Laurence Gonzaga Interviewed by Robert Stanley on The Right to Reason Pt. 1 UNEDITED

00:01:05 Host begins
00:01:50 Self introduction
00:06:50 Catholics and Atheists see the world differently
00:07:15 Priestly sexual abuse of young people, with a sizeable tangent on my process of converting from atheism to theism, to Protestant, to Catholic
00:15:00 Are the abuses a cause for questioning faith
00:16:30 The human and spiritual dimmensions of the Church
00:20:30 My intentions for the conversation
00:21:45 Why would God allow for abuse to happen by his Church ministers
00:24:00 Eucharist, the "Cracker God"
00:42:30 No expectation for atheist or agnostic to agree or understand
00:44:10 Why believe in God?
00:53:30 Faith, Predestination, Free Will
01:03:40 God and Time
01:09:00 Plugging Catholic Resources
01:11:00 My questions for the host, isn't the experience of both the layman atheist and theist the same, trusting the authorities
01:20:00 Eternal Truths like the fundamental laws of nature
01:23:30 Science vs Scientism
01:28:00 Do we live in a VR simulation, can the VR creator be God
01:32:20 If a VR God is possible, then transubstantiation is possible
01:33:20 Conversations are good to work out challenges

https://youtu.be/2tzVSnqLtG4

Abortion

In a recent conversation with an atheist, the topic of abortion came up. She affirmed what she believed to be a woman's "right to choose" during the entire 9 month period, however personally believes it is wrong for abortion after 24 weeks. She seemed to have a difficult time navigating through my logical critiques of her arbitrary positions on these matters. She believes it is wrong to abort at or after 24 weeks, and yet she states it's not up to her to tell a woman what to do with her body. I would submit to you that lots of things are being done to a body during abortion, the least is done to the woman's body, and all of it is being done to the unborn child's body.

Do I believe it is wrong to kill an adult person? Yes.
If asked, would I say the law should protect the adult person from being murdered? Yes.
Do I believe it is wrong to kill a pre-born person? Yes.
If asked, would I say the law should protect the pre-born person from being murdered? Yes.

My position is clear, and it is consistent.

Here is a short video of a board certified OBGyn testifying to Congress regarding the procedure of post 24 week abortions. The description given is graphic even if only verbal. Just use your imagination, and imagine a 24+ week baby's body being torn apart by surgical instruments. It's hard for me to imagine how one can be both a PETA type vegan vegetarian due to being against cruelty to animals, and be at the same time pro-choice. Abortion may be legal at this time, but it can never be a right. There is no right to kill an innocent baby.



Then again... there are in fact atheists who publicly stated that abortion is wrong or at least highly suspect... not the least of which is the great Christopher Hitchens.



Lastly, some great points from Ron Paul.

Re: Why I Am Not A Christian by Dr. Richard Carrier, Part 1 of 5

1. The author begins by playing the victim. He claims the Christians call him "cognitively deficient". They apparently can't believe that he can reject the Christian God even while being so well informed about Christianity. I respond that even if he were well informed and cognitively deficient that wouldn't matter because salvation doesn't depend upon wisdom, but faith. It remains to be seen how informed he really is about Christianity.
2. He jokes about his book being a good candidate for being burned at the next Nuremberg rally. I say that this is the first of many unnecessary jabs towards Christians. As he claims to be a philosopher he should know that is a fallacy and he would do better to stick to the facts, at least his alleged facts.
3. The author claims that Christians often don't examine the implausible excuses for their faith implying that they would rather believe a possible lie than to explore the other options. He further claims that Christians interpret the world through their theist lens and assume they are right and the evidence somehow fits. In contrast he claims that is the opposite of what "we" (presumably referring to atheists) do, that they start with evidence and follow wherever it goes. Thus religious dogmatism meets atheistic or naturalistic empiricism. I respond that I know for a fact that atheists and agnostics are not exempt from presuming or assuming the foundational tenets of their position. They don' t always start with the evidence because they are not always scientific experts and thus they tend to accept the accounts of their favorite scholars and experts. Therefore, the atheistic empiricism may very well become as dogmatic as the canons of the Council of Trent. This was yet another fallacy from the author.
4. The author then goes back to role playing as a Christian and calling himself clinically insane, an irrational madman, suffering from evil psychosis since no one could possibly examine all the evidence and still reject God. On the contrary, the Pharisees were quite learned and yet they still rejected the true God, and so there is an answer for the wise not having faith. It is called the reprobate. If not reprobate, then the author has all the opportunity in the world before he dies to change his mind.
5. The author then asserts that there is justification for caution when it seems that all religions' view of God is anthropomorphic of human nature and the concerns of the cultures which birthed these religions. I say that the observations may hold for all religions, but this doesn't refute Christianity in particular because humankind is made in God's image and therefore it should not be surprising that the perspective of God is man-like because man was created God-like. In other words is it anthropomorphism or is it deomorphism (my own word)?

The preceding is the first of five installments of a critique of Dr. Richard Carrier's book,  Why I Am Not A Christian. 

Discussions with Atheists #1 (Redlands Market Night, 11.10.16)

Since moving to Redlands in May, I have been meaning to make it to Market Night when the Inland Empire Atheists & Agnostics (IEAA) and the Freethinkers Around Redlands (FAR) has their monthly booth. I finally made it on 11/10/16. I arrived in Redlands coming from a late departure from work in Rancho at 7:30 PM. By the time the conversation I had with 1-4 booth operators was over, it was 9:27 PM.

Now, I am partially sympathetic and empathetic to the atheist movement, not only because I was an atheist once, but, I am genuinely open to listening to their best argumentation. I am very much interested in the reasons why people believe whatever they believe. I am also interested in observing the sociological and psychological processes that is manifest in my interactions with the varied groups I encounter. 

Just to reflect on this experience in brief... The first 30 minutes or so was calmly paced and calmly discussed. But the remaining hour and half quickly became a bit heated. I'd like to think I was not heated at all, but I'm sure I contributed to it since we covered so many passionately held and argued positions and topics. 

Here are my main points:

1. Being pro-life or pro-choice (on abortion) is a moral issue and not a scientific one. Science can only answer the question of whether the fetus is life or not, human or not, but it cannot answer the question of whether the fetus is a person, which has the right to be protected from murder according to the constitution. Personhood is an issue of philosophy, namely ethics. 
2. Everything cannot be subjective, because that assertion itself is a claim to objective (not subjective) truth or reality. 
3. If you can say that you are against abortion beyond 24 months, on what basis do you make such an arbitrary decision? How do you justify personhood being only valid after 24 months? (The danger to this approach is the opponent can change their mind and become pro-abortion for the entire period in utero. The take home message however is their standard is emotional and not rational). 
4. If your operational maxim for the moral law is whatever provides the least pain and the most pleasure, and therefore killing is wrong (with no need for God to tell us so), then how do you justify, as you stated, that you think it is OK to kill a pedophile? That is a position based on emotion and so also not rational.
5. I don't agree with the theory that was presented to me that if one were to imagine a society in which there is no concept of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious, social, or economic standing... there would be radical egalitarianism, that is to say, radical equality, and so, no socio-economic distinctions among the citizens... that most, if not everyone, would agree and want to live in such a society. I offered to poll my college students on this and generated a survey, but I was accused by two of the folks I was talking to of intentionally engaging in confirmation bias and intentionally skewing the data by not formulating the question as it was originally intended by philosopher John Rawls. I rebutted by asserting that I agreed to test the theory as it was formulated to me in the verbal discussion, not to test the original exposition of Rawls' theory. Besides if you look up the "veil of ignorance" according to Rawls, I would argue that Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative is a much simpler way of formulating the argument that you would want the maxim of law to be those prescriptions which you would will to be universal. Here is the survey as I originally formulated it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzb8s1zUN8qOcmF4SUI1empqZEk/view?usp=sharing
6. If an atheist wishes to engage a Christian in a conversation on Biblical interpretation and alleged contradictions, the atheist needs to understand that the Bible is not necessarily viewed in the same way they viewed it when they were a Christian, or in the same way among practicing Christians. They need to recognize that the majority of Christians are Catholics, and likely the majority of Catholics do not view the Bible in a monolithic way. The Catholic view can only be that which is the official doctrinal view, and that is very different from all of the Protestant views and likely most Catholics' view. 

I'm not sure if these conversations will continue. I suspect they were not prepared to encounter someone who thoroughly understood their best philosophical arguments already. I make it a point to never use the Bible in my conversations with atheists. I don't feel the need to defend the Bible. I think that's how atheists end up overpowering Christians in street debates... The Bible is hard to defend on the spot, especially when atheists fall back on the alleged contradictions points.

My focus is on challenging the philosophical foundations of the atheist critiques. We have to stay focused. The debate with atheists and Christians is not about the truthfulness of the Bible, it is and must be only on the question of the rationality of belief in a singular creator God. At least, that is my opinion.

Thank you,

Laurence Gonzaga, MA

11.14.16

Re: #17: DEBATE "Is There Sufficient Evidence For The Christian God"

Link to Cellar Door Skeptics Podcast
Link to Blog Entry for this Event



I haven't really been paying much attention to the atheists' commentaries in a while other than a few videos here and there. In following up with some of the guys I used to listen to, watch, or read, from Atheist Analysis, I discovered that Atheist Analysis was no longer in business. Sounded like there was some juicy controversy behind the scenes but bottom line is the original leaders had a difference of opinion and had to part ways. It's a shame, I think, because atheism should continue to form public associations and disseminate their material far and wide, so more believers are aware of their best arguments, and hopefully develop or learn better ways to respond to these challenges.

So, I was directed to the new forum for some of the former AA staff: Cellar Door Skeptics. Having been reconnected, I was immediately directed to their latest materials. One of them was a debate between Christopher Tanner (atheist) and Aaron Furlong (reformed Christian). It was a rather lengthy offering and so I felt I had to split it between two days of listening. Overall, I think it was generally a good exchange between the two, respectful, well controlled, and it sounded like both sides were honest when they didn't know how to respond.

I just have some brief observations.

1. The resolution for the debate, "Is There Sufficient Evidence For The Christian God?", was weak. Obviously, the affirmative side (Christian) believes there is sufficient evidence, and the negative side (Atheist) believes there isn't. Between Christians that threshold may vary widely, as much as it may between atheists. Perhaps the resolution would have been clearer and more focused to be simply "The Christian God exists", or "The necessary precondition of logic and science is the existence of God as the foundational principle". Furthermore, the Christian admits he is not an "evidentialist", but he is a "presuppositionalist". So, the foundation of the affirmative side is not to give proof for the existence of God, but simply pointing out that no matter what course of logical argumentation the atheist uses, he must necessarily admit to the absolute need for a foundational principle(s) upon which his logical discourse relies upon. Only God can be that principle. 
2. Tanner makes a great case for only believing in things that are true. I would agree. Unfortunately, since he admits that he cannot be absolutely sure about anything, then this must necessarily mean he cannot ever really accept anything to be true. I would suggest he re-think the consistency of his position or adopt a sense of truth being provisional, that is to say, truth is the best explanation we have for now, accepting that at any given moment, it could be disproven and replaced with a new position, which may even be God. I don't know if he means this when he uses the word "true" or "truth".
3. Furlong gave a good introduction to his presuppositional attempt at presenting or defending God. Unfortunately, I feel like he has memorized the method of his art so well, that he had a very hard time when it came to addressing the issues Tanner brought up, which require an evidentialist familiarity to be able to respond to. For example, the validity of the Bible, was discussed. Furlong didn't really spend a lot of time defending his Bible and why it's reliable. On this point, I'd give to Tanner. It's not necessarily Furlong's fault. The problem is the Protestants don't have a good answer. The Catholics have a better answer. If God exists, and Jesus was God, he founded the Catholic Church, and the Church is what is foundational and not the Bible alone.
4. Judaism is a religion, but the word Jewish refers to both an affiliation with the religion as well as an identification with the "Jewish people". It is a race. Hitler was about a pure race, not a pure religion. 
5. Tanner didn't seem to realize the gravity of admitting that he doesn't believe that anything is absolute, and yet he holds absolute positions, for example, God doesn't exist, Christianity is wrong, telling a woman she ought not to have an abortion is wrong, the opposition views to LGBTQI issues are wrong, etc. 
6. There doesn't have to be a contradiction between God's omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omnipresence, with God allowing evil, or not lying. These are not new questions. Philosophers and theologians have been debating these issues for millennia. Those solutions only make sense within a Christian worldview. This issue puts the cart before the horse. 

I'm sure I missed a lot of significant points I wanted to address as I was listening to the debate. Perhaps I'll give it another listen and revise this post.

I look forward to staying in touch with these gentlemen. Perhaps, I'll give in and accept the invitation to address my worldviews or engage in debate.

Laurence Gonzaga

3.19.16

Re: There Is No God by Penn Jillette

Whenever I have the free time, I read a chapter from The Portable Atheist, edited by Christopher Hitchens. Today I read a very short piece written by magician Penn Jillette. It is chapter 40 in this volume, spans about a page and a half, and can also be read on the NPR site here. Jillette's perspective can be summarized as:

"So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power... So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something."

I have to say that I am glad I read this perspective. It's actually refreshing. If I may summarize the perspective for my understanding and I am open to correction if I am mistaken... I gather that Mr. Jillette is saying, let's all just start off with no belief, and then ask what evidence exists to believe there is a being that many call "God". I am actually compelled to sympathize with this approach. But then I started to think about it. The idea that we only believe in things which can be proven through the empirical sciences is a presupposition of empiricism. One of the ideas in natural philosophy is that we have first principles which are not proven, and cannot be proven. I presuppose that there are beings or realities which may exist beyond what can be empirically demonstrated or proven. Then I turn to some philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and then I look to history and sacred theology to fill in the rest of the picture.

Thank you Mr. Jillette, for presenting such a practical perspective pro-atheism. Unfortunately, it's not a good enough case for someone who already believes. 

Laurence Gonzaga

10.18.15

Re: Theodicy, God and Suffering - A debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Bart Ehrman

I didnt watch the first part of the debate because I know where each is coming from already. I was most interested in the cross examination and the Q & A portion. The two didn't disappoint. I found some inconsistencies in both positions. For Bart he made a lot of effort to show that we don't know what happens after we die, and yet he claims nothing happens when we die and nothing is not something. But he is saying he knows nothing happens after we die. At this point I think it was a clash of philosophical terms. D'Souza on the other hand made a few references to adultery as his choice of bad things people do and we know now, it was a bad thing which he did do. I suppose that is not a flaw in his argument though, although perhaps the credibility of the debater is now in question.