail, nor reason."
Francis Quarles
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."
C.S. Lewis
Resistance Thinking Society
'Society' is a term used to describe a grouping of individuals and outlines the structures employed to ensure that the individuals within a society relate to each other in an appropriate fashion. Different societies may have distinctive cultural behaviours and different institutions. In this society section you will find news, articles and reviews that relate to Australian society, or more specifically, individuals who live in Australia.
Topics in this section will cover: science and technology - stem cell research, IVF, cloning, intelligent design, evolution etc.; politics - ideologies (communism, anarchism, totalitarianism, capitalism etc.), state and federal politics, the free market, the United Nations etc.; sociology - globalisation, prisons, welfare, government; environment - global warming, alternative energy etc.; and moral issues - poverty, homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion etc.
The role of the Christian within society is to stand for truth, for justice and most importantly, to represent God's agenda on the earth. As the Resistance Thinking journey continues, our aim is to stimulate engaging dialogue exploring the complexities of how followers of Jesus should engage with society in our day and age.
It's good to see that there are those in Mississippi who are fighting for personhood rights with Initiative #26. Despite yesterday's loss it is encouraging that there are those standing against the deplorable Roe vs. Wade 1973 decision. Indeed, this can be seen as a precursor to the American Presidential debate. And I hope people are paying attention this time round.
Barack Obama is not pro-life. Not even remotely. If you have a spare twenty minutes you can see his address back in 2008 to Planned Parenthood:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Obama's chief question that night was "what kind of America will our daughters grow up in?" He stresses that courts should not take away the choices of women in regards to abortion. Yet, Roe vs. Wade (a court case) created such a right. So, it seems that Obama will stand by the courts when they uphold his "pro-choice" stance yet condemn them when they don't. Obama goes on to say:
"It's an approach to the law that favours the powerful over the powerless. That holds up a flawed ideology over the rights of the individual." (7:04)
"We fought together in the Illinios state Senate against restrictive-choice legislation." (8:07)
"There will always be people, many of good will, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield." (9:18)
"It's time to turn the page on a policy that provides over $1.5 billion to teach abstinence in our schools but refuses to teach basic science and basic contraception." (11:42)
These comments display Obama's strong "pro-choice" leaning. Interestingly, the first comment (7:04) would appear to lend itself more to the "pro-life" side but contextually it is revealed to be something else. Bear in mind, also, that he is addressing Planned Parenthood who are responsible for approximately 290,000 abortions each year. It is clear that Obama's ideology and Planned Parenthood's "women's rights" strategy align. This should be the first warning sign for Christians.
Since his speech at Planned Parenthood Obama has stood with this organisation through thick and thin. In February 2011 the United States House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to defund Planned Parenthood. However, this was defeated in the Senate by Obama's Democrat's. In June this year Indiana passed a new law stripping Planned Parenthood of some of its funding. Then the Obama administration decided to play the bully and threatened to cut Indiana's Medicaid funding if they proceeded. In the future Obama has promised to veto any Federal Bills that would defund Planned Parenthood. At least Obama was being honest when he stated that he would not yield.
Until Obama is voted out of Office, Planned Parenthood will remain funded. Thankfully election time is coming around next year and several of the Republican's best chances for candidacy are pro-life. Barack Obama states that he goes to Trinity United Church of Christ yet his relationship with Planned Parenthood could not spawn from a Christian ideology. Anyone can claim that they are a Christian, and it is not up to us to determine their salvation. However, we can look at a person's fruits. And Obama's fruits are bad. So bad, in fact, that they are poisoning the tree. And it is not just on this issue that Obama acts against biblical mandates, though that is for another time.
Planned Parenthood's time is running out. To be honest, this organisation should have been defunded a long time ago. However, Obama formed an alliance that has allowed Planned Parenthood's miserable existence to continue. Such a relationship is beneficial for both parties yet it undermines the moral framework of America. Obama doesn't care about this, of course. He is too busy plotting his next social agenda that will spell destruction for the United States. And us Aussies want him to come and visit?
"Something will soon happen on planet earth which has never occurred before. The number of people on the planet as of Monday will become 7 billion, at least according to the UN. In two day's time some person on earth, newly born, will be able to claim that unique honour.
Of course this can be either good news or bad news, depending on where a person is coming from. Indeed, for some, it is terrifying news, and the cause of great panic. They think any new person is only a case of bad news. Consider this very simple chart of human population milestones:
1805: 1 billion people 1927: 2 billion people 1960: 3 billion people 1974: 4 billion people 1987: 5 billion people 1999: 6 billion people 2011: 7 billion people
In what appears to be wildly exponential growth, it seems that the world is surely doomed: we will soon - if not already - have far too many people and disaster will occur. The gloom and doom brigade will look at such a chart in sheer horror.
But a few things need to be said about this chart. As frightening as it may look, it of course only tells us part of the story. We need to look at how the chart is likely to continue. What will these numbers be in the future? Admittedly, such forecasts are always difficult and imprecise.
Indeed, for decades now I have been following the various forecasts made by the UN Population Division and other bodies as they seek to predict where world population levels will be heading to. The interesting thing is how the predictions have had to constantly change over time.
Back in 1968 one noted gloom and doomer, Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb. In it he assured us that because of our "population explosion" the battle to feed the world's population was over, and we could soon expect catastrophe big time. Of course things did not quite pan out the way he promised, but he still, even today, keeps on with this dark message.
In fact, he said as late as 2009 that "perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future"! So he is a true believer, and no amount of evidence will persuade him to abandon his Chicken Little worldview.
But as I said, the experts have been revising downwards their estimate of peak global population for decades now. I clearly recall being told some years ago by the experts that the world would reach a peak of 25 billion people in the near future. Then they said 22 billion. Then 20.
On and on went the downward revisions: 18; 16; 15; 13; 12; 11; 10; and now the 9 billion people peak, predicted to arrive around mid-century. Then things level off and even head back downwards. And some are now arguing that we will not even reach the 9 billion figure. So population forecasting is a tricky game, and many wrong predictions have been made over the years.
And as also already mentioned, the numbers are open to widely differing interpretations. Are the figures good news, bad news, or should we simply be indifferent about them? Should we be panicking or celebrating this newest arrival on Monday?
One expert who thinks we should be popping the champagne cork is demographic expert Steven Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute. He believes this is good news, and not something we should be wringing our hands about. As one news item recently put it:
"The United Nations Population Division has projected October 31st 2011 as the day on which the world will be home to seven billion people. 'This is a happy occasion,' says Mosher, a leading population expert and best-selling author. 'The world's population has more than doubled since 1960, and humanity has never been so prosperous.'
"Family-planning groups, Mosher contends, supported by many feminists and environmental groups, and no-growth types, are abusing this milestone to promote the myth of overpopulation and to raise more money for anti-people projects. 'The attitude of the anti-people types is arrogant and elitist,' says Mosher. 'They say, in effect, to Africans, Asians and Latin Americans: "there are just enough of us, but there are way too many of you".'
"According to Mosher, 'contrary to what you might hear, the most pressing problem in country after country today is not overpopulation, but underpopulation. In a time of fiscal austerity, the last thing that we need to be doing is spending more tax dollars to drive down the birth rate, reducing the amount of human capital available, and making us all poorer in the long run.'
"'We are grateful that Baby Seven Billion will come into this world,' Mosher says. 'Baby Seven Billion, boy or girl, red or yellow, black or white, is not a liability, but an asset; not a curse, but a blessing for us all. Humanity's long-term problem is not going to be too many children, but too few children.'
"Mosher's analysis of world population trends stands in contradiction to the United Nations Population Fund's (UNFPA) report on The State of World Population 2010, which Mosher contends is misleading. Further U.S. funding of the UNFPA is presently in jeopardy because of UN population control agency's continued involvement in China's coercive one-child policy. PRI investigations have repeatedly shown that the UNFPA is complicit in a policy that is carried out by means of forced abortions and forced sterilizations, and which has eliminated some 400 million Chinese."
The truth is, human population growth rates are slowing big time. Fertility rates all over the world are in steep decline, and our big problem now is a birth dearth. A population implosion, not a population explosion, is our main problem. We will soon reach our peak population, and a steady decline afterwards will take place.
People are a blessing and a boon, not a curse. But I argue elsewhere about the dangers of our declining population rates. See the 31 other articles in my population section of this website for more details. So I for one will look forward to this newest arrival on planet earth. I hope you will as well.
In the shadow of the abortion Bill passing the Lower House, there is a ray of hope in form of the rejection of the controversial euthanasia Bill.
State MPs vote down euthanasia bill The Age, David Rood, September 11, 2008 CONTROVERSIAL legislation giving terminally ill people the right to die with the help of a doctor has been rejected in the Victorian Parliament. The upper house yesterday voted down the private member's bill — 25 votes to 13 — following months of passionate and emotional debate from MPs. Planning Minister Justin Madden, Treasurer John Lenders and Liberal upper house leader David Davis were among prominent MPs to use their conscience vote to defeat the bill.
Here's a great article written as a follow up from my article The Worldview Body Count. I, however, cannot claim to have authored this article. It was written by a fellow believer who is a follower of this ministry:
One of the major arguments commonly used by atheists against both Christianity and religion in general being allowed to have influence in the public sphere and being encouraged to 'proselytise'- is an argument based on the atrocities committed by Christians.
Typically the argument proceeds in a achetypal fashion as cited by Greg Koukl in his own book - Tactics:
Atheist: More wars have been fought and more blood has been shed in the name of God than any other cause. Religion is the greatest source of evil in the world.
In this case Koukl provides the correct response in citing the immense body counts of Secular Ideologies:
Koukl: You'll find that carnage of unimaginable proportions resulted not from religion but from institutionalized atheism: over 66 million wiped out by Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev; between 32 and 61 million killed under Communist regimes since 1949; one third of the 8 million Khmers- 2.7 million people- were killed between 1975 and 1979 under the communist Khmer Rouge.
Koukl is correct in demonstrating the weakness of the atheistic position in just demonstrating the facts of history, clearly and with accuracy. However, such discussions rarely end there. Not because the atheist has a problem with the facts but because he has a problem with the categories used:
Atheist: Hang on, you can't claim that Stalin and Mao committed their crimes because of atheism. They never did this in the name of atheism or because they were motivated by atheism their crimes were unrelated.
In this case the atheist has merely reduced the scope of atheism to the point where any crimes committed by an atheist have no relation to atheism itself. Whereas religion is to blame if a perpetrator merely mentions God (see: Hitler, Breivik etc.), the relation between their actions and actual Christian doctrine is not relevant. There is an obvious double standard here and it highly useful to simply point it out, however now that the double standard has been established by the atheist his own tactic can be used against him.
In reducing the scope for the negative influences of atheism on the one hand, the atheist has unwittingly reduced the scope for all influences atheism has, this also includes positive influences. Therefore it is advantageous to demonstrate the tremendous positive influence Christianity has had throughout history in every sphere of life, because when the tables are turned atheism is completely naked as no-one commits these good acts in the name of atheism or with an atheistic motive. By the atheists own standard atheism is without utility.
Therefore the atheist has two choices; with the first option they need to re-expand the scope to the point that that the body count of the atheistic regimes is included, conceding the original argument and secondary argument. From this level of scope; atheism does not have any advantage on the 'body count' side of the coin and still loses out on the positive benefits ledger as well. The second option is to keep the revised scope and have to face reality that atheism offers no utility.
A positive aspect of including positives in such an argument. Is that Christianity can be framed as being being a beneficial philosophy as opposed to a 'lesser of two evils'. Which is a far better stance for evangelism.
Another weakness of the atrocity arguments is that the crimes are not just vast in their scope but also very recent. Considering all these events happened in recent memory atheism must be considered as a more dangerous belief system than Christianity in their modern forms. To illustrate; which man would you trust to keep sober? A man who got drunk years ago or a man who has lost control of his drinking recently? Given the relative rarity of atheistic regimes it is hard to see why atheists should oppose Christianity or religion in general due to past atrocities.
In the end, it should be noted, that this argument does not have any impact on whether atheism or Christianity is true. However it is a primary motivator behind militant atheism. If Christianity or religion in general can be demonstrated to be dangerous, it legitimizes aggressive atheism at a personal level as well as in politics which is where you get the fallacious 'separation of church and state' arguments being made.
The Really Inconvenient Truths Front Page Magazine, Janet Levy, August 08, 2008 (The Really Inconvenient Truths, Iain Murray, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2008, 323 pp.)
In The Australian (July 18), scientist David Evans – a self-described, former global warming alarmist who previously developed Australia’s carbon accounting model – admitted that evidence is shaky on how carbon affects global warming. In fact, Evans wrote, the current global warming trend actually ended in 2001. He cited ice core data from six previous global warming cycles over the last 500,000 years.
The data revealed that temperatures rose 800 years before any significant increases occurred in atmospheric carbon levels. A former recipient of political support, generous funding and professional satisfaction for his advocacy of global-warming intervention, Evans essentially blew the whistle on what he now believes is a fraud perpetrated on the public by many of the world’s governments.
Similarly, in The Really Inconvenient Truths, author Iain Murray, a Competitive Enterprise Institute environmental analyst and senior fellow, critically examines many of the broad, environmental notions now accepted as fact. He explores how these false notions have led to questionable regulations and policies to “save” the environment which have actually endangered more species, caused more human fatalities and squandered more energy.
He reveals how environmentalism, used as an anti-capitalism tool, has employed faulty data and politically engineered studies to restrict personal freedom, increase government control and spending, reduce or limit economic growth and curtail free enterprise. The liberal, environmental movement is thus masquerading as a benevolent protector of natural resources, Murray writes, with a quasi-religious moral superiority toward environmental sacred cows and view of man as a guilty interloper who disrupts nature.
The book’s subtitle, Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don’t Want You to Know About Because They Helped Cause Them, provides a framework for a detailed examination of the effects of sacred-cow environmental projects such as the ban on DDT and the promotion of ethanol. He also explores the cover-up of the polluting effect of contraceptives and abortion drugs, the failure of ill-advised forestry management policies and the bankruptcy of the endangered species act.
Ethanol According to Murray, environmentalists tout the benefits of bio-fuels, but in reality bio-fuel production pulls land out of food crop production, increases food prices, threatens wildlife and ultimately increases greenhouse gas emissions. Bio-fuels do not offer any of the purported benefits touted by environmentalists, he says, who, at bottom, have contempt for the internal combustion engine itself.
Because of substantial resources used in its manufacture and carbon dioxide produced during operation, environmentalists have unleashed their fury against the engine’s fuel source, oil. They link American bellicosity with the quest for energy resources and accuse Republicans of obscenely lining their pockets with oil revenues. Environmentalists, joining forces with anti-war activists to reduce oil consumption, now promote the reduced, carbon-emissions solution proffered by agribusiness lobbyists: corn ethanol.
But, in his book, Murray counters that ethanol provides only two-thirds the energy content of gasoline, is expensive to produce and releases more harmful emission amounts than gasoline. Its real costs are hidden by government support, including $5 billion in subsidies, a federal excise forgiveness tax of $.51 per gallon, and an ethanol tariff protection from imports of 2.5%, plus $.54 per gallon. The government requires gasoline producers to buy four billion gallons of ethanol yearly, purchasing support that will increase to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. Further, ethanol emissions are actually double those of gasoline when its emissions are counted and combined with emissions arising from its transportation via truck rather than pipeline systems and its intensive production requirements – planting, growing, weeding, reaping, fermentation and distribution. Further, diverting corn production from food production increases the acreage devoted to corn; squeezes out cultivation of soybeans, cotton and barley; and causes upward price pressures on other grains, dairy products, poultry and meat.
Ethanol production incentives could also prompt farmers to clear forests which could eliminate animal habitats and lessen air quality with fewer trees to absorb carbon dioxide. The rush toward bio-fuels has also had global consequences, Murray writes. The European demand for palm oil which can be mixed with diesel to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has lead to land buys in Indonesia, threatening the habitats and survival of orangutans, Asian elephants and Sumatra tigers.
The Gaia Movement Environmentalists have not limited themselves to energy and food issues. Murray also links the quasi-religious Gaia Movement to environmentalist tendencies to view the Earth animistically, imbue it with the spiritual status of a higher being and conceptualize it as a singular-organism, self-regulating life support system. Called “The Gaia Hypothesis,” it’s an anti-human ideology that views human interference in nature in catastrophic proportions. Strict regulations are required to rein in mankind’s destructive tendencies lest the Earth strike back with natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, pestilence or other forms of punishment.
The Gaia Movement has proposed alterations to the King James Bible. In Genesis, where God’s commandments for man to utilize and benefit from the Earth’s resources exist, a Gaia-syntonic meaning has been sought that revokes man’s dominion over the Earth and diminishes his importance and stature relative to the other inhabitants of the planet. This has achieved currency in some Christian circles.
Some Gaia adherents have called into question the moral character of Christians who disagree with them. They deny the biblical recognition of the supreme worth of human beings in relation to all of creation, believe the Earth’s human population is double that of optimal levels and allude to corrective geo-engineering measures and government regulations that would enforce their views.
Since his speech at Planned Parenthood Obama has stood with this organisation through thick and thin. In February 2011 the