What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Recent Comments

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 22, 12:35:

By all means, link it all over! Thanks very much for your comments, Rebekah. You are exactly the sort of person to whom I hoped this would be helpful. ... [More]

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Rebekah on Nov 22, 11:55:

Thank you for writing this excellent post. It is very timely for me as I have recently entered into the realm of apologetics after struggling through an extended season of doubt myself. The concept of the fallacy of objections is particularly helpful. I think wolves employ this tactic to either (1) undermine the belief of those of us that are newcomers to apologetics and/or (2) undermine our credibility in the eyes of others that themselves do not have a category for the fallacy of objections. I have be ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by Scott W. on Nov 22, 08:30:

The hospital argued that it should not be considered a violation of the nurse's conscience "merely" to require her to do intake and prep. work for the abortion and clean up after the abortion (disposing of the baby's body, etc.) as long as the nurses were not literally constrained to be present while the abortion was taking place and to assist _directly_ with that procedure. The nurses, rightly in my view, objected to this. Their objection involved the idea that, by taking on the abortion-minded women as t ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 21, 16:48:

Because (a) he cannot be in his right mind if he is trying maim himself, and (b) state law doesn't preclude you from treating such behavior as a form of insanity or otherwise lack of intent. Point a here is true as a general rule but the very same logic could be applied to suicide. There are things that we can choose to _define_ as meaning that a patient isn't in his right mind. Suicide would seem to be #1 on the list! If, on the other hand, we state that suicide can't be defined that way and that someone ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 21, 16:37:

If you are a nurse, you can (morally) work IN a hospital that does abortions and even work around other nurses and doctors who perform abortions, without actually helping those abortionists. The fact that the hospital does abortions doesn't give you the moral responsibility to stop those heinous acts that occur on their premises with your knowledge. Well, yes and no. This issue and the limits of this principle have come up recently when hospitals have attempted to coerce nurses into taking on pregnant wom ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by Tony on Nov 21, 15:56:

Well, no, if they are killing the patient under your facility's roof, then I can't agree with this characterization. Note that as long as the person is vacillating, the person is obviously still your patient. I thought I took the case where the patient himself is insisting on suicide (or administered death). No vacillating anymore. I agree that it occurs "under your roof", and this normally implies a degree of responsibility to stop this grievous evil act. But additional factors are in play in additio ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 21, 15:21:

Also, if the intent of these laws were literally to take the patient out of the care of the nursing home with a conscientious objection, then the laws would allow objecting homes to refuse and require that the patient discharge himself and transfer to another facility. They don't allow that because that isn't the intent. They aren't taking the patient out of the care of the objecting facility. They are requiring the facility to subsidize the murder by allowing it to take place *on their premises*, in the sp ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 21, 15:16:

I think myself that we need to start thinking outside the box altogether. For example: A Christian network of registered nurses, physicians assistants, doctors, and also non-medical caregivers, all committed to house calls, joining together to form a home health care coalition. Through donations, the organization could means-test prospective clients and offer greatly reduced rates or free in-home care for those who cannot afford to pay. There would still be a doctor-patient relationship, but no institutiona ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 21, 14:08:

In the proposed CA bill, by the way, the facilities were required to continue to keep on staff actual employees of their own who killed patients. So you'd in that case be paying the salary of a doctor, nurse, or other employee who was murdering people as part of their job, on-site in your facility. ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 21, 13:29:

then at that point both legally and morally that patient is no longer under your care. The state has, at that point, REMOVED from your care that patient, against your intention and against your best efforts. Well, no, if they are killing the patient under your facility's roof, then I can't agree with this characterization. Note that as long as the person is vacillating, the person is obviously still your patient. The patient is only taken out of your care if literally taken out of your care--i.e., removed ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by DeGaulle on Nov 21, 12:18:

Thank you both for your replies. You have certainly got to the gist of the matter. I would suspect any nursing home owners who stand by their patients or make any efforts to prolong their lives against the wishes of the State will very quickly lose their licences. It is apparent in other issues how quickly and zealously the culture of Moloch takes situations to their conclusion. I fear that, like children with Down's Syndrome and other "distasteful" conditions, people with dementia will become rare as hens' ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by Tony on Nov 21, 12:07:

And you can make a nursing home explicit policy "we completely disregard patient instructions toward causing death if they become incompacitated, including so-called medical directives which direct us to take non-medical immoral acts. As a consequence, by accepting our care you hereby alter your prior directives toward killing you. And any medical directive signed after you enter is subject to our consent to the conditions. Sign here..." Sure, you will get grief from the state. But the state's options ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by Tony on Nov 21, 11:05:

Essentially, it's standing by while your patient, under your care, in your nursing home, slits his wrists or hangs himself or blows his head off with a gun. Lydia, I accept everything you say in problem 1, as a general characterization of what now holds. But what I am suggesting is that if and when we get to state-mandated "nursing homes must allow for patient-directed suicide" is that at the point where a patient (in spite of your consistent work caring for them and alleviating their causes for wanting t ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 21, 10:25:

I would suggest, very tentatively, that you could say to an elderly bent on suicide "what you do in your assigned room is your business, but I do not provide any services toward death." And then just not actively step in the way of anybody coming in to administer drugs or whatever. And say to the state officials that claim that you have to provide assistance to those who want help killing themselves, "my conscience forbids that I assist them, but I won't obstruct others carrying out their evil acts." And th ... [More]

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 21, 08:23:

Yes, it's amazing how much evidence is there in the first chapters of Acts. The death of Stephen, for example. The Romans _tried_ to avoid that kind of thing. They frowned on it, and later (around 62, I believe) there was actually a bit of trouble with the Romans when James the Just was killed by a mob in a manner very reminiscent of the killing of Stephen. But in this case, Stephen just got stoned to death, and there were no repercussions. After that Saul of Tarsus set forth on a rampaging persecution of C ... [More]

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Tony on Nov 21, 08:07:

Someone was asking me on Facebook whether the layman would need to know additional church history to know that some apostles died for their testimony. I pointed out that the book of Acts, in sober and credible historical terms, shows them as _willing_ to die for their testimony again and again. Lydia, that's a good point. A potential Christian hearing evidence now for Christianity just isn't in the same position as the Jews on Pentecost. He isn't coming off the recent Passover, and the recent public even ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by Tony on Nov 21, 07:50:

DeGaulle, in my opinion the state killing the aged is not much different from the Roman state killing the Christians, and a good Christian can submit to it in much the same way. That is, you can choose go quietly as a martyr, you can go testifying to the fact that murder is a grave evil in God's eyes, you can go loudly singing praises to God, and you can go physically fighting against evil knowing it won't do you any good. All of these are morally legitimate. As for the people running a nursing home, t ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 20, 19:11:

Well, obviously, one can't ethically set aside a death room in one's nursing home for the use of Exit. So there's one bright line right there. I think increasingly people are going to prefer dying at home. This is relevant even to things like receiving nutrition and hydration. At least you can (in theory) be spoon fed at home. See my post here: http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/12/a_case_for_throwing_patients_o.html ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by DeGaulle on Nov 20, 14:28:

Lydia, it may well have the deepest consequences for all who do not have the resources to afford their old age care, which, given the already astronomical costs and the dismal prospects for world economics, will be the vast majority. How do we protect ourselves? How do we defend our loved ones? We will need new religious doctrine to deal with these new situations. Is it a mortal sin to give in meekly to state pressure or must we resist? How do we resist? Because as surely as night follows day, once one cost ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 20, 12:28:

Thanks, DeGaulle. I think that all over the world the government has gotten involved in paying for healthcare for the elderly. I'm not such a diehard libertarian as to say that this is intrinsically bad policy. But it does open up all sorts of problems when the "chattering classes" go to the bad and control government policies. This has implications for Christian institutions from a purely prudential point of view. ... [More]

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 20, 09:16:

Joshua, thanks. The topic sounds interesting, but thus far here at W4 guest posts have always been from friends or family members of contributors whose writing is already known to a contributor. Please feel free to write the post on what presuppositionalism is not and link it in this thread! I'm sure people will read it with interest. I do know of many presuppositionalists who discuss evidence for Christianity. Mark Thomas, thank you so much! ... [More]

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Mark Thomas on Nov 20, 01:44:

Lydia, I just wanted to say that your article is exactly what I was hoping you would write at some point. Not to say in any way that I would have anticipated you to cover such points, but that the points that you did cover are very beneficial for the public at large to be aware of. Thank you, and keep writing. -Mark ... [More]

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Joshua WD Smith on Nov 19, 20:30:

Good post. Would you be willing to let a guest post on "What presuppositionalism is not?" I keep seeing that position mis-characterized as "not bothering with evidence," or some such like. ... [More]

He who pays the piper, Chapter #3,459,621

Comment posted by DeGaulle on Nov 19, 15:15:

The situation in Ireland is that those who cannot afford nursing home care receive means-tested state subventions to cover their costs. It is very foreseeable that these payments will eventually come with "strings attached". ... [More]

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 19, 13:04:

I also address the issue of controlling assumptions in this post: http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2014/07/more_on_arguments_from_signs_a.html I note in this comment that a confusion on this point has currency both among Christians and non-Christians. (A reader, thinking that I was aiming the post solely at one person, challenged me to show that I was not simply aiming it at that one person.) http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2014/07/more_on_arguments_from_signs_a.html#comment-293922 ... [More]

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 19, 12:59:

That is to say that any likelihood that some category of evidence results in a particular conclusion can be denied if it doesn't fit one's presuppositions. Well, I'd _prefer_ if possible not to launch into a debate over presuppositionalism, but no, actually, not. It is possible to see in probability-theoretic terms that it is _irrational_ not to update one's probabilities based on new evidence, even if this means changing one's mind on something to which one was previously committed. To say that somethi ... [More]

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Jim Pemberton on Nov 19, 11:32:

As a presuppositionalist I appreciate this article. I would also say that while many evidentialists are anti-presuppositional, evidentialism is not intrinsically anti-presuppositional. Evidentialism, limited by probabilistic principles, requires presuppositions for certitude. That is to say that any likelihood that some category of evidence results in a particular conclusion can be denied if it doesn't fit one's presuppositions. So appealing to evidence begs the presuppositional question. That doesn't mean ... [More]

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 19, 09:43:

Tony, that's an interesting topic: What did one "have to believe" during the transitional period when the church was being formed? I think doctrine "developed" very rapidly--perhaps within a year or two, no more--as far as the deity of Jesus and the Trinity. But the day of Pentecost was still _very_ early, and those who accepted Jesus as Messiah on that day would have had no reason to accept the Trinity. It is therefore entirely plausible that their salvation in the eyes of God was, creedally speaking, cons ... [More]

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Tony on Nov 18, 21:56:

I recall to mind the thousands of Jews converted to Christianity on Pentecost Sunday. They did not have all the lengthy arguments overcoming this or that or whatever objection to Christ, yet on the day of their baptism they were justified. Many of these, probably most of them, might have been material heretics about some features of Christian faith, like those features it took us centuries to sort out in discerning 3 persons all of one nature and substance in God. But those defects in their grasp of the ... [More]

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Neil Shenvi on Nov 18, 16:14:

Thanks, Lydia. That's a helpful clarification. -Neil ... [More]

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 18, 15:22:

Let me clarify: I did not mean that a fideist might be damned for being a fideist. I simply meant that being a fideist is not (obviously) a sufficient condition for salvation. I suppose someone could be a fideist and also a heretic in some other, salvation-blocking way. Or one could be a fideist for a while and then become a deconvert and, if one thinks this is possible, lose one's salvation. In other words, the "may well be" was not indicating that I think one might really be damned just for fideism. It me ... [More]

What evidentialism is not

Comment posted by Neil Shenvi on Nov 18, 15:16:

Hi Lydia, This is a good piece, but I'm a bit alarmed at the tentativeness of point #3. Does *anyone* seriously think that someone who truly trusts in Christ for salvation (even if that trust is 'philosophically unjustified') will be lost? If not, then I'd be much more clear in saying so without qualification, since ambivalence on this point is likely to reinforce all of the negative stereotypes about evidentialism that you've taken such pains to refute. -Neil ... [More]

Poland has a judge problem

Comment posted by Tony on Nov 14, 09:51:

Sure, that's another way of doing it. There's no single solution with malicious compliance. ... [More]

Poland has a judge problem

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 13, 13:00:

I'd probably cut it in the middle, after the word "above" and thus merely include the "apology" as a quote from the judge. Then go directly to the last sentence about conscience. ... [More]

Poland has a judge problem

Comment posted by Tony on Nov 13, 10:59:

I don't know anything about the appeals system in Poland, but to American ears seems unlikely that this decision would stand up to an appeal. On several different grounds, not just one. For instance, I find it difficult to believe that a judge can basically write the content of an apology on her own authority: "you shall say 'X' in apology " Not to disagree with Lydia at all in that Kotula should refuse to comply, I am envisioning some nice, fun malicious compliance. Write an apology in this format: ... [More]

Poland has a judge problem

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 12, 17:11:

Not impossible but I'd say unlikely. More likely just a progressive with a will to power. ... [More]

Poland has a judge problem

Comment posted by Steve Willy on Nov 12, 16:28:

Could this judge be a hold over from the Soviet era? ... [More]

Coalition Politics Revisited

Comment posted by Lydia on Nov 12, 09:46:

I don't even know what is meant by "you opposed interracial marriage 50 years ago." I didn't exist 50 years ago, unless one believes in pre-existence of souls. Is the "you" here supposed to refer to some spiritual or biological ancestors of mine for whose sins I'm deemed to be corporately responsible? Or is this just the same-old same-old--"*if* you don't think homosexual couples can be married then you *would* have opposed interracial marriage fifty years ago, and this is logically required by your positio ... [More]

Coalition Politics Revisited

Comment posted by Paul J Cella on Nov 12, 07:58:

Matt adopted precisely the shift-of-goalposts tactic I predicted. Conciliatory gestures and reassurances of no negative consequences are superseded immediately by "you opposed interracial marriage 50 years ago, no way around it" -- those are his own words, a veiled accusation of racism. In truth, as Tony has indicated, the comparison to anti-miscegenation laws mostly comes down to a particular American hang-up. Many Americans, in prior days, so succumbed to fear and loathing of blacks, and guilt about the ... [More]

Poland has a judge problem

Comment posted by Lion IRC on Nov 11, 22:17:

Good point Masked Chicken! She should have recused herself if she is a catholic. So I would say she probably isnt. ...but even then there may be other reasons she isnt fit to give an impartial ruling on this particular topic. ... [More]