March 2009 Archives

If I was required to pick one object in outer space which seems, more than any other, to showcase God's skill and sense of beauty, I think I would choose Saturn.  I hope to explore soon more of the wonders of this incredible planet, but in the meantime I will simply provide a few images.

These are screen shots I took using Celestia and the Xfce screen shot plug-in. Celestia is an open-source 3D space simulator which, by the way, is freely available for download from http://www.shatters.net/celestia/download.html.

Here are three full shots of Saturn and its rings:

20090331_celestia_saturn_001.png
20090331_celestia_saturn_002.png
20090331_celestia_saturn_003.png

Here is Saturn from the perspective of far-off Titan:

20090331_celestia_saturn_from_titan.png

And here is Saturn with the orbits of some of its satellites plotted:

20090331_celestia_saturn_with_orbits.png

If you have any fascination whatsoever with the complexity and beauty of the created universe, I strongly recommend you either buy or borrow a copy of the book Cosmos, from Duncan Baird Publishers, which is 320 pages long and filled front to back with some of the most amazing images of outer space which I have ever seen.

In his book Chosen But Free, Norman Geisler devotes one chapter to answering philosophical objections raised against the concept of "free will". This allows him to clarify what the position of self-determinism is, and how it relates to the concept of cause and effect.

Following are excerpts from the second edition (Bethany House Publishers). It does not seem necessary here to rephrase or restate his words.

Much, if not most, of the problem in discussing "free will" is that the term is defined differently by various persons in the dispute. . . .Logically, there are only three basic views: self-determinism (self-caused actions), determinism (acts caused by another), and indeterminism (acts with no cause whatsoever). Indeterminism is a violation of the law of causality that every event has a cause, and determinism is a violation of free will, since the moral agent is not causing his own actions.

There are, of course, several varieties of self-determinism. Some contend that all moral acts must be free only from all external influence. Others insist they must be free from both external and internal influence, that is, truly neutral. But they all have in common that, whatever influence there may be on the will, the agent could have done otherwise. That is, they could have chosen the opposite course of action. (pages 181-182)

Representatives of moral self-determinism sometimes [mistakenly] speak of free will as though it were the efficient cause of moral actions. This would lead one naturally to ask: What is the cause of the act of free choice, and so? But a more precise description of the process of a free act would avoid this problem. Technically, free will is not the efficient cause of a free act; it is simply the power through which the agent performs the free act. I (my Self) act by means of my will. The efficient cause of a free act is really the free agent, not the free choice. Free choice is simply the power by which the free agent acts. We do not say that person is free choice but simply that he has free choice. Likewise, we do not say man is thought but only that he has the power of thought. So it is not the power of free choice that causes a free act, but the person who has this power.

Now, if the real cause of a free act is not an act but an actor, then it makes no sense to ask for the cause of the actor as though it were another act. The cause of a performance is the performer. Likewise, the cause of a free act is not another free act, and so on. Rather, it is a free agent. And once we have arrived at the free agent, it is meaningless to ask what caused its free acts. For if something else caused its actions, then the agent is not the cause of them and thus is not responsible for them. The free moral agent is the cause of free moral actions. And it is as senseless to ask what caused the free agent to act as it is to ask: Who made God? The answer is the same in both cases: Nothing can cause the firs cause because it is first. There is nothing before the first. Likewise, a person is the first cause of his own moral actions. If he were not the cause of his own free actions, then they would not be his actions. (182-183)

The moral self-determinist does not claim there are any uncaused moral actions. He, in fact, believes all moral actions are caused by moral agents. But unlike the moral determinist who believes all human acts are caused by another (e.g., by God), the self-determinist believes that ultimately there are more selves (agents) than God who cause actions. Either way, the self-determinist believes that there is a cause for every moral action and that the cause is a moral agent, whether it is God or some other moral creature. (183-184)

It is true that no actor (agent) can cause itself to exist, for a cause is ontologically prior to its effect. And one cannot be prior to himself; therefore, a self-cause being (actor) is impossible. However, a self-caused action is not impossible, since the actor (cause) must be prior to its action (effect). So self-caused being is impossible, but self-caused becoming is not. We determine what we will become morally. But God determines what we are ontologically (i.e., in our being). So while man cannot cause his own being, he can cause his own moral behavior.

Perhaps some of the confusion could be cleared away if we did not speak of self-determinism as though one were determining his Self. For moral self-determinism does not refer to the determination of one's Self but determination by one's self. So it would be more proper not to speak of a self-caused action, but of an action caused by one's Self. Yet even without this distinction, there is a significant difference between a self-caused being and a self-caused action. The former is clearly impossible but the latter is not. For a being cannot be prior to itself, but an actor must be prior to his action. (184)

The study of cosmology can be difficult for the layman to follow, because the written works of astrophysicists and cosmologists are often heavily interspersed with advanced mathematical and technical explanations.

However, I believe that every such (well-studied) scientist has a fundamental view of how the universe was formed, and a basically understandable explanation for various phenomena in the universe. It is possible for the layman to extract this information from their writings, as long as the writers are honest about what they believe. And is necessary for the layman to do this, because otherwise he cannot really understand what the differences are between one cosmology and another. Understanding these differences are important, because it helps us to understand what the essence of these debates really are.

It is my goal, over time, to provide brief summaries of the cosmologies of various scientists, creationist and otherwise. I start here with Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist and creationist. I selected him first simply because his work, Starlight and Time, was close at hand.

I have attempted to represent him as accurately as possible, and so I have included afterwards an extensive selection of quotations from his book supporting my assessment. These are his views as presented in Starlight and Time (Master Books, eighth printing) which is copyrighted 1994.

I was looking for his positions in regard to ten issues: 1) astronomical distances; 2) the limitations of the universe (or lack thereof); 3) General Relativity; 4) the age of the universe; 5) the expansion of the universe; 6) the existence of black holes; 7) the existence of white holes; 8) microwave background radiation; 9) the red-shift phenomenon; 10) the formation of the universe.

Regarding estimates of astronomical distances:

In contrast to some creationists, Humphreys believes that astronomers' estimates of the distance to far off objects are fairly accurate, and generally correct within a factor of two.

Regarding the limitations of the universe:

Humphreys argues that the universe is bounded, or has limits. This is in contrast to the belief that the universe is infinite in size.

Regarding General Relativity:

Humphreys states that General Relativity (GR) is a well-established theory confirmed by a large amount of experimental evidence. GR plays a very important role in his understanding of how the universe was formed.

Regarding the age of the universe:

The primary purpose of his book is to provide a possible solution to the "distant starlight" problem of creationism. He attempts to demonstrate that, because of GR, it is possible for the universe to be only thousands of years old from the relative reference frame of earth, while billions of years could have passed for distant objects within their relative reference frames.

Regarding the expansion of the universe:

Humphreys believes that the universe has expanded by a factor of at least 1000. It is an important part of his understanding of the formation of the universe that the cosmos has expanded, rather than contracted.

Regarding black holes:

He states that black holes are a direct prediction of GR, and that astronomers have ample observational evidence for the existence of black holes.

Regarding white holes:

He states that white holes are also a phenomenon allowed by GR, and proposes that the boundary of a white hole played a part in the formation of the universe and explains some of the characteristics of the universe which we see today.

Regarding microwave background radiation:

Humphreys sees microwave background radiation to be a result of the "stretching of space" that occurred when God formed the universe. The wavelengths of heat waves were "stretched out" as a relativistic consequence of this stretching of space.

Regarding red shifts:

The red shift phenomenon is considered to be a result of the expansion of space during the fourth day of the Biblical creation week. Light waves were stretched out relativistically and their wavelengths were shifted.

Regarding the formation of the universe:

A literal reading of the six days of creation from the book of Genesis is considered to be an accurate historical record of how the universe was formed. He provides a "possible scenario" in the second chapter of his book which attempts to fill in some of the more specific details of the event. You will need to read the chapter yourself to get all the details. Basically, though, he suggests that God starts with a enormous sphere of water as his "deep" (Genesis 1.2) and throughout the Creation week he rapidly expands 3D space. Meanwhile, an event horizon (GR) is rapidly shrinking. When God forms the stars and other galaxies on the fourth day of creation, the expansion of space and shrinking of the event horizon allows billions of years of aging to occur in galaxies distant from the earth, and causes some of the phenomenon we observe today such as red shifts and microwave background radiation.

And now, the quotations:

Some laymen pondering this question wonder if the astronomers' estimates of distances might be greatly in error. I don't think so. Astronomers have have dozens of methods for estimating such distances, all of which generally agree with on another. . . .I am convinced that the large distances are generally correct, at least within a factor of two or so. (page 10)

What if we begin our calculations with the opposite assumption, equally scientifically valid, namely that matter in the universe has a center and an edge (is bounded)? This makes more common sense and is also Scripturally far more appropriate. When we feed in this, plus the same observations, into general relativity, quite a different cosmology falls out. (21)

General relativity (GR) has been well-established experimentally, and is the physics framework for all modern cosmologies. According to GR, gravity affects time. Clocks at a low altitude should tick more slowly than clocks at a high altitude--and observations confirm this effect, which some call gravitational time dilation. (11)

What this new cosmology shows is that gravitational time distortion in the early universe would have meant that while a few days were passing on earth, billions of years would have been available for light to travel to earth. It still means that God made the heavens and earth (i.e., the whole universe) in six ordinary days, only a few thousand years ago. But with the reality revealed by GR, we now know that we have to ask--six days as measured by which clock? In which frame of reference? The mathematics of this new theory shows that while God makes the universe in six days in the earth's reference frame ("Earth Standard Time," if you like), the light has ample time in the extra-terrestrial reference frame to travel the required distances. (13)

In a bounded universe, clocks in different places can tick (or register time) at drastically different rates. So which set of clocks is the Bible referring to in Genesis 1, or in Exodus 20:11, when it says that God made the universe in six ordinary weekdays? . . . .God's intention was to define time in terms of the earth's rotation and the earth's motion around the sun, thus speaking of periods of time in our own frame of reference. This is quite reasonable in a book intended to be understood by people of widely different cultures and degrees of scientific knowledge. Therefore, it looks as if the Bible is telling us that God made the universe in six days E.S.T.--Earth Standard Time. (29)

The shrinking event horizon reaches earth early on the morning of the fourth day [of the creation week]. During this ordinary day as measured on earth, billions of years worth of physical processes take place in the distant cosmos. In particular, gravity has time to make distant clusters of hydrogen and helium atoms more compact. (37)

I am convinced that the observations indicate that the universe has indeed expanded significantly, by a factor of at least one thousand. (21)

Black holes are more than just theoretical concepts. They are, first, direct predictions of general relativity, which is backed by a great deal of experimental evidence. In addition, most astronomers are convinced they have observational evidence of possibly three star-sized black holes, and very strong evidence for another one, millions of times larger. As huge quantities of matter fall towards such black holes, copious amounts of energy are given off. The giant one, recently discovered, is at the center of the galaxy M87; astronomers know of no cause other than a black hole to explain what they observe.

Black holes can be very small or very large--it all depends on the amount of matter packed within a given radius. The combined gravitational force of all the mass inside a black hole is so strong that light rays cannot escape--hence the name. (22-23)

The event horizon of a white hole would be a one way boarder which permits only outward motion through itself. Matter and light waves would have to move out of a white hole, but they could not go back in. Since the diameter of an event horizon is proportional to the amount of matter inside it, the event horizon would shrink as matter passes through it and out of the white hole. . . .[Black and white holes] are a consequence of the best knowledge we have today about gravity. The equations of GR permit, but do not demand, the existence of white holes today. (24-25)

The visible universe was once inside an event horizon. This means it was once either within a black hole or a white hole. We have seen that if it were a black hole, it would be contracting, which is not indicated by the evidence. Therefore:

The visible universe was once inside a white hole. It may, however, have commenced as a black hole before expansion started. . .If the universe is not much bigger or much denser than what we can directly observe right now. . .an event horizon can no longer exist. This means that the event horizon has shrunk to zero radius sometime in the past, meaning that an expansion of space continued at least until the white hole ceased to exist.

So from all the physics and astronomical data we now know, we can draw a straightforward conclusion: If the universe is bounded, then sometime in its past the universe must have expanded out of a white hole. (25-26)

Day Two [of the creation week]. . .By direct intervention. . .God begins stretching out space, causing the ball of matter to expand rapidly, thus changing the black hole to a white hole. He marks off a large volume, the "expanse" ("firmament" in the KJV) within the deep, wherein material is allowed to pull apart into fragments and clusters as it expands, but He requires the "waters below" and the "waters above" the expanse to stay coherently together.

Normal physical processes cause cooling to proceed as rapidly as the expansion. Heat waves are stretched out to much longer wavelengths as a relativistic consequence of the stretching of space. Eventually these stretched-out waves will become the cosmic microwave background radiation. (34-35)

Early on the fourth morning [of the creation week], God coalesces the clusters of atoms into stars and thermonuclear fusion ignites in them. The newly-formed stars find themselves grouped together in galaxies and clusters of galaxies. As the fourth day proceeds on earth, the more distant stars age billions of years, while their light also has the same billions of years to travel to the earth. While the light is on its way, space continues to expand, relativistically stretching out the light waves. . .and shifting the wavelengths toward the red side of the spectrum. Stars which are now farthest away have the greatest redshift, because the waves have been stretched the most. This progressive redshift is exactly what is observed. (37-38)

Over the course of a human life, a person passes through many stages of biological development. We know it is natural for a person to move from being a helpless infant, to a stumbling toddler, to a wiry teen, and so on. Many changes occur in size, appearance, hormones, and otherwise. But throughout these stages, we recognize that it is the same human being.

And barring accident, or disease, or violence, we know for certain that a human being in one early stage will eventually progress to the next. For example, the infant will eventually become a toddler, and the toddler will eventually become a teen.

Consequently, it is inconsistent of us to imagine that a fetus (our unborn offspring) is not a human being, simply because it happens to be at an early stage of development within the womb of its mother. Whether it has four cells or four thousand, nevertheless it is progressing forward in this "march of life". And barring accident, or disease, or violence, we know for certain that it is going to continue in that progression.

And so it would also be inconsistent of us to deny that fetus the most basic of human rights - life. We endeavor to provide all the members of our race with protection from those that seek to harm them unjustly. At the point of conception, the fetus has begun its journey in the process of life, and so it is deserving of whatever reasonable protection can be afforded it. And it most certainly does not deserve to be killed, simply because it is inconvenient to the parents, or because educators and legislators are uncertain about what role it might fill in society.

This argument, of course, does not require us to give basic human rights to sperm or to eggs. We recognize that sperm and eggs are needed for conception. Nevertheless, we cannot know with certainty that any individual sperm or any individual egg is going to become part of this new life, as the "for certain" process of development does not begin until sperm meets egg in fertilization.

As an aside, we should also note that this line of reasoning wounds another popular pro-choice argument. For the mantra is that a woman has a right to an abortion because a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. However, every living woman has herself gone through all the stages of being a fetus, as part of the process of life. And so we must recognize that, although a pregnant woman and her fetus may share many things - such as some nutrients and tissue - there are nevertheless still two lives being lived out.

I have met quite a few people who call themselves Calvinists, or say that they have Calvinist-leanings. Many of these people believe that Scripture teaches both the free will of man and the sovereignty of God, though they usually are unable to reconcile the two teachings theologically. (The Lutheran Church MS presents a similar position in their statement regarding conversion.)

I am more and more convinced, however, that this is not the teaching of staunch, dedicated Calvinism. Calvinism, as taught by the more serious Calvinists, not only denies the freedom of the will, but denies it on the lowest of imaginable levels.

To fully prove that assertion would require a wide-ranging historical study beyond the scope of a single blog post. Yet, in support of this position I would like to provide a number of quotes from Arthur W. Pink's work "The Sovereignty of God". I selected this book for several reasons: first, that it was a readily available documentation of this kind of Calvinism, and second, because in the early twentieth century, Arthur W. Pink was known to be both an influential Bible Scholar and a staunch Calvinist. The excerpts are taken from the eighteenth printing (July 2000) - published by Baker Books.

Concerning the nature and the power of fallen man's will, the greatest confusion prevails today, and the most erroneous views are held, even by many of God's children. The popular idea now prevailing, and which is taught from the great majority of pulpits, is that man has a "free will", and that salvation comes to the sinner through his will co-operating with the Holy Spirit. (page 127)

Was there not a time (may the remembrance of it bow each of us into the dust) when you were unwilling to come to Christ? There was. Since then you have come to Him. Are you now prepared to give Him all the glory for that (Psa. 115.1)? Do you not acknowledge you came to Christ because the Holy Spirit brought you from unwillingness to willingness? You do. . . .Do you answer, Yet I remember well the time when the Great Issue was presented to me, and my consciousness testifies that my will acted and that I yielded to the claims of Christ upon me. Quite true. But before you "yielded", the Holy Spirit overcame the native enmity of your mind against God, and this "enmity" He does not overcome in all. . . .none are thus "willing" till He has put forth His all-mighty power and wrought a miracle of grace in the heart." (128-129)

But let us now inquire, What is the human Will? Is it a self-determining agent, or is it, in turn, determined by something else? Is it sovereign or servant? Is the will superior to every other faculty of our being so that it governs them, or is it moved by their impulses and subject to their pleasure? (129)

That which determines the will is that which causes it to choose. If the will is determined, then there must be a determiner. What is it that determines the will? We reply, the strongest motive power which is brought to bear upon it. What this motive power is, varies in different cases. With one it may be the logic of reason, with another the voice of conscience, with another the impulse of the emotions, with another the whisper of the Tempter, with another the power of the Holy Spirit; whichever of these presents the strongest motive power and exerts the greatest influence upon the individual himself, is that which impels the will to act. In other words, the action of the will is determined by the condition of mind (which in turn is influenced by the world, the flesh, and the Devil, as well as by God), which has the greatest degree of tendency to excite volition. . . .True, that in the end, the will made a choice, but the will itself was moved to make the choice. (131-132)

In defining the will we have said above, that "the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action." We say the immediate cause, for the will is not the primary cause of any action, any more than the hand is. Just as the hand is controlled by the muscles and nerves of the arm, and the arm by the brain; so the will is the servant of the mind, and the mind, in turn, is affected by various influences and motives which are brought to bear upon it. (134)

The point which Pink hammers again and again is this: the will is always subservient to forces outside of itself. The will is, at best, a powerless middle-man between influence and action, always executing the latter in obedience to the former. What we perceive as our "choice" or "decision" is simply our will yielding to the loudest or most persuasive influence at the moment, whether that happens to be desire, reason, Satan, God, or whatever.

I once had a theology professor who, in defense of Calvinism, taught fundamentally the same thing. He argued that, although the will does control the actions of a man, it is the desires of a man that control his will. One of his favorite illustrations involved ice cream: a person is confronted with two choices - chocolate and vanilla. Which does he choose? Whichever flavor he prefers.

My goal in providing these quotes is not to argue for or against the position. That is better saved for another post. The point I am trying to make is that you should be aware of what Calvinism means to its most ardent defenders. And I would suggest (humbly) that if you do not believe this point, or any other core concept in serious Calvinism, that you stop calling yourself a Calvinist. Or, get to work at defining exactly what you believe is Calvinism, and then be prepared to give a defense from history as to why your version of Calvinism is closer (than your opponents' definition) to the ideas held by the people who originally started and formed the movement.

Recently a friend of mine asked me if I enjoyed any works of C. S. Lewis more than others, and I had to admit that I did not have a strong preference for any above another. Somehow, though, I had managed to forget one book, collecting dust on my top shelf, which is without a doubt my favorite work by Lewis, and (in my very humble opinion) the best work of fiction he ever wrote.

My copy of The Pilgrim's Regress is a 1996 reprint by William B. Eerdsmans Publishing Co. of a 1992 paper back edition, though the work was originally copyrighted by Lewis in 1933. I would recommend the later edition, because it includes a number of enchanting illustrations by Michael Hague.

Pilgrim's Regress is a philosophical fable about a young boy named John (or, more accurately, a dream about him) who one day has a sweet desire for something he cannot quite understand, which he sees as a lush, beautiful island far, far away. When John grows older, he becomes dissatisfied with his homeland of Puritania, and his own lusts, and so he sets off on a journey to find this mysterious island.

Quickly, however, John encounters a varied host of individuals and groups who represent the many ways of thought which exist and have existed in the world, resulting in some very interesting dialog. Many offer to help John find what he is really looking for, but most end up either delaying him in his quest for the island, or causing him harm. John struggles his way through many obstacles, including cruel Nihilism, and the dread Spirit of the Age.

Eventually, John has a meeting with a powerful lady named Contemplation, and soon he finds himself in "imminent danger" of becoming something which he did not plan to become.

I recently was able to borrow the book A General View of the History of the English Bible by Brooke Foss Westcott. The copy I have is nearly a century old, though it is a reprint. The first edition by Westcott was published in 1868, his second edition in 1872 (with a revision by William Aldis Wright in 1905) while my copy lists itself as 1927 by The Macmillan Company of New York.

It contains a section regarding influences on the Authorized Version, the bulk of which is long lists of verses demonstrating how the various earlier translations, which the AV translators consulted, influenced the translation of the AV. Interspersed throughout the details, however, are some helpful summaries, some of which I reproduce here in excerpts:

Thus [(following a discussion of the Spanish, French, and Italian translations consulted by the translators)] King James' revisers were will furnished with external helps for the interpretation of the Bible, and we have already seen that they were competent to deal independently with questions of Hebrew and Greek scholarship. Like the earlier translators they suffered most from the corrupt from in which the Greek text of the New Testament was presented to them. But as a whole their work was done most carefully and honestly. It is possible to point out inconsistencies of rendering and other traces of compromise, but even in the minutest details the translation is that of a Church and not of a party. It differs from the Rhemish Version in seeking to fix an intelligible sense on the words rendered: it differs from the Genevan Version in leaving the literal rendering uncoloured by any expository notes. And yet it is most worth of notice that these two Versions, representing as they do the opposite extremes of opinion, contributed most largely of all to the changes which the revisers introduced. (pages 256-257)

In the Historical, and even in the Poetical books, it is far less divergent from the Bishop' Bible. In the Apocrypha it is, as far as I can judge, nearer to the Bishop's Bible than to the Genevan, but marked by many original changes. (262)

The revision of the New Testament was a simpler work than that of the Old, and may be generally described as a careful examination of the Bishop's Version (1572) with the Greek text, and with Beza's, the Genevan and the Rhemish Versions. Examples of words derived from the Rhemish Version have been given already. (266):

The chief influence of the Rhemish Version was on the vocabulary of the revisers, that of Beza and the Genevan Version on the interpretation. But still our revisers exercise an independent judgment both in points of language and construction. Thus in the latter respect they often follow Beza, rightly and wrongly, when the Genevan Versions do not; and again they fail to follow him where these had rightly adopted his rendering. . . .On the other hand the Authorised Version retains (by no means unfrequently) the old rendering of the Great Bible when it had been rightly corrected from Beza in the Genevan revisions. (269)

This analysis, in which I have endeavoured to include all the variations introduced into the Authorised Version, will shew better than any description the watchful and far-reaching care with which the revisers fulfilled their work. No kind of emendation appears to have been neglected, and almost every change which they introduced was an improvement. They did not in every case carry out the principles by which they were generally directed; they left many things which might have been wisely modified, they paid no more attention than was commonly paid in their time to questions of reading; but when every deduction is made for inconsistency of practice and inadequacy of method, the conclusion yet remains absolutely indisputable that their work issued in a version of the Bible better--because more faithful to the original--than any which had been given in English before. (274)

I provide these excerpts to show that the Authorized Version was influenced by previous translations. Among these were the Geneva Bible, which was popular among the Calvinists of the Reformation, and the Bishops Bible, produced by the Church of England in response to the Geneva Bible. The "Rhemish version" refers to the New Testament of the Douay-Rheims work, which was meant to be a direct translation from the Latin Vulgate into English. (I have heard that the influence of this version is controversial, but I am not willing to make a private judgment.)

I do not think that this is any great historical secret, but rather imagine that this is not something typically considered by those who continue to rely regularly on the King James Version. I point this out for two reasons. One reason is to suggest that if one is truly to have a good understanding of King James Version, and why the translators render verses the way that they did, one should become acquainted with the various earlier translations consulted by and available to the translators.

The other reason is to emphasize that the Authorized Version was not a translation produced in an intellectual vacuum, but rather was indebted to a variety of earlier work. And so I think it is more consistent to view the AV as an "improvement" (as Westcott puts it) over previous English versions, and part of the ever continuing quest to produce better and more accurate translations in our native tongue, rather than the final and ultimate English translation, from which no modern translation is allowed to differ significantly.

Ever since I got an Internet connection fast enough to run Second Life, I have been wanting to give the experience a try. However, during the sign-up process I was turned off by the first item in the Community Standards document. Apparently, a member's account will be suspended if he commits one of six types of behaviors. Here is a quote from the document at http://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php:

Within Second Life, we want to support Residents in shaping their specific experiences and making their own choices.

The Community Standards sets out six behaviors, the 'Big Six', that will result in suspension or, with repeated violations, expulsion from the Second Life Community.

All Second Life Community Standards apply to all areas of Second Life, the Second Life Forums, and the Second Life Website.

1. Intolerance
Combating intolerance is a cornerstone of Second Life's Community Standards. Actions that marginalize, belittle, or defame individuals or groups inhibit the satisfying exchange of ideas and diminish the Second Life community as whole. The use of derogatory or demeaning language or images in reference to another Resident's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is never allowed in Second Life.

Anyone is free to challenge my interpretation of these statements, but this is how I read it: Basically, within the Second Life universe, saying anything which puts another member's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation in a negative light is considered grounds for the suspension of my right to use the service.

I guess free speech isn't much of a priority in the Second Life universe. For how would I be able to express, for example, my opinions regarding religion, creationism, and sexual practices if these opinions are offensive to the opinions and practices of others?

Here is C.S. Lewis' oft-quoted statement regarding atheism in Mere Christianity, taken from the full text online:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless -I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

It may be represented as an argument against atheism. Strictly speaking, though, it is more of an argument against an argument for atheism - namely an argument that Lewis made before his conversion.

There are essentially four propositions at work here:

1. If God does not exist, then reality is senseless.
2. If there is injustice, then reality is not senseless.
3. If there is injustice, then God does not exist.
4. There is injustice.

As an atheist, Lewis wanted to argue that because there is injustice in the world, therefore God does not exist. But further thought revealed to him that not all of the above four propositions could be true at the same time. For if there is injustice, then reality is not senseless. And so it follows (denying the consequent of the first proposition) that God must exist. But it follows from the third and fourth propositions that God does not exist! And so we have a contradiction.

Lewis felt that the first two propositions must be true, and so he must either give up the third or fourth. Either way, he loses his favorite argument for atheism.

Now this quote, in isolation, hardly ends the philosophical battle: for any determined atheist is free to take issue with one of the above propositions. For example, he might deny the first proposition, in which case it would be up to him to make sense of a universe without God. Or he could deny the fourth proposition, and argue (with the relativists) that there is no ultimate standard of right and wrong.

Weston W. Fields wrote Unformed and Unfilled, a book providing a negative critique of the Gap Theory. He argued a point regarding the significance of the Hebrew words Asa and Bara in relation to the Gap Theory, which I wish to share here. Bara is the word generally translated create in Genesis 1.1, while asa is the word generally translated made in Exodus 20:11. From page 58 (sixth printing, publ. by Burgener Enterprises):

Exodus 20:11 and its parallel passages state categorically that in six days (namely, the days of creation) God made the universe and all that is contained in it.  This, of course, establishes a chronological limit upon the interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis which completely vaporizes not only the Gap Theory in any form whatsoever, but also any theory which does not postulate the formation of the entire universe within the framework of the six days of creation. When faced with this argument, however, gap theorists reply that in Genesis Moses used the word bara' (created), while in Exodus he uses the word 'asa (made) to refer to creation. Most gap theorists, consequently, have tried to demonstrate that asa and bara cannot be used interchangeably, and that they are, accordingly, used to refer to different acts of creation at widely separated times. Where bara' is used, it refers to original creation; were asa occurs, it refers to a recreation--a "making" out of something previously existing. If such a distinctive usage of 'asa and bara' is proved, gap theorists would then be able to say that Exodus 20:11 is merely speaking about the recreation of the earth, not the original creation. By means of such an interpretation they would escape the necessity of putting all of creation within the six days, and the Gap Theory would, at least from this one standpoint, be allowed.

In other words: if the bara of Genesis 1.1 refers to an original creation, while the asa of Exodus 20:11 refers to a "recreation" out of existing materials, then gap theorists have escaped one of the most powerful arguments ever made against their position. However, if these passages refer to the same act of God, then the Gap Theory is wounded beyond hope of recovery.