Local yokels and 30 seconds of fame.

Yesterday, shortly after finishing my previous post of this title, I ran across this interesting article on the blog of Wendy Lynne Lee, PhD., a professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University. As usual, she put the case a little more succinctly than I think myself possible of doing. However, I'll do my best to be brief as there are several fresh gems of genius to be gleaned from today's 30 Seconds. First, I'll repost Runyon's argument:

Law is a rule of conduct or procedure recognized by a community as binding or enforceable by authority. Law is also a statement of scientific truth, a mathematical principle and above all carries undeniable self evident truths. Law is a manifestation of conditions recognized in and by all things. Law was present long before the assent of man and can be traced back to a point of singularity. For law to exist it must have authority. It must have and set conditions, purpose and direction with intent and must be in harmony. All of which infers that law itself could not exist without reason and reason cannot exist without intelligence. Therefore, law stands with self evident truth that GOD does in fact exist! Robert Runyon, 30 Seconds. The Press Enterprise 11 (Sept. 10, 2007).

Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Plantinga, Swinburne, Craig, and Runyon as the geniuses of apologetics? Unfortunately for Runyon, I do not think he is quite ready to take his place among the heavyweights that have preceded him. As I mentioned yesterday, Runyon has committed a fallacy of equivocation. As can be witnessed at Dictionary.com, the word "law" can certainly be ambiguous when stripped of any context due to the many meanings the word has gathered over its long history. Runyon, however, helpfully defines the word for us in his first sentence.

"Law is a rule of conduct or procedure recognized by a community as binding or enforceable by authority." This seems correct, and would agree with the first few definitions provided at Dictionary.com. Unfortunately for Runyon, this definition completely neglects to inform us where the "law" originates from, whether the community recognizes the law as authoritative because of this mysterious origin or because of their consent, etc. However, given its vagueness, Runyon's definition certainly seems reminiscent of the law we see passed by legislatures and other political entities, the type of "law" that is normally discussed in the philosophy of law.

Runyon then goes on to say, "Law is also a statement of scientific truth, a mathematical principle and above all carries undeniable self evident truths." While, we know that there is the type of "law" that is discussed in the philosophy of law (which Runyon seems to be discussing in his first sentence) and then Runyon mentions a type of "law" that is "a statement of scientific truth." This seems awfully reminiscent of the type of "law" we see in the philosophy of science, laws of nature.

So now we have a problem, and a major one, for Runyon. He seems to simply assume that these two types of "law" are the same thing despite the disagreement of the rest of the philosophical community. Unfortunately for him, the community is right. He goes back and forth between these two types of "law," ascribing characteristics of both types to his singular concept of "law."

For instance, Runyon states "It must have and set conditions, purpose and direction with intent and must be in harmony." However, laws of nature as described in the philosophy of science lack purpose or intent, and harmony is a concept that is highly relative to the observer. (Are low-energy states more harmonic than agitated high-energy states, is this the harmony described in music, can Runyon employ a word non-ambiguously?) And Runyon fails to offer any explanation as to why we should ascribe these characteristics to both types of "law."

"All of which infers that law itself could not exist without reason and reason cannot exist without intelligence." While, no, that really depends on the type of "law" being discussed. As noted before, the laws of nature as discussed in the philosophy of science certainly seem to exist independently of human intelligence or any intelligence and did so for billions of years prior to our existence and will, if modern science is correct, probably do so for billions of years afterward.

Finally, with undeserved arrogance, Runyon triumphantly declares "[t]herefore, law stands with self evident truth that GOD does in fact exist!" Poor Runyon, he even failed to state the sentence correctly. From his statement, we can only assume that "law" and "self evident (sic) truth" stand together, "[proving] (sic) that GOD does in fact exist!" (Is there some reason that fundamentalist minds employ capitalization with rampant, haphazard wanton?) What Runyon was probably attempt to say, "Therefore, law stands as self-evident truth that God does, in fact, exist!" Unfortunately, since Runyon's entire argument is almost a textbook case of the fallacy of equivocation, it does not stand as self-evident truth that "GOD" (is he more powerful than God? is this YHWH?) exists. Sorry Runyon, I'm still waiting for someone to provide a rational argument for belief in a "god."

Now on some truly wonderful gems from today. First, I'd like to congratulate the editor, who I do not usually see eye-to-eye with, for his response to the post below (editor's comment is provided in parantheses after the call-in comment):

I'm very disappointed in you people for the little write-up about the minister, James Kennedy. You put in a big write-up about Jerry Falwell. Now there's going to be a big write-up about that Pavarotti guy. Why don't you put more in the paper about Pastor Kennedy in your paper?

Bloomsburg man

(Religious hucksters — my definition of televangelists — are a dime a dozen. Pavarotti had a voice that made him one in a billion.)

Kennedy, like Falwell, was a religious huckster, bigot, and utterly contemptible human-being. I, like many others, will not shed a tear for their loss. The next entry is from Pan-American Man, who knows that homosexuality is a travesty against God!

The weakness of the homophile arguments cited to legitimize homosexuality defines the weakness of their position in general. For example, "Jesus did not say anything against homosexuality," (assuming we know every word He uttered). Strong's Concordance to the Bible lists no entries for rape, incest, pederasty, or polygamy. Does logic dictate that Christians must accept all of the above, based upon the assent of silence? If homosexuality existed in ancient Greece, why did they have no word for it? Wouldn't an advanced and sophisticated civilization have words for actions and practices that were observable? The Greeks accepted slavery. Should follow their example?

PanAmeric Man, e-mail

That's right, homosexuality did not occur in ancient Greece, or any other civilization for that matter. As for slavery, didn't we practice that? Oh wait, we did. The Bible and Jesus fail to say anything about that either. Finally, to finish on a truly crazy note:

From Our Brother/Comrade John Lennon(One of The Enlightened Teachers!):"WE ALL SHINE ON!!!...Like the Moon, and the Stars, and the Sun!...What on Earth are you trying to do? It's up to you! Better get yourself together! Join the Human Race! Why in the world are we here? Surely not to live in pain and fear!...Better recognize your Brother-Everyone you met! Why on Earth are you there-when your everywhere! Who in Earth do you think you are??? A SUPERSTAR??? WELL,RIGHT YOU ARE!!!... FOR WE ALL SHINE ON!!!...Like the Moon, and the Stars, and Sun!...Everyone Come On!-ON!+ON!+ON!+ON!" We are all Immortals, Infinite Spiritual Beings!!! WE ARE EACH A PERFECT CHILD OF "DIVINE LOVE" GOD!!!

Bloomsburg New Age

Unity Christian Man, e-mail

I love Bloomsburg.