Clayton, Einzege, and the Anointed Vision

Two of my most critical commentators on this blog are Clayton and Einzege, both secularists adamantly opposed to any and all of my theistic/Christian evidences. I make a general response here to their typically mistaken remarks.

To Clayton and Einzege:

Your responses to me are often interesting in the sense that they verify the inferences of many "right wing" thinkers who have studied the thought and ideas of "skeptics" and liberals like yourself.

You many times have condescendingly inquired whether I ever question arguments for theism. The implication being that I somehow don't care about truth and am simply willing to accept AND endorse any argument for God, as long as it furthers my belief and agenda.

You, on the other hand, as members of the anointed intelligentsia are much more honest in your research. You are attempting to seek the truth and you won't resort to accepting just any old argument for atheism. You, unlike I, have integrity in your philosophical reasoning and search for religious truth and objectivity. You wish to reach the masses with facts, not faith.

This attitude you both have bears out perfectly the work of Thomas Sowell, the fine political/historical scholar from Stanford. See Sowell's excellent book "The Vision of the Anointed". Sowell has noted that liberals and "freethinkers" like yourselves often hold themselves up as being morally superior and far more honest than your Judeo-Christian, conservative rivals. You seek the truth, but your opponents are shallow brutes who push an agenda dishonestly. They can't see past their entrenched tradition and brainwashing.

Of course, as Sowell notes, this caricature is just that -- a gross caricature of Christian and conservative thinkers in general. Such thinkers are typically as honest, and probably more so, than their anti-Christian foes. The fact that their thinking often is far more in line with reality can be seen in the consequences of the ideas of the visions of the anointed, which were roundly opposed by Christians and conservatives, mostly. See, for instance, the failed work of such liberal social constructions as the Welfare state, sex education in schools, environmentalism, consumer protection, and the like. All were social policies issued and spurned by the anointed, anti-Christian elite and all have ended in disaster, becuase they were simply out of touch with reality. They were meant to promote a vision and agenda rather than to find real solutions.

Though I think your accusations of intellectual dishonesty against me are plainly false and not worth mentioning, I should note that I, in fact, do question many arguments for theism. I won't go into all of them, since it would take too long.

But I have a rather interesting question for my secular thinkers who are so self-congratulatingly honest intellectually:

Have you, by chance, ever met a theistic argument that you like?

Matt Hughes on Spirituality

I've commented on this blog previously on the interesting correlation between Christian mixed martial and their success in the sport of Mixed Martial Arts.

List the current major MMA champions and you find that most ascribe to Christianity: Franklin, Hughes, Silva, as did former UFC light heavyweight and heavyweight champ, Randy Couture. Other great fighters in that category are Shogun Rua, Matt Lindland, Josh Barnett, Nathan Marquardt, Rampage Jackson, Vitor Belfort, and various others.

After presenting this idea to others, including fans of MMA, I'm often attacked as being ridiculous or just being a "Bible thumper" (whatever that is). But, within recent days, my suspicions on the importance of the faith to one's in-ring success has been supported by none other than Matt Hughes, the most dominant welterweight MMA champ in history.

Hughes has held the WW belt seemingly forever and has only been defeated 4 times in around 42 total fights. He's the king of 170lb. fighters. Interestingly, in his recent premier on SpikeTV's The Ultimate Fighter reality show, Hughes noted the importance of his spiritual state to his fighting prowess. Hughes noted that fighters must be strong mentally, physically, and spiritually to have their best chance at ultimate success in the fight game. By "spiritually" Hughes unmistakeably implies a Christian spirituality, as that is the faith to which he holds.

I realize there are great fighters who are non-Christians. But that fact does nothing to undermine the interesting connection between Christian faith and fighting success. The best fighters in the world continue to be predominantly Christian in orientation, which I think requires some form of explanation. Does God truly protect those who are faithful to Him (as expressed in the Psalms and other places), at least in some important cases?

Perhaps you think fighting and God are irrelevant to one another. And it's certainly your right to have that view. Just don't express it to Matt Hughes.

UFC 54 Predictions

UFC 54 is finally upon us. Many fans have said this is possibly the best UFC fight card in that organization's history, I wouldn't disagree. It features greats like Liddell, Couture, and Horn and none of the matches are easily picked. Nonetheless, I propose to try my hand at doing just that.

Chuck Liddell vs. Jeremy Horn

This is of course the main event and will determine the reigning LHW champion. Will Liddell retain his belt or will Horn come like a thief in the night? This a great matchup and is actually a rematch between the two, who fought each other in 1999. Horn won that bout with a late submission, but I see this one going differently. Horn needs to take Chuck to the ground to win this fight and I think that will be too tough of a challenge. Taking Chuck down is one of the toughest feats in MMA and keeping him down is even tougher. Unfortunately, Horn just cannot stand with Liddell for a full five rounds. In fact, I don't think this will go past the third. I take Liddell via knockout in mid-third round.

Randy Couture vs. Mike Van Arsdale

Another LHW battle, this one featuring the legend Couture in his first match after losing the belt to Liddell. Both of these guys are phenomenal wrestlers. (Rumor has it that Van Arsdale beat Couture in a wrestling match in their younger days.) Both are also former heavyweights who currently are around 40 yrs. old. But I don't think things are as evenly matched as one might assume. Couture is simply too experienced and MMA savvy to lose this fight. Van Arsdale is tough but while he matches Randy in wrestling, he doesn't equal him in MMA ability or knowledge. I take Randy with a 2nd round TKO.

George St. Pierre vs. Frank Trigg

This will be an awesome welterweight matchup. These guys probably rank #2 and #3 in the WW division behind Matt Hughes. Trigg is a great wrestler who has good stand up. St. Pierre, a young and awesomely well-rounded fighter, probably has better kickboxing and submissions than Trigg, but will obviously not outwrestle him. This will be an all-out war. I see St. Pierre winning by decision.


Matt Lindland vs. Joe Doerksen

A very interesting middleweight fight. Doerksen stepped in for an injured Joe Riggs for this fight. Lindland is an Olympic wrestler who takes most guys out with ground-n-pound. Doerksen is probably superior at jiu-jitsu and stand-up, making this a tougher call than some think. However, I give the edge to Lindland just because world-class wrestling. He'll get Doerksen down eventually and will do damage. Lindland via decision.

Tim Sylvia vs. Tra Telligman

Both heavyweight fighters with big power in their hands. Telligman is a pro boxer on top being of a pro MMA fighter and Sylvia is known for knocking guys out standing. Neither of these guys wants to be on the ground. Telligman will have the more refined boxing technique and skill, but Sylvia is just too big. The guy is 6'8 265 compared to Telligman who is 6'2. That reach will prove too much for Telligman who will get knocked out in round 2.

Diego Sanchez vs. Brian Gassaway

This bout marks Sanchez's UFC debut after winning the middleweight division of The Ultimate Fighter reality show in April. He is a seasoned wrestler, great on the ground and excels at ground-n-pound and submissions. Gassaway is a pro kickboxer (10-0 record) and will easily have the advantage in the stand-up aspect. The trick for Gassaway, though, will be to keep the fight standing. I don't think he'll be able to do that, as Sanchez is too good and too experienced at getting opponents down and having his way with them. Sanchez will take this by submission in round 1.

Trevor Prangley vs. Travis Lutter

This is my least anticipated fight, since I think the mix of styles here will prove boring. Prangley is a world-class wrestler who has a powerful right hand. Lutter is a black belt in jiu-jitsu with limited stand up ability. Lutter will be slick on the ground and will no doubt seek submissions throughout. But I believe Prangley trains with too good of a team (American Kickboxing Academy) to be caught by surprise. He'll defend against submissions and will pound Lutter out on the mat. I take Prangley by TKO in the 3rd.

James Irvin vs. Terry Martin

Martin makes his debut in UFC tonight, coming in with a 10-0 record in MMA. Irvin's only loss was his UFC debut at UFC 51. Things have changed for Irvin though in that he now moves to a more natural 205 weight class. He won't be overpowered by a bigger guy this time around. Experts say Martin is fairly well-rounded, but I think Irvin will prove to be too much in the stand up. I predict Irvin by KO in round 2.

Benefits of Belief

Pragmatism, like other "philosophies" has both its merits and its downside. As a theory of truth, it fails miserably. What is true is not necessarily always "what works." However, as a guide in practical decision-making, it can be rather useful. (If I want a workout, I should take the stairs, not the elevator.) Philosopher Paul Copan makes these points aptly in his fine boo, How Do You Know You're Not Wrong? recently published this month.

But pragmatic considerations can possibly lend a hand to the case for theism, too. A few years ago, philosophy professor Stafford Betty wrote a conference paper dealing with the benefits of religious belief and whether or not such belief heightens the quality of human life.

Betty argued that, generally, when a certain belief benefits us, it is more likely true than not. He cites distinct examples of this, although my memory does not serve me to rename them here. Moreover, Betty says, the benefits of traditional religious belief in a personal God have been well-documented in the medical and psychological professions. Religious believers tend to be healther than their nonbelieving friends both physically and mentally. I think he also cited other apparent benefits that have been documented in religious believers.

Thus, if Betty is correct in saying beliefs that benefit us are more likely true than not generally, and theistic belief generally benefits humans, then we have another reason for thinking theistic belief is more likely true than not.

Of course, my brief rehearsal of this argument does not establish its soundness, nor is it meant to do so. I merely note that it is an interesting, suggestive bit of natural theology that might well be worth looking into by Christian apologists.

The Scales of Evidence

Philosopher Paul Draper is a noted agnostic when it comes to God's existence. He doesn't know whether God exists or not. In his essay in the book Divine Hiddenness: New Essays, Draper goes through the arguments for theism and naturalism and finds the cases for both worldviews equally compelling. Neither has a clear advantage.

But Draper makes an interesting statement at the end of his contribution. He notes that this situation with the ambiguous evidence appears almost intentional, as if humans have been given enough evidence to find God, but not enough to give them utter certainty regarding His reality.

This is an interesting statement indeed, and I think it gives the advantage to the Christian theist. The Bible states that God has given ample evidence of Himself through His creation so as to see His reality even apart from special revelation like the Bible. It also implies, however, that man can shun God's reality and suppress belief in His existence if they are unwilling to submit to Him. To the obstinate human, God's existence will not seem clear. This is a typical consequence of bias. For instance, if we prejudge someone and assume they are a bad person, we may never see the goodness they have to offer--even if it is readily available to see.

I disagree with Draper in that I think the evidence for theism is far greater than any purported evidence for naturalism. Thus, theism is the clearcut winner. But even granting his point, the Christian position comes out on the winning end. For the apparent ambiguity of the evidence seems intentional as Draper notes and thus the work of an intelligent mind. Moreover, Scripture states that God has in fact made His reality ambiguous to the unrepentant. Such ambiguity would thus simply be in line with Scriptural indications.

Christian Argument against the Population Boom

Liberal politicians and pundits are panicked--constantly, it seems. Growing up in public schools, I for one, was consistently indoctrinated with the liberal perspective on issues like environmentalism, the history and legacy of Europe and the West, AIDS, and the like.

The ideas often spun out were ones of urgency. "If we don't stop pollution, the earth will be destroyed by the next generation", "AIDS is not primarily a homosexual disease--all lifestyles are equally threatened by it!!"

One area often spoken of by leftists is their fear of the "population boom." According to such thinkers (almost all of whom, not incidentally, advocate abortion-on-demand), unless we start controlling our "breeding" habits as humans, we'll end up with a shortage of food, water, and natural resources. We're all doomed.

As the excellent economist, political analyst, and historian Thomas Sowell has noted, such proclamations are sounded loudly, but with little empirical evidence to back them. How do we know this about the population? For all that I've heard on these issues, virtually none of it has been in the form of argument or documentation.

In fact, not only do pundits have little evidence for their population thesis, there actually all sorts of evidences against it. One formidable argument is distinctly Christian.

Christians hold that the world will end when Christ returns and all people will be forever cast into Heaven or Hell. The Bible clearly implies that humans will in fact still be thriving on the earth at that time, and there will be many involved in the endtime events.

This means that humans will have the food and resources needed to populate the earth up until the Creator brings this earthly sojourn to an end. That being so, the typical environmentalist claim that we could run out of resources before the universe dies out naturally, is false.

Formally, the argument goes like this:

1. The Christian God exists.
2. If the Christian God exists, then humankind will populate earth until He comes back to end the universe as we know it.
3. If the population boom claim is true, then it is possible that mankind will die out before the end of the universe.
4. It is not possible that mankind does so (see premise #2).
5. Therefore, it is not possible that the population boom claim is true.

A Unique Evidence for the Gospels' Reliability

Many volumes have been written on the historical Jesus and the reliability (or unreliability, depending on who you read) of the historical record presented in the four Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke, & John) in the New Testament.

The Gospels, of course, were accounts of Jesus of Nazareth's life and ministry written by His followers in the first century AD, following His death on the cross. The actual years in which the books were penned is disputed among scholars, though I hold that Mark, probably the earliest Gospel was probably written some time around 52-55 AD.

Various evidences are given by certain historians as to why the Gospels can be considered reliable history. See the scholarship of Craig Blomberg, F.F. Bruce, and Paul Barnett, for example. But many of these scholars often overlook one interesting piece of evidence for the Gospels' trustworthiness.

Dallas Willard (a Christian philosopher) has noted previously in an article that Jesus uses profound and distinct logical reasoning in His discourses as recorded in these documents. Douglas Groothuis, another philosopher, has also recognized this aspect of Jesus's teachings in his book On Jesus.

But this opens a new kind of argument for the reliability of the Gospel text. For if Jesus, as noted in those texts, used a subtle logic that was apparently foreign to the Jewish thought of His day, does this not indicate that the Gospels were faithfully recording Jesus's words? One must merely ask how else the Gospel writers would come up with such reasoning or insight. Did they simply make up this up and then attribute it to their mythical teacher?

Such a position seems implausible. What would be the motivation for doing this? Why attribute this to Jesus rather than simply starting a new movement yourself? How in fact did they come up with new thinking when they were all steeped in traditional Jewish life and thought?

It seems better to assume, instead, that such teachings were in fact Jesus's to begin with; the Gospel authors truly recorded what He said. But that, of course, give us another indication that Gospel authors, and the Gospels themselves, are truthful.

Ultimate Fight Night predictions

Tonight (Saturday, 8/6) is the inaugural night for all Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fans. This marks the first live event on the new SpikeTV television contract with the Ultimate Fighting Championship. The event features eight new fights, the majority being exciting, hard-to-call matchups.

The card includes fighters from the first season of The Ultimate Fighter (TUF) reality show on SpikeTV (season two starts 8/22). Most of them will face UFC veterans, which for most will be their toughest test to date.

In this post, I propose to lay out the fights and present a brief prediction of their outcome.

1. Nathan Marquardt vs. Ivan Salaverry

This is the headlining matchup and for good reason: these are both superb fighters. Both are very well-rounded and very experienced. I've never seen Marquardt fight, although all the experts praise him. I personally hope he gets the win, since he's a Christian. Of course, Salaverry is a force and is perhaps the top contender in the UFC's MW division. The guy can standup or go the ground--and he'll beat you at either one. I give this to Salaverry via an early 3rd round submission.

2. Stephan Bonnar vs. Sam Hoger

These are two TUF alumni. Bonnar is best known for his fight with Forrest Griffin in April's TUF season 1 finale. He's an excellent boxer and ground fighter. Hoger is a sleeper and appears underrated. He looked good on the show with his Muay Thai ability and looked even better with a big win over Bobby Southworth at the TUF finale. But I give Bonnar the edge on both standup and ground. I'll take Bonnar with a second round TKO.

3. Chris Leben vs. Patrick Cote

This is the fight I want to see most. Two big punchers with good chins. Cote has the more refined boxing skills, but Leben might have a little more power. Leben is also probably better on the ground. However, I give the advantage to Cote since he's fought big opponents in the UFC before and Leben might come in star struck a bit. Prediction: Cote with a knock out in round 2.

4. Nathan Quarry vs. Pete Sell

A real toss-up and an excellent match-up. Sell is great at jiu-jistu and won big over Baroni at UFC 51. Quarry is probably the most talented fighter from TUF and looked good in his wins against Sincaid and Carter in the UFC. Quarry has the better stand-up and is good enough on the ground to defend against Sell there. I give this to Quarry by decision.

5. Gideon Ray vs. Mike Swick

Both of these guys have very good stand-up technique and power. Both will come out swinging hard. However, Swick probably has better ground skills due to his training at American Kickboxing Academy; he could bring those skills into play. Also, Ray took the fight on only three weeks notice, which makes his conditioning questionable. I'll take Swick (my favorite TUF fighter) by TKO in round 2.

6. Alex Karalexis vs. Kenny Florian

Both fighters are TUF veterans and both seem to be the least deserving fighters on the card. I doubt either should be in the UFC, but this will a decent fight, nonetheless. Karalexis has the better standup and power; Florian has far better ground skills. Classic ground vs. stand-up match. In the end, I lean towards Florian by submission in the 1st round, just because he seems like a gamer.

7. Josh Neer vs. Drew Fickett

Neither of these guys come from TUF, but are at about that level in their careers. Neer is said to be well-rounded. Fickett is best at grappling and ground-n-pound. I don't know enough about either participant to make a good estimate. But I'll pick Fickett by TKO, round 1.

8. Josh Koscheck vs. Pete Spratt

Koscheck (from TUF) takes on a UFC vet here. Koscheck is an excellent, NCAA champion wrestler who's only trained MMA for a little over a year. His best chance here is to take Spratt down and pound on him (like he did against Sanford at the TUF finale). However, if Spratt can keep the fight standing, he easily has the advantage with his kickboxing prowess. This will be an interesting fight. I take Koscheck via ground-n-pound TKO in the second round.