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.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chapter 18 & 19: Rethinking the Inquisition & License to Kill
I am writing about both these chapters together because they cover much of the same information.
Chapter 18
To start off, D'Souza argues that the atrocities ascribed to religion by opponents are either revisionist or grossly over-exaggerated. Taking the example of the Crusades, D'Souza argues that the West was defending itself from Islam's self-proclaimed mandate to conquer Europe. Therefore, much of the violence on the Christian side could be considered as military action that was not supported by religion, but by self-defense. On the Muslim side, it was a sort of manifest destiny to conquer Europe, not from religious prejudice against Christians. Much of the pillaging by Christians were done in order for them to survive while fighting back Islam from taking over Europe. In the case of the Salem witch trials, less than 25 people were killed. This number, while sad, certain does not measure up to a great massacre when compared to the likes of Pol Pot or Mao.
Chapter 19
Putting the proverbial shoe on the other foot, D'Souza examines the atrocities done against mankind by atheistic motives. First pointing out that Mao and Stalin killed collectively 90 million people, which made Hitler's number look paltry at 10 million, D'Souza points out that if Christianity should be held responsible for those who claim to be Christian and commit massive killings, then so should atheism. However, if this argument causes the tenacious atheist to simply say that atheism does not logical lead to these kinds of catastrophes, one only need to cite Dostoevsky to point out that Christ himself would not be aligned with the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity.
I am writing about both these chapters together because they cover much of the same information.
Chapter 18
To start off, D'Souza argues that the atrocities ascribed to religion by opponents are either revisionist or grossly over-exaggerated. Taking the example of the Crusades, D'Souza argues that the West was defending itself from Islam's self-proclaimed mandate to conquer Europe. Therefore, much of the violence on the Christian side could be considered as military action that was not supported by religion, but by self-defense. On the Muslim side, it was a sort of manifest destiny to conquer Europe, not from religious prejudice against Christians. Much of the pillaging by Christians were done in order for them to survive while fighting back Islam from taking over Europe. In the case of the Salem witch trials, less than 25 people were killed. This number, while sad, certain does not measure up to a great massacre when compared to the likes of Pol Pot or Mao.
Chapter 19
Putting the proverbial shoe on the other foot, D'Souza examines the atrocities done against mankind by atheistic motives. First pointing out that Mao and Stalin killed collectively 90 million people, which made Hitler's number look paltry at 10 million, D'Souza points out that if Christianity should be held responsible for those who claim to be Christian and commit massive killings, then so should atheism. However, if this argument causes the tenacious atheist to simply say that atheism does not logical lead to these kinds of catastrophes, one only need to cite Dostoevsky to point out that Christ himself would not be aligned with the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity.
Chapter 17: A Skeptic's Wager
Pascal's wager is fully laid out in this chapter. D'Souza points out that in the end, apatheists and agnostics are not safe from making a final decision. Furthermore, agnostics live like "practical atheists". Against the argument that if God provided more evidence more would believe, D'Souza cites Pascal who believed God's hiddenness keeps Him from forcing Himself on those who do not want to believe. Furthermore, Faith allows for anyone to access God. If reason alone was the appropriate way to discover God, it would make salvation aristocratic. Faith is democratic.
Pascal's wager is fully laid out in this chapter. D'Souza points out that in the end, apatheists and agnostics are not safe from making a final decision. Furthermore, agnostics live like "practical atheists". Against the argument that if God provided more evidence more would believe, D'Souza cites Pascal who believed God's hiddenness keeps Him from forcing Himself on those who do not want to believe. Furthermore, Faith allows for anyone to access God. If reason alone was the appropriate way to discover God, it would make salvation aristocratic. Faith is democratic.
Chapter 16: In the Belly of a Whale
Positivism is layout as the main reason many people reject miracles today. Hume's classic argument is laid out :
1. A miracle is a violation of known laws.
2. We know these laws through repeated and constant experience.
3. The testimony of those who report miracles contradicts the operations of known scientific laws.
4. Therefore, we should reject all miracle claims.
D'Souza shows, using Hume's other writings, that this of course is a fallacious argument. For one, scientific laws can be misrepresenting reality. Scientific laws are inductively known, but can not be proved. Second, you can not know how many trials it takes to establish a law as true, you can only say it is reliable.
After dismantling this argument, D'Souza should how logical positivism is invalid, because it fails to pass its own test of being either 1) verified by evidence or 2) analytically true. It is in a different category than either of these truth claims and therefore is self-refuting.
Positivism is layout as the main reason many people reject miracles today. Hume's classic argument is laid out :
1. A miracle is a violation of known laws.
2. We know these laws through repeated and constant experience.
3. The testimony of those who report miracles contradicts the operations of known scientific laws.
4. Therefore, we should reject all miracle claims.
D'Souza shows, using Hume's other writings, that this of course is a fallacious argument. For one, scientific laws can be misrepresenting reality. Scientific laws are inductively known, but can not be proved. Second, you can not know how many trials it takes to establish a law as true, you can only say it is reliable.
After dismantling this argument, D'Souza should how logical positivism is invalid, because it fails to pass its own test of being either 1) verified by evidence or 2) analytically true. It is in a different category than either of these truth claims and therefore is self-refuting.
Part V: Christianity and Philosophy
Chapter 15: The World Beyond our Senses
D'Souza presents transcendental idealism as an argument against a rationist philosophy. He argues that Kant showed the limits of reason and trusting in the five senses. Kant is cited as saying that we can not know reality because we only have the five senses, we have only our experiences. In the same way that a bat experiences through his senses what it is like to be a bat, the best we can do is devise devices that allow us to have new tools for sensing the world, but everything is still filtered through our senses.
Drawn out, Kant can not say that we do not know reality, only that we can not be sure if what we perceive is reality. From an materialistic perspective, this leaves us in an agnostic position. For the Christian, this coincides with the belief in supernatural phenomena.
Chapter 15: The World Beyond our Senses
D'Souza presents transcendental idealism as an argument against a rationist philosophy. He argues that Kant showed the limits of reason and trusting in the five senses. Kant is cited as saying that we can not know reality because we only have the five senses, we have only our experiences. In the same way that a bat experiences through his senses what it is like to be a bat, the best we can do is devise devices that allow us to have new tools for sensing the world, but everything is still filtered through our senses.
Drawn out, Kant can not say that we do not know reality, only that we can not be sure if what we perceive is reality. From an materialistic perspective, this leaves us in an agnostic position. For the Christian, this coincides with the belief in supernatural phenomena.
Chapter 14: The Genesis Problem
D'Souza expands on issues with biogenesis as well as pointing out the differences between methodological and philosophical atheism. He explains that good scientists attempt to explain natural relationships using only natural means, however this does not entail that only the natural exists. These individuals may examine how neurons or related to mental activity, but they do not have to presuppose that mental activity is only neurons. Philosophical atheism on the other hand assumes that the natural world is all there is, therefore all explanations now and in the future must have a natural cause. An issues between religion and science appears to be only philosophical, because methodologically there is no overlap between the explanations for relationships. For instance, if asked why water is boiling, methodologically a scientist will explain it in terms of heat and the properties of molecules. He is confined to these sorts of answers. Philosophically though he can use either an atheistic answer or a different sort, for instance the water is boiling because I wanted tea.
D'Souza expands on issues with biogenesis as well as pointing out the differences between methodological and philosophical atheism. He explains that good scientists attempt to explain natural relationships using only natural means, however this does not entail that only the natural exists. These individuals may examine how neurons or related to mental activity, but they do not have to presuppose that mental activity is only neurons. Philosophical atheism on the other hand assumes that the natural world is all there is, therefore all explanations now and in the future must have a natural cause. An issues between religion and science appears to be only philosophical, because methodologically there is no overlap between the explanations for relationships. For instance, if asked why water is boiling, methodologically a scientist will explain it in terms of heat and the properties of molecules. He is confined to these sorts of answers. Philosophically though he can use either an atheistic answer or a different sort, for instance the water is boiling because I wanted tea.
Chapter 13: Paley Was Right
In response to Dawkins' argument against Paley, D'Souza examines what it would actually mean if evolution was true. He starts by pointing out that Darwin's original argument for evolution was not completely supported by the current science of the day. Sir Kelvin's predictions about the age of the earth did not give enough time for evolution to occur, which is one of the reasons many people opposed it. As additional knowledge has been gained, it appears, to D'Souza, that evolution is a sound theory. However, even if evolution is true there is no reason it needs to be seen as conflicting with Christianity. D'Souza cites Genesis to indicate that God breathed spirit into the dust of the earth to create man, making him a unique creature. He says that evolution is likely the mechanism used to bring about life.
Given that evolution is not a problem for Christianity, why do so many people think it is? D'Souza states that there is Darwinism which has profound political and philosophical implications. It says that we should promote survival of the fittest in the form of eugenics, that consciousness and reason are cognitive illusions (according to Dennett), and that life is without purpose.
Counterpoised, D'Souza is quick to point out that evolution by itself does not say these things are true. First off, it does not imply that a morality, it simply uses a natural selection mechanism, consciousness and reason could have come from another source, such as God, and it says nothing about life having purpose. Lastly, you evolution says nothing about the beginning of life, because you can not select from immaterial things. You need the first cell, which is vastly more complex than was once thought. Only by attaching atheism to evolution and birthing Darwinism do you create these implications. To conclude the chapter, a response to Dawkins' argument that evolution solves Paley's problem of complexity is presented. Namely, that is you explain that the complex watch was created by a watch factory, but fail to explain the even more complex factory, you have failed to defeat Paley's initial argument.
In response to Dawkins' argument against Paley, D'Souza examines what it would actually mean if evolution was true. He starts by pointing out that Darwin's original argument for evolution was not completely supported by the current science of the day. Sir Kelvin's predictions about the age of the earth did not give enough time for evolution to occur, which is one of the reasons many people opposed it. As additional knowledge has been gained, it appears, to D'Souza, that evolution is a sound theory. However, even if evolution is true there is no reason it needs to be seen as conflicting with Christianity. D'Souza cites Genesis to indicate that God breathed spirit into the dust of the earth to create man, making him a unique creature. He says that evolution is likely the mechanism used to bring about life.
Given that evolution is not a problem for Christianity, why do so many people think it is? D'Souza states that there is Darwinism which has profound political and philosophical implications. It says that we should promote survival of the fittest in the form of eugenics, that consciousness and reason are cognitive illusions (according to Dennett), and that life is without purpose.
Counterpoised, D'Souza is quick to point out that evolution by itself does not say these things are true. First off, it does not imply that a morality, it simply uses a natural selection mechanism, consciousness and reason could have come from another source, such as God, and it says nothing about life having purpose. Lastly, you evolution says nothing about the beginning of life, because you can not select from immaterial things. You need the first cell, which is vastly more complex than was once thought. Only by attaching atheism to evolution and birthing Darwinism do you create these implications. To conclude the chapter, a response to Dawkins' argument that evolution solves Paley's problem of complexity is presented. Namely, that is you explain that the complex watch was created by a watch factory, but fail to explain the even more complex factory, you have failed to defeat Paley's initial argument.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Chapter 12: A Designer's Planet
This chapter lays out evidence for the Anthropic principle (i.e., the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for human life). The evidence given is the infinitesimally small probability that our universe would arise by chance given the conditions necessary for life. One astronomer estimated this odds to the order of 10^229. There are three views or approaches to this data, according to D'Souza: Lucky Us, Multiple Universes, & The Designer Universe.
Proponents of the "Lucky Us" approach believe that of course we had the appropriate settings for the universe for life or else we would not be around to observe it. In other words, we are here, therefore the odds were in our favor. John Leslie has a response to this sort of error that D'Souza draws upon. If a man is about to be executed and the ten rifles fire and miss then fire and miss again, the man is not warranted in saying "of course they missed, or else I wouldn't still be here."
The Multiple Universe supporters believe that there are an infinite number of possible universe, therefore by pure number of chances eventually one would support life. However, this view has difficulties of its own. First off, there is no evidence for multiple universes. Second, if there were, there would be no way to observe them. Third, this theory fails to meet Occam's Razor. Lastly, and most problematic for those who are trying to escape theist implications, if there are multiple universes, one no longer has footing to deny hell, heaven, or a whole host of other similar phenomena.
After examining these three positions, D'Souza concludes that the Designer Universe hypothesis is best supported by the evidence. The universe is fine-tuned for life. We should not understimate the extremely unlikely odds that the universe arose by chance. The multiple universe hypothesis is not supported by evidence and fails Occam's Razor. This argument can best be considered inductive and does not tell us about the creator, only that he would have to be incredibly powerful and wise.
This chapter lays out evidence for the Anthropic principle (i.e., the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for human life). The evidence given is the infinitesimally small probability that our universe would arise by chance given the conditions necessary for life. One astronomer estimated this odds to the order of 10^229. There are three views or approaches to this data, according to D'Souza: Lucky Us, Multiple Universes, & The Designer Universe.
Proponents of the "Lucky Us" approach believe that of course we had the appropriate settings for the universe for life or else we would not be around to observe it. In other words, we are here, therefore the odds were in our favor. John Leslie has a response to this sort of error that D'Souza draws upon. If a man is about to be executed and the ten rifles fire and miss then fire and miss again, the man is not warranted in saying "of course they missed, or else I wouldn't still be here."
The Multiple Universe supporters believe that there are an infinite number of possible universe, therefore by pure number of chances eventually one would support life. However, this view has difficulties of its own. First off, there is no evidence for multiple universes. Second, if there were, there would be no way to observe them. Third, this theory fails to meet Occam's Razor. Lastly, and most problematic for those who are trying to escape theist implications, if there are multiple universes, one no longer has footing to deny hell, heaven, or a whole host of other similar phenomena.
After examining these three positions, D'Souza concludes that the Designer Universe hypothesis is best supported by the evidence. The universe is fine-tuned for life. We should not understimate the extremely unlikely odds that the universe arose by chance. The multiple universe hypothesis is not supported by evidence and fails Occam's Razor. This argument can best be considered inductive and does not tell us about the creator, only that he would have to be incredibly powerful and wise.
Since I have recently had the opportunity to read a great deal, I have decided to begin keeping a record of the books I have read. I shall write short synopses of each chapter as well as provide a general overview of the book at the end. My first post is a big one, because I am in the midst of completing a book right now. To keep it brief, each chapter will be summarized in a few short sentences.
What's So Great About Christianity: Book Review (Part I)
Chapter 1: D'Souza begins his book with a triumphalist announcement that Atheism is in decay and religions across the board, most notably Christianity, are on the rise.
Chapter 2: In an effort to build his case for the tides turning in favor of Christianity, the author points to biologists' inability to explain religion. Furthermore, he argues that it is areligiousity that needs an explanation within an evolutionary model of life. According to D'Souza, Areligiousity lacks teleological soundness. There is no purpose in atheism.
Chapter 3: The basic attacks on religion are presented with promises made that they will be fleshed out later. Nietzsche's viewpoint is quickly presented. He believed God was not tryannical enough to be feared. Alongside this, atheists, according to the author, argue that religions have caused mass tragedies and crimes against humanity.
Chapter 4: To conclude part I of the book, D'Souza argues that atheists are attempting to indoctrinate children as early as possible to be secular-minded. Furthermore, some atheists have go so far as to call teaching children religion child-abuse. Some would say that religion should be kept around as a historical phenomenon, but not as something useful or true.
Part II: Christianity and the West
Chapter 5: In this chapter, a general synopsis of government and religious beliefs as intertwining powers are discussed. D'Souza makes great efforts to support the idea that religion was important for the American government's emergence in its current form.
Chapter 6: An argument for the fallibility of man and capitalism is presented in this chapter. The general principles of economic theory Americans follow are presented as well as the elevation of the romantic heterosexual relationship in contrast to pederasty.
Chapter 7: To complete part II, we see an argument for human dignity. D'Souza traces the roots of human value through history and expiates Christianity's role in equal rights for women and blacks.
Part III: Christianity and Science
Chapter 8: Christianity is shown to be the soil necessary for modern science. D'Souza shows that the church preserved ancient writing and provided solid epistemological reasons for believing that our universe was predictable because it was created by a person.
Chapter 9: D'Souza argues that theology was the origin for believing the cosmos were able to be rationally discerned and name drops a plethora of scientists.
Chapter 10: As a final touch to the science section, D'Souza lays out how the Galieo incident actually occurred, according to him. This chapter is a strong apologetic for the Church being aligned and not opposed to science.
Part IV: The Argument From Design
Chapter 11: D'Souza lays out a basic form of the cosmological argument and provides strong evidence for the Big Bang theory as well as points to issues within the Steady State model.
What's So Great About Christianity: Book Review (Part I)
Chapter 1: D'Souza begins his book with a triumphalist announcement that Atheism is in decay and religions across the board, most notably Christianity, are on the rise.
Chapter 2: In an effort to build his case for the tides turning in favor of Christianity, the author points to biologists' inability to explain religion. Furthermore, he argues that it is areligiousity that needs an explanation within an evolutionary model of life. According to D'Souza, Areligiousity lacks teleological soundness. There is no purpose in atheism.
Chapter 3: The basic attacks on religion are presented with promises made that they will be fleshed out later. Nietzsche's viewpoint is quickly presented. He believed God was not tryannical enough to be feared. Alongside this, atheists, according to the author, argue that religions have caused mass tragedies and crimes against humanity.
Chapter 4: To conclude part I of the book, D'Souza argues that atheists are attempting to indoctrinate children as early as possible to be secular-minded. Furthermore, some atheists have go so far as to call teaching children religion child-abuse. Some would say that religion should be kept around as a historical phenomenon, but not as something useful or true.
Part II: Christianity and the West
Chapter 5: In this chapter, a general synopsis of government and religious beliefs as intertwining powers are discussed. D'Souza makes great efforts to support the idea that religion was important for the American government's emergence in its current form.
Chapter 6: An argument for the fallibility of man and capitalism is presented in this chapter. The general principles of economic theory Americans follow are presented as well as the elevation of the romantic heterosexual relationship in contrast to pederasty.
Chapter 7: To complete part II, we see an argument for human dignity. D'Souza traces the roots of human value through history and expiates Christianity's role in equal rights for women and blacks.
Part III: Christianity and Science
Chapter 8: Christianity is shown to be the soil necessary for modern science. D'Souza shows that the church preserved ancient writing and provided solid epistemological reasons for believing that our universe was predictable because it was created by a person.
Chapter 9: D'Souza argues that theology was the origin for believing the cosmos were able to be rationally discerned and name drops a plethora of scientists.
Chapter 10: As a final touch to the science section, D'Souza lays out how the Galieo incident actually occurred, according to him. This chapter is a strong apologetic for the Church being aligned and not opposed to science.
Part IV: The Argument From Design
Chapter 11: D'Souza lays out a basic form of the cosmological argument and provides strong evidence for the Big Bang theory as well as points to issues within the Steady State model.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)