Essence and Existence

Essence: The what-ness of an object
Existence: The is-ness of an object

Paramenides, a pre-Socratic scholar was a huge proponent of Monism. He believed that there was only one kind of being. The argument went something like, all that exist has being. If all that separates being is empty space (like the atomists believed) or the negation of a quality (like that the Platoism posits) then there is only kind of being. It was not until Aquanis came along centuries later and pointed out the issues with monism.

1. If there is only one kind of being, then everything is one.
2. We know there  are beings of the kind which require a cause.
3. There must be at least one being that needs no cause or else all beings need a cause and there would then be no being which existed prior to the existence of any other being because all beings would then need a cause.
4. Thus, there is at least one necessary being, and at least one contingent being.
5. Therefore, there is everything is not one.

For the contingent being, it is possible for it to not exist, pending the necessary being, making its existence potential. However, a necessary being must exist, as part of what it is. In other words, this being must be without cause by its essence. Thus its essence and existence are one in the same.

An Argument Against the Coherency of Transexualism/ The Hermaphrodite Argument

1. The genes X & Y are necessary for determining sex in humans.
2. Any S possessing a Y gene is a male.
3. Therefore, All Ss without Y genes are non-males.

1. Functioning sex organs are sufficient conditions for determining sex in humans.
2. Any S possessing functioning male sex organs is sufficiently a Male.
3. Any S possessing functioning female sex organs is sufficiently a Female.
4. Therefore, Any S possessing both functioning F and M sex organs is sufficiently M and F.

1. Gender is the possessing of a greater inclination towards feminine or masculine traits.
2. Feminine and masculine traits are determined by a society.
3. Sex influences the ascription of feminine and masculine traits.
3. Therefore, gender is determined by society, but is influenced by sex.

I created these arguments as a way to lay out the logic behind sex and gender but I am not sure if they both do what I want them to. They are meant to express that S can affect the gender they posess, but not their sex. However, even if a gender is different than S's sex, S's sexual identity is still encoded in their DNA. Thus, while a hermaphrodite is male, they are also sufficiently female. Either gender they choose would be aligned with their sexual identity. An additional consequence of this argument is that you cannot change your sexual identity without changing your genes.

Chapter 25 & 26

To wrap up the book, D'Souza separates Jesus as a figurehead from Moses, Buddha, and Mohammed. He points out, Jesus was the only one who performed miracles and claimed to be God. Additionally, it is noted that this book was meant to be a defense of theism and Christianity in general. These chapters were lacking in the evidences found in the previous chapter, but do a decent job of summarizing the major doctrinal points of Christianity.  

Chapter 23 & 24

Opiate of the Morally Corrupt

D'Souza argues that atheism or apatheism are guises for those who wish to live an immoral life by appealing to an amoral philosophy. He cites several leading scientists and philosophers as saying they would simply prefer for there to be no God. People do not want to be judged for the poor choices they make. Of course, this leads to statements like Pinker's which say infanticide and abortion is completely acceptable, because we are just like any other animals in the animal kingdom.

The Problem of Evil

The problem of evil is weighted first for the theist and then the atheist. First off, D'Souza is candid in saying he does not think the theist can fully explain evil and suffering, but can provide hope in the suffering. When he turns to the atheist, he says they can find sympathy nowhere. Their pain is simply a crying out to no one over nothing of significance. Moreover, the problem of evil makes no sense from a materialist perspective. From this view there is no evil. It is an illusion. Theists can seek God and understand His ways are higher than ours and he has a purpose for everything he allows. In this, hope can be found.

Chapter 22: The Imperial "I"

D'Souza marks out the issues with secular morality. It is imbued in selfishness and in the falliability of human desire. It takes love from a consumate thing and turns it into eros. While it appears similar to traditional Christianity, it is wholly different. Christianity tells us to look into ourselves to see the truth and to know what is right. Secular morality, according to D'Souza, calls for us to look into our "inner self" to discover what we desire. Moreover, this desire is what is right. It promotes subjectivism as the moral foundation for choices. There are dire consequences to this approach, however. Hitler was said to live to his true self. Men who leave their wives for younger women could be thought of living for their true self. These sorts of choices are clearly wrong and point to an objective morality by which they are condemned.

Chapter 21: Ghost in the Machine

Here consciousness and free will are examined as unique traits of humans. First the arguments for materialism attempting to explain consciousness are presented. what affects the body appears to affect the mind. When the brain is damaged, the mind seems to be likewise. D'Souza posits that self-consciousness and consciousness of others is evidence for the soul. He says that evolution fail to adequately explain our minds. Furthermore, evolution does not entail generating a mind, if it can even do that, that would value truth. A useful lie is better than an inconvenient truth.

Free will is presented as another argument against materialism. According to Kant, we have terms and values for morality, therefore if these are to have any meaning we must have free will. I personally found this argument to be rather dissatisfying if not circular.

Part VII: Christianity and morality

Chapter 20: Natural Law and Divine Law

D'Souza starts off by arguing that sociological and historical evidence for a universal morality. Atheists accept that there appears to be normative values that cross cultures. Furthermore, atheists are willing to admit that certain acts are truly evil. When it comes to morality, they explain it in terms of kin selection and reciprocal helping. Kin selection is the choosing by genes on which host to perserve. This is why a woman may risk her life to save her children or a father may choose the life of his relatives over strangers in a zero sum game. Reciprocal helping is the idea that if I am kind to you, then you will be kind to me. While there ideas appear to explain some moral behavior there are instances of higher altruism, or kindness without apparent benefit. For instance, what are we to make of the young person who gives up their seat for the elderly?

C.S. Lewis builds an argument that says morals are not merely sentiments. Take for instance coming across a drowning man. Even if you are a poor swimmer you will have two competing urges. The cost/benefits of social psychology at play. However, above and beyond these is a sense of oughtness. Regardless of the cost/benefits, we feel as if something should be done. Thus, D'Souza ends the absolute morality chapter by showing that morality is something universal, it is not wholly explained by evolution, and it is a sensation unique from sentiments.