However, I do have a subject in hand today, and it’s…pr0n. What precipitated this train of thought was the Ron Jeremy/Monique Alexander vs. Craig Gross/Donny Pauling debate at Yale that was sponsored by Nightline on ABC News. You can watch the whole thing online here.

First, a few comments on the debate. The “anti-porn Christian” position was clearly the minority position in this particular arena. I don’t know if that was just how the audience demographics turned out or if its emblematic of Yale in general. I suspect the latter (and thus transfer my suspicions to the other prominent/Ivy League universities in this country). I definitely felt for Craig and Donny as it was obvious they were not coming in with the wind at their backs. A pastor telling people not to watch porn? Lame.

Objectively speaking, I think all sides did an admirable job presenting their case. Ron Jeremy and Monique Alexander came prepared, witty, and quite intriguing as multifaceted representatives of the porn industry. Craig Gross and Donny Pauling know what they’re about and how best to go about it, which is to say they were careful not to condone any censorship of the porn industry (citing the importance of freedom of speech) and instead took the tack of education and self-responsibility as the best weapons against porn. In other words, you can smoke, but smoking isn’t good for you, so you should probably stop doing it — and porn is arguably a worse sin.

On to my reaction. I could have intellectually predicted that Craig and Donny would not receive a warm welcome, but frankly I was shocked and deeply disturbed by the whole presiding. The extent to which porn has become mainstream and even influential in pop culture is very substantial, and I fear the only thing that will convince many people that it’s something to abhor is for them to discover that their lives have been wrecked by it. XXXChurch deals with ruined marriages, sexual offenders behind bars, and former porn stars every day. They are intimately aware of the dark underbelly of the sex trade. It’s too bad their message is falling on deaf ears.

Pornography, like prostitution, disturbs me because it is the ultimate example of dehumanization, short of slavery. Humans are spiritual beings, albeit living in animal-like bodies. We are more than walking meatbags, we are soul and spirit. We think, we express, we understand, we perceive, we create. Sexual intimacy is a physical outworking of the spiritual intimacy a man and a woman share in holy matrimony. Even sex outside of marriage, or fornication, between two people in love seems more palatable to me than porn, because the former is a shadow of true marriage, whereas the latter is a lie, a deviant fantasy designed, produced, and packaged for a deceived public to consume in ever greater numbers.

In the debate, Ron commented on how women getting into the porn industry are still frowned upon by some because, while dads tell their sons to “go get ‘em, boys” and show off their manly prowess, women aren’t allowed such freedom. In other words, it’s empowering and a stand for sexual equality for women to stoop to the level of sexual predator just like men. All I can say to that is: Ron, not all fathers teach their sons to hop into bed with every vixen that crosses their path. Whatever happened to the lost art of chivalry? There used to be a cultural strain that encouraged men to cherish, honor, and protect the “weaker sex” and prove their manliness by pledging to uphold the purity of femininity. Love was forged out of mutual admiration of virtue and respect for the Imagio Deo within the object of affection. Sexuality and sensuality were framed within the context of the grace of God to give men and women feelings of passion and enjoyment of His creation.

The hippies of the 60’s brought the idea of free love into the mainstream, but it was still a somewhat recognizable shadow of true Biblical love. Fast forward only a few decades, and the 60’s seem blissful in comparison. Porn has so degraded love and perverted sex that now the only recognizable thing left is animalistic lust. Whatever bizarre deviancy one can conjure up in the foul recesses of the imagination can now be bought for a few greenbacks. Sex is now mass entertainment, pure and simple. Wanna have some fun and relaxation after a hard day’s work? Watch porn.

I’ll close with this statement: what saddens me most about porn is that the awesome beauty of God-given sexuality is obscured by a disgusting counterfeit. When a man and a women get married today, are they going to gaze into each other’s eyes and see a gift from the Almighty, or are they going to see a video fantasy looming horrifically before them? Ron Jeremy says it’s OK to fantasize about other women when you’re with your lover. I say that is sin. Sin may not be a popular word anymore, but sin has lasted throughout every age and 2008 is certainly no exception.

Now, in my original post, I stated in so many words that it was impossible to live according to the tenets of atheism and that atheists who were honest about their lives would admit as such. My sloppiness came in my not clarifying what such a remark meant and why it was not a form of bigotry as some critics have called it. In particular, commenter Martin Freedman took umbrage at my statements, and so I decided that rather than ignore the issue, it would be beneficial for me to response in as polite and as concise a manner as I am able.

First of all, when I say “honest atheists”, I am referring to statements I’ve read by several authors who acknowledge that the logical conclusions of their atheistic beliefs lead them down a moral or ethical path that they are unwilling to take because it provides too bleak or nihilistic a picture to function properly in society. Therefore, their personal sense of love, responsibility, duty, beauty, or purpose in life takes precedence over their basic atheistic philosophy concerning life. I apologize profusely that I’m unable to give you a direct reference — chalk it up to my annoying habit of forgetting to bookmark interesting Web sites I read. At any rate, I appreciate the open-minded willingness on the part of these authors to write about the paradox they encounter as they contemplate the implicit meanings contained within their worldview.

Secondly, when I refer to a “true atheist”, I mean someone who logically and consistently rejects all forms of theist thought whether explicit or implicit. Some people vaguely say they don’t believe in “God” without actually thinking through the ramifications of such a position, or they reject the Judeo-Christian “God” without denying there might be some “higher power” out there. I’m sure we can all agree that such people are probably more precisely called agnostic than atheistic.

So, with those two clarifications out of the way, I want to delve into Martin Freedman’s particular criticisms of my position. He asked me to response to 15 questions he had presented recently, and while I wasn’t able to find quite that many, I tried to do my best in addressing all of the points he raised in several comments. Note that I’m including some of the thread I had engaged in so you can get the proper context. Here it goes.

@Jared: “Martin, how is it that a universe born out of spiritual mind, not dead matter, would not have a moral obligation to follow the spiritual laws established by such a mind?”

This is a loaded question and the best answer is to say can you restate this impartially, without bias, then we can proceed to answer the question.

How can I restate this impartially… OK, if you go down the road of concluding the universe must have been wrought from an incredibly powerful and complex intelligence outside of the bounds of the universe itself, then the next logical question is, what is the intention that this mind has for the humans he/she/it has created (whether directly or through some kind of evolutionary process)? The extent to which this mind cares about our individual actions depends on whether you lean in a deist or a theist direction, but either party would no doubt conclude that if there is purpose to the universe and our place in it, we therefore have a moral imperative to fulfill the purpose for which we were made. Now you could argue that we might have been created to serve no purpose whatsoever, but in light of such a whimsical and inscrutable opinion of the creator, one might as well decide to be an atheist.

@Jared: “BTW, slavery is wrong and many of the people who fought vigorously against slavery over the centuries were Bible-believing Christians.”

And surely you cannot deny that who fought vigorously for slavery over the centuries were Bible-believing Christians? If slavery is wrong it is in spite of what has been said in the bible hence you cannot be a true theist which my point in that inversion of your quote. Regardless this is a diversion from the main point.

Yes, this is somewhat a non-sequitur in the overall scheme of things, but let me just say that anyone can say they believe the Bible and go on to commit all kinds of heinous acts. That proves nothing about whether God exists or the veracity of the historical narrative contained within the Bible. On the other hand, saying that people who fought vigorously against slavery believed the Bible proves nothing either, and I realize that. My point was that there is no inherent justification in saying that if you believe the Bible, you naturally must condone slavery, which was your original proposition.

@Jared: “I’ve already refuted Margin’s argument, and there’s nothing left to respond to.”

You never refuted it in your first response and you have not replied to any of my questions in my second response. How can you claim that you are moral when engage in purely rhetoric with no argument or evidence in support?

This is probably going down another rabbit hole, but let me just say that engaging in pure rhetoric without evidence can only be immoral if you consider arguing based on solid evidence to be moral. Question: how do you come to that conclusion? I can see no biologically-derived reason why arguments must logically be made based on truth claims gleaned from careful analysis of facts, whether it “feels” right or not.

@Jared “The issue is clear: moral laws and spiritual laws require a lawgiver.”

This is your claim, where is your evidence? There is no evidence that the “laws of nature” require a lawgiver, indeed they were primarily found by making no such assumption,so, by extrapolation why should “moral and spiritual laws” - they most probably do not either. With respect the spiritual laws I suggest you consult Buddhists and Taoists etc. who would specifically disagree with you on this point. As for “laws” you appear to be equivocating as human made “laws” - better put as rules to avoid confusion - generally do require some form of rule-giving and human process, on the other hand scientific laws are specifically not rules and are a different category entirely and do no require a lawgiver, similar for your claims over moral and spiritual laws.

Actually, the question of where physical laws come from has become a topic of heated debate within the scientific establishment. The question of why those laws are the way they are or why they are there at all is of prime importance as we continue to discover that these laws seem to be fine-tuned in such a way as to permit organic life as we know it to exist. If you want to just wave your hand and say “the laws are there, and that’s that”, then why is it wrong of theists to wave their hands and say “God is there, and that’s that” without further explanation?

@Jared: “Laws don’t create themselves.”

An empty assertion, where is your evidence for this?

No evidence. Yet there’s no evidence that laws create themselves. We’re both in a philosophical quandary here. I’ve decided which belief makes the most logical sense, and you beg to differ. Fair enough.

@Jared: “The logical picture of a universe that was wrought from a non-material entity outside of the limitations of time and space is that it would be expected to adhere to the rules that were established at the point of creation.”

Why would it be expected to? Now you are using the term “rules” not laws. Could you please not equivocate and be consistent. Many other question but your statement is diversionary and I won’t pursue it further.

By laws I’m not referring to the precise scientific definition of laws as in, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I’m referring to rules, parameters, boundaries, etc., in the colloquial understanding of such terms.

@Jared: “Any deviation from those rules will produce decay and chaos.”

It is not possible to deviate from scientific laws, that is why they are laws. If you are implying that it is possible to deviate from moral and spiritual laws, then these are not laws.

Again, you misunderstand me. If you drink at the age of 12, you’re breaking the law. If you murder a human being in cold blood, you’re breaking our civil law, and I also say you’re breaking absolute moral law. I could even argue you can “break” physical laws. Jump off a tall cliff without a parachute, and you’ll quickly find out that ignoring the “law” of gravity is rather foolish. Remember, I’m talking colloquially here rather than using strict scientific terminology.

@Jared: “The concept of morality is rendered meaningless in a universe without eternal, conscious significance.”

Again an empty rhetorical claim, where is the logic and/our evidence for this?

Well. if there is no eternal, conscious significance to the universe, then it’s perfectly permissible for you to act in whatever manner you deem necessary to achieve the maximum possible level of personal happiness and fulfillment while you are alive. Such actions are inherently selfish and self-serving in manner, whereas behaving in moral and ethical ways often requires selfless and sacrificial behavior. And before you argue that following the golden rule and having empathy for all living creatures, etc., works out great for atheists, let me just say many people who believe in nothing other than themselves find a lot of “pleasure” in achieving their ambitions on the back of massive human suffering. Such actions, which you personally might find repugnant, nevertheless are logically permissible in a godless universe devoid of lasting meaning or purpose.

@Jared: “Martin, I am going to ask you one, simple, and direct question. I will repost my original paragraph that you took exception to, and I entreat you to explain, in a simple and concise manner, what immoral bigotry is contained within my statement.”

Fine I will but can you reciprocate and do me the courtesy of answering the 15 or so question I have asked you.

First what is bigotry? It is taking an aspect of a person and assigning them as a member of a group (whether they agree with this, chose this or not), then negatively and inaccurately describe an aspect of this group and irrationally asserting that any member, as one has decided, has this characteristic and condemns them, or worse, for it.

I apologize for snipping out your subsequent paragraphs, but in the interests of time, I have to move on. I just want to say I feel I’ve addressed the bigotry claim already by explaining what I meant by the terms “true atheist” and “atheism” in the context of my original post. I’m not trying to lump individuals into some kind of group simply so I can throw stones at them, and I’m sorry my original post was unclear in that regard.

Different atheists have differing moral views most of which are vastly superior to your morality - which was fatally disproved 2500 years ago - and is one of the worst type of moral systems imaginable. The mere fact that you are coming up with these falsehoods is further evidence of the immoral grounds of your worldview.

Again, I’m pressed for time, so I’m skipping some of the context here, but what you are saying here is extremely loaded, biased, and possibly bigoted — which is unfortunate considering you have been trying to criticize me on the same grounds. What possible evidence can you use to show that my particular morality based on the truth claims of the Christian Bible were (a) fatally disproved 2500 years ago (which was before Christ was even born), and (b) one of the worst type of moral systems imaginable (especially when compared to the moral system in vogue at the height of the Roman Empire)?

@Jared: “the commonly understood ‘pop’ view of Western materialistic atheism is a worldview that encompasses the logical conclusions derived from the opinion that there is no god/gods or supernatural order and therefore humans must create their own meaning for existence.”

Oh dear. Now you have changed the subject to “the commonly understood ‘pop’ view of Western materialistic atheism”. Well I and others dispute this is what is commonly understood as atheism. Anyway you have the opportunity to converse with real live “atheists” here and so disabuse yourself of these supposed “pop” views. Further this is a classic way in which one can encourage and spread bigotry and discrimination. Perpetuating common or pop views regardless of the facts. For example, one can hark back to so-called common and pop views of “blacks” in the 20th century (or chose your own example). What is the difference to what you are doing with “atheists” now? None that I can see.

I’m not encouraging bigotry, I’m simply trying to respond to a belief system that is being espoused by a significant bloc within Western society. If you fundamentally disagree with major aspects of this common belief system, that’s fine. I’d be interested to hear your disagreements, actually.

@Jared: “Simply saying ‘I don’t believe God exists’ may strictly qualify the speaker as an atheist, but that doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for discussion about the issues involved.”

For once you are quite correct! And this is the whole point. If you had written your article condemning the “New Atheists” which would include anyone who wholeheartedly agrees with them - not me for one - then this whole thread would have been quite different. You made the equivocation/obfuscation can you now retract your original post and update it in the light of your modification as to whom you are condemning?

This entire post is an update of my original post, and I’ve prominently linked to it from my original post, so hopefully this helps remove any perceived obfuscation in my position. If not, then I really am at a loss on how I could clarify what I’m trying to say any further.

I want to close with one final question which I’d love to hear you answer. In a universe devoid of ultimate meaning, purpose, or significance, how do we evaluate, without resorting to a simplistic appeal to biological group survival, human behavior?

A book with a provocative title came across my attention recently, by way of my long-standing interest in co-author Mike Foster. He was one of the founders of XXXChurch.com, a group that brings discussion of the dangers of pornography to the forefront of the church and also reaches out in love to the porn industry, and he has since moved on to pursue other creative and ministerial projects — and, of course, writing.

Now all I knew about Deadly Viper: Character Assassins for a while was what was on the teaser Web site, which…wasn’t very much at all. So I really didn’t have any idea what to expect. When I received Deadly Viper, I was astounded by its physical shape and size. It’s a small black rectangle filled with incredibly designed and profoundly beautiful illustrations, text, backgrounds, and even comics. The overall style is heavily influenced by Asian (specifically kung fu) art, hence the book title, and it’s a pleasure to flip through the pages. Of course, all the great design in the world can’t save lousy content, so what of the book topics themselves?

In Deadly Viper, Mike Foster and fellow author Jud Wilhite discuss the very real and very dangerous “character assassins” that are constantly threatening to take out our relationships, our respect, our careers, our well-being — basically any area which, if compromised, will ruin our ability to be leaders in our homes and communities. They treat these assassins like villainous foes you have to be ever watchful of, and they give them colorful kung fu names; my favorite is called The Assassin of Boom Chicka Wah Wah (sexual addiction/adultery/etc.).

The use of short interviews with known leaders in various business and religious fields, illustrations, comics, etc. to augment the text of the book makes for engaging and delightful reading. I walked away from the book not necessarily having a sense of knowledge that that I didn’t already know, but rather having a renewed mindset of following the wise advice that the book had to offer. Being a young single guy, it’s been particularly helpful to look Boom Chicka Wah Wah in the eye now and then and show him who’s boss.

If there’s any criticism I have of Deadly Viper, it’s that I wished that the authors, both devout Christians, had made a little bit more mention of God’s role to play in our character development. I realize the book is geared towards a secular audience, and I realize it’s good to refrain from shoving religion down people’s throats when they aren’t expecting it. But, frankly, developing character on your own through sheer will power is a road that leads to failure from an eternal perspective. I think our obligation as Christians is to compassionately and intelligently bring that truth to the world’s attention.

Nevertheless, this is a great little book, and I enjoyed reading it. If you have weak areas in your character that need some help, or you feel some assassins breathing down your neck right now (and who doesn’t?), you might just find that Deadly Viper gives you the weaponry you need to fight off your enemies. Now pick up those nunchucks, young grasshopper, and stand your ground. It is not the assassins who have the power to destroy you, but your own fear.

No explanation of the why behind morality has been given within a materialist framework that is satisfying. Oh, loads of people have tried, and usually it involves some kind of mumbo jumbo about game theory and selfish genes. The problem is that none of these quirky theories actually mirror the way people really behave and the reasons they themselves come up with for doing moral acts.

Most people do things they believe are right because they are the right things to do (in their minds). Right and wrong are abstract concepts that are completely divorced from the chemical composition of our brains, the organization of our genes, electrical impulses, who our parents are, matter, energy, or anything else. Right and wrong are ideas, and ideas aren’t material — which is why many materialists have become spiritualists (usually theists) after years of wrangling with these fundamental questions. You just can’t squeeze morality out of matter, no matter how hard you try.

Let me tell you, the notion that San Francisco is some kind of liberal paradise where people are free to do whatever, man, is bunk. Yes, anything goes, and usually does, and in the process we have one of the worst homeless problems of any city in America. There are homeless people, dirty, smelly, passed out, and totally messed up, all over the freaking place. I’ve actually gotten to know a couple of them. One guy I think is a professional beggar and seems to be in one piece for the most part. The other person is a gal who seems about my age, and she is not doing so hot. She says she has been recently baptized as a Christian and got off drugs, but in the last few days I’ve discovered she’s relapsed, and her search for work has proven to be fruitless. She’s at a homeless shelter, but so far it doesn’t seem to me like that’s done anything for her. Oh, and she just got attacked and almost raped (thankfully she’s OK), and she claims the police didn’t do anything about it. That’s nice.

I’ve read that Mayor Gavin Newsom has all these programs in place to help resolve this crisis, and they’re actually not in the leftist political camp either. Maybe that will have some effect long term, but so far I’m certainly not impressed. These people need serious medical attention, counseling, education, and, most importantly, real honest-to-God work. Is that happening? I don’t know. As a conservative, I’m all for limited government and telling people to take care of themselves, but when you have a systematic breakdown in societal stability, drastic (and sensible) actions need to be taken. I can’t say I understand what needs to be done in San Francisco, but whatever is currently being done just ain’t working.