Law Religion Culture Review

Book Review: Is There A God? by Richard Swinburne.

2009-07-10T23:02:00.000-07:00

Since Is There A God? kept appearing as source material in the recent philosophical literature I've been reading (some reviewed here), I thought it about time I went to the source.

Too, I wanted to read it as a prelude to Richard Swinburne's follow-up, Was Jesus God? (2008) (which I'm reading now).

Formerly the Nolloth Professor of Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford, Swinburne's "big idea" in Is There A God? is applying "Ockham's razor" (p. 31) to argue that theism is more reasonable than atheism to explain our existence (or the earth's or the universe's) because it's the simplest explanation. "The thesis of this book is that theism provides by far the simplest explanation of all phenomena. Materialism is not...a simple hypothesis, and there is a range of phenomena which it is most unlikely ever able to explain. Humanism is an even less simple hypothesis than materialism." (p. 41.)

Theism's persuasively simple, according to Swinburne. "Theism claims that every other object which exists is caused to exist and kept in existence by just one substance, God. And it claims that ever property which every substance has is due to God causing or permitting it to exist. It is a hallmark of a simple explanation to postulate few causes. There could be in this respect be no simpler explanation that one which postulated only one cause." (p. 43.)

In addition to offering affirmative evidence of God's existence, Swinburne attempts to answer objections. First, in dealing with evolution, he more than acknowledges it; he essentially appropriates it. Swinburne writes: "And, as we now know, humans and animals did come into existence through the gradual process of evolution from a primitive soup of matter which formed as earth cooled down some 4,000 million years ago. In that process natural selection played a central role. Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) taught us the outlines of the story, and biologists have been filling in the details ever since. The clear simple modern presentation in Richard Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker (1986) is deservedly popular." (p. 58; emphasis supplied.) I doubt Dawkins thought he would be cited approvingly in a book arguing for theism.

Swinburne continues: "So, in summary, the Darwinian explanation of why there are the complex animal and human bodies there are today is that once upon a time there were certain chemicals on earth, and, given the laws of evolution..., it was probable that complex organisms would emerge. This explanation of the existence of complex organisms is surely a correct explanation, but it is not an ultimate explanation of that fact." (p. 60; emphasis supplied.) Thus, Swinburne incorporates Darwinism, and then simply adds a step of regress to place God at the beginning of the process. Here, Swinburne partially undermines his simplicity argument, since he's adding steps (and complexity) into the creation process. Swinburne likewise paints himself into a corner for his later book with respect to the Trinity (but that will have to wait for the review of Was Jesus God?).

Second, Swinburne deals with the "problem of evil" (also known as the problem of suffering or the problem of pain) in Chapter 6, entitled "Why God Allows Evil". To his credit, Swinburne does not posit the ubiquitous "free-will defense" and leave it at that. He attempts to grapple with "natural evil" (i.e. events that cannot be explained by human choices, called "moral evil") such as natural disasters. Some may not find his explanations satisfactory, but Swinburne does provide a lucid theodicy for both types of evils.

The book curiously ends with dissatisfaction--from the author. Swinburne laments: "I reach the end of this book with some dissatisfaction. I am well aware of objections other than the ones which I have discussed which can be made to almost every sentence which I have written... I am also aware of counter-objections which can be advanced to turn against every objection to my views, and also of the need for qualifications and amplification of most of the assertions in this book. Argument and counter-argument, qualification and amplification, can go on forever." (p. 140.)

This apologetic tone seems unnecessary and defensive. Either Swinburne could have expanded the book to deal with more objections (it was only 139 pages before this epilogue) or have stated its limited scope or purpose at the outset. Nevertheless, I can see why Swinburne's book has been cited because it represents a straightforward and thought-provoking assertion and defense of theism. Recommended for those interested in this genre.

State Court Solomonic Sagacity, Part IV.

2009-07-09T15:16:00.000-07:00

A tentative ruling in a case not mine:

"ARGUMENT REQUIRED on this motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction.

"‘The time has come'
To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings.’ (Lewis Carroll)
And of how it is that Defendant can argue that Orange County is not the proper jurisdiction for this case when this same defendant argued in Maryland that Orange County was the proper jurisdiction and was able to convince the Maryland court to dismiss without prejudice because Orange County was the proper jurisdiction!"

Book Review: Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America and Found Unexpected Peace (2009).

2009-07-02T23:29:00.000-07:00

Be careful what you pray for, you just might get it.

That's an ironic (if inadvertent) lesson of William Lobdell's Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America and Found Unexpected Peace.

Lobdell prayed for over four years to get the religion beat at the Los Angeles Times.

He got the job. And lost his faith.

As a broader memoir, Lobdell begins well before his experience as a religion reporter and records how he became a professing Christian. Even though the "losing" aspect has been more celebrated, his "finding" of faith is just as rich.

Lobdell describes his conversion and growth into his Christianity with numerous Southern California references. For example, he talks about how his "best friend" (radio personality and author) Hugh Hewitt strongly encouraged him to investigate Christianity, and more particularly, to attend a men's retreat in the San Bernardino Mountains, where Lobdell had his "mountaintop conversion." He also chronicles his attendance at local churches, including Mariners Church in Irvine.

"By 1999, it had been seven years since my mountaintop conversion. I felt a growing muscularity to my Christianity. I was learning more and more about the Bible. I wanted to plunge deeper into belief, history and custom. I didn't need as much self-help as I had earlier; my life had long ago gotten out of intensive care and had stabilized. I started to feel claustrophobic at Mariners Church. The seeker-friendly services--which had drawn me so effortlessly back to Christianity--now seemed simplistic. I wanted to strip away the happy songs, the upbeat, black and white messages and the cappuccino machine. I wanted something more authentic, more raw, even. I was grateful of my time at Mariners, but I felt I had graduated. We stopped going as a family one day and slipped away. Nobody noticed. That was the blessing and curse of belonging to a mega-church. No one knows you've arrived and no one realizes when you've gone." (p. 54.)

Lobdell then attended St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach. "With his booming baritone voice and sharp mind, [pastor] John [Huffman, Ph.D.] gave thought-provoking sermons with academic overtones for churchgoers who wanted to believe with both heart and mind." (p. 55.) Lobdell was more than a casual attender. "We started attending services in 1999 and put our three (soon to be four) boys in their youth programs, which they loved. We keep our tradition of attending church on Saturday evenings and stayed afterward for pizza and salad with friends. St. Andrew's also had a great Bible study on Wednesday evenings, along with a parallel children's program. Saturday and Wednesday evenings served as the tent poles of our family life." (p. 55.)

Thereafter, Lobdell began the process of converting to Catholicism. He attended "Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults classes." (p. 140.) Simultaneously, his work at the Times required him to investigate the Catholic sex abuse scandal which had a locus in Southern California. This tension wore on Lobdell. "Though I continued to work other religion stories, my editors wanted my primary focus to be the Catholic sex scandal. I began to live a dual life. By day, I investigated the local dioceses, dug up documents in courthouses, talked with a seemingly endless string of victims and interviewed bishops, their aides, attorneys and priests. In my off-hours, I put in my final months of training to become a Catholic."

Lobdell began to connect man's religious institutions with God. For example, Lobdell questions, "If an institution is corrupt, does that have any bearing on God? At the time, I thought the answer was obviously negative. But now I think I was wrong." (p. 136.) As these questions mounted, Lobdell asked Dr. Huffman if he would he would help. "I took John to dinner and told him about my crisis of faith. I asked him if I could email him some tough questions about Christianity. He agreed without hesitation. ...My questions were basic, verging on the cliched, but I desperately wanted some solid answers I could grasp so I could climb back up into my faith. Why do bad things happen to good people? Why does God get credit for answered prayers but no blame for unanswered ones? Why do we believe in the miraculous healing power of God when He's never been able to regenerate a limb or heal a severed spinal chord [sic]?" (p. 236.) Lobdell then reproduces their exchange (at least in part). (pp. 236-243.)

Lobdell's response to Dr. Huffman's gracious answers: "From a Christian perspective, his answers were nearly perfect. He was giving me the best Christianity had to offer, but I just didn't believe it anymore. I replied to John that though I appreciated his response, it was frustrating because I had seen too many innocent people live out lives full of tragedy and pain." (p. 240.)

It should be remembered this book is a memoir. It is not a philosophical or theological treatise (and doesn't indicate Lobdell delved into any with depth). As a result, it doesn't deal with great sophistication with the "problem of evil" or theodicy. Indeed, if Lobdell's reasons for leaving Christianity were his problems with certain religious institutions, such as the Catholic Church, the Trinity Broadcasting Network, or Benny Hinn, then he might be justified in distancing himself from them. However, he doesn't effectively bridge these complaints or concerns to an outright rejection of Christianity or even theism. Lobdell admits that his questions "verged on the cliched." (p. 236.) I think he's right, along with his conclusions. Nevertheless, the Losing My Religion is a quick and engaging read that believers and nonbelievers could find beneficial.

Book Review: Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation of an Overachiever (2009) by Walter Kirn.

2009-06-26T10:34:00.000-07:00

Knowledge isn't power, according to Walter Kirn's memoir, Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation of an Overachiever.

It's a "reckoning...a way to assess your location, your true position, not a strategy for improving your position." This was a lesson he received from his "surrogate father"--a retired admiral when he was about four. However, Kirn "lost [his] bearings. [He] veered off course. [He] went away to school." Kirn's disorientation reached its zenith during his time at Princeton.

To Kirn, formal education devolved into a game of mimicry, trickery, and fakery.

"With virtually no stored literary material about which to harbor critical assumptions, I relied on my gift for mimicking authority figures and playing back to them their own ideas as though they were conclusions I'd reached myself.... To me, imitation and education were different words for the same thing, anyway. What was learning but a form of borrowing? And what was intelligence but borrowing slyly?"

Kirn learned how to deconstruct without knowing how to construct anything. "We skipped straight from ignorance to revisionism, deconstructing a body of literary knowledge that we'd never constructed in the first place."

Kirn learned other artifices. "I couldn't quote anyone, reliably. I'd honed other skills: for flattering those in power without appearing to, for rating artistic reputations according to academic fashions, for matching my intonations and vocabulary to the backgrounds of my listeners, for placing certain words in smirking quotation marks and rolling my eyes when someone spoke too earnestly about some 'classic' or 'masterpiece,' for veering left when the conventional wisdom went right and then doubling back if it looked like it was changing. Flexibility, irony, self-consciousness, contrarianism. They'd gotten me through Princeton....I'd found out a lot since I'd aced the SATs, about the system, about myself, and about the new class that the system had created, which I was now part of, for better or worse. The class that runs things."

Through this "elite" educational process what Kirn really learned was cynicism and its ultimate end: nihilism. It nearly broke him. He curiously clawed back by learning (on his own) obscure words and their definitions. And thinking back to the advice he received from his mentor as a child. It's odd that the book took about a quarter century to write or be published. It contains references to being at Princeton when Lennon was shot (1980), and yet it was published this year. Nevertheless, its message translates to today.

Book Review: Self-Made Man: One Woman's Journey into Manhood and Back Again by Norah Vincent.

2009-06-23T23:05:00.000-07:00

"Before I can walk in another person's shoes, I must first remove my own."
--Brian Tracy

The men's movement has an unlikely champion.

A lesbian feminist: Norah Vincent.

However, she had to walk in men's loafers (and clothes, glasses and beard disguise) for about 18 months (p. 15) to arrive at this destination. Moreover, the process landed her a psych ward. (p. 268.) As a psychiatrist told her: "'[H]aving done what you did, I would have thought you crazy if you didn't have a breakdown." (p. 271.)

Vincent infiltrated six different contexts as a "man" and wrote about them in Self-Made Man. Apart from an introduction and epilogue, the book is organized according to each of these experiences: "Friendship" (about playing on a men's bowling team); "Sex" (about visiting strip clubs); "Love" (about dating women as a "man"); "Life" (about staying at a Catholic monastery); "Work" (about selling coupon books in a testosterone-fueled company); and "Self" (about participating in a men's group, including a "retreat").

Vincent writes: "But, of course, getting inside men's heads and out of my own was what this project was all about. Part of the project was writing a book like this is to learn something about the infiltrated group and then ideally to put that knowledge to good use. Inevitably then I have to ask myself whether or not my experience as Ned [Norah's male alter-ego] has changed the way I see and interact with men." (p. 283.)

She concludes: "Unexpectedly, the answer is both yes and no. Yes, in the sense that I have an inescapable empathy for men that could not help but come from living among them. I know in some sense how it feels to be on their end of things and to receive some of the blows and prejudices the world inflicts on them." (p. 283.) In this vein, Vincent reluctantly concludes: "Manhood is a leaden mythology riding on the shoulders of every man." (p. 271.)

Through this unusual process, Vincent reports some poignant observations about men that probably could only have been the product of such a study--a woman living as a man, mostly among men. In addition to insights about the male gender, the book also provides understanding about women especially in their expectations for men. (See, e.g., Chapter 4, "Love".)

As drawbacks, Vincent contradicts herself intermittently (such as whether or not she was just being herself in a male disguise) and traffics in some stale gender stereotypes.

Nevertheless, this book adds some fresh (and surprising) content to the "conversation" about gender.

"Are You Ok, Counsel?"

2009-06-22T18:35:00.000-07:00

As I approached counsel's table today, I observed a large wad of toilet paper dangling from my worthy opponent's mouth.

The judge noticed too.

Judge: "Are you ok, counsel?"

Counsel: "Yes, Your Honor. I cut my lip on the way into the courthouse, and it's been bleeding for the past hour."

Judge: "If there's anything we can do, please let us know."

Counsel: "Well, your bailiff gave me a band-aid which has helped. I guess the joke of the day is that an unhappy client did this to me."

Judge: "That's been known to happen in this courthouse."

Stayed.

2009-06-18T10:53:00.001-07:00

In California, one of the lesser known and used tools in the defense counsel's toolbox is a motion for undertaking (i.e. bond) and stay.

This statute provides: "When the plaintiff in an action or special proceeding resides out of the state, or is a foreign corporation, the defendant may at any time apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs and attorney's fees which may be awarded in the action or special proceeding." (C.C.P. Section 1030(a).)

The standard for obtaining a bond is relatively low: “The motion shall be made on the grounds that the plaintiff resides out of the state or is a foreign corporation and that there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the action or special proceeding. ... The affidavit shall set forth the nature and amount of the costs and attorney's fees the defendant has incurred and expects to incur by the conclusion of the action or special proceeding.” (C.C.P. Section 1030(b); emphasis supplied.)

Further, if the motion is timed adeptly, it can stay a plaintiff's action. "If the defendant's motion for an order requiring an undertaking is filed not later than 30 days after service of summons on the defendant, further proceedings may be stayed in the discretion of the court .... The hearing on the application for the stay shall be held not later than 60 days after service of the summons." (C.C.P. Section 1030(e); emphasis supplied.)

In one of my current cases, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against my clients wherein it admitted that it was incorporated in an east coast state. At the outset, I filed the motion for bond and undertaking within these deadlines--within 30 days of service--and set the hearing to occur within 60 days of service.

The court found that I had met the requirements for the bond and ordered the plaintiff to file the bond and stayed the case unless and until it did so. I served notice of the ruling and a copy of the court's order on opposing counsel.

At the next hearing, a comical exchange ensued between plaintiff's counsel and the judge.

The judge asked if the ordered bond had been filed.

Counsel responded: "We are in the process of filing the bond."

Judge: "So it hasn't been filed yet. When is it going to be filed?"

Counsel: "Soon."

Judge: "This case is stayed. Nothing can be done on your case, counsel."

Counsel: "We didn't think the case had been stayed."

Judge: "What do you mean you didn't think the case had been stayed? I stayed it!"

Counsel: "We were confused."

At that point, the court dismissed us with the admonition that plaintiff's case was dead in the water. And it remains so.

Sabotage.

2009-06-15T11:21:00.000-07:00

At movies, I saw a guy sabotage his nice gesture of getting food for his date by delivering it with, "Here you go, fatty."

Unconscionable.

Book Review: Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage (2009).

2009-06-08T14:04:00.000-07:00

As former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart observed, "'[P]roperty does not have rights, only people do.'" (p. 254 [attorney Scott Bullock quoting Potter Stewart].)

In other words, with eminent domain, it's about people, not property.

Jeff Benedict's Little Pink House especially reveals and revels in the human drama surrounding the Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court case, involving the taking of Susette Kelo's (and others') property for a development benefiting Pfizer, Inc.

While I was generally familiar with the case, and even heard Justice Antonin Scalia speak about it shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its controversial decision (see August 30 and September 2, 2005, posts), Benedict's hard investigatory work and clear prose explicated the remarkable milieu in which this case arose, uncovering many intriguing aspects the MSM doubtlessly missed. The twists and turns were far too dramatic to be fiction. Among other things, Benedict explains what happened after the High Court's opinion to these folks and their properties and the unexpected tragedies befalling some of the property owners' apart from the takings.

In addition to expertly capturing the human drama, Benedict ably grasped the legalities. In fact, he did such an excellent job describing, in layperson terms, the legal maneuvers that I strongly suspected he had some legal training. However, nothing on the book's jacket revealed that he was a lawyer--instead, it mentioned his authorship of seven books and numerous published articles as well as his position teaching writing at Southern Virginia University.

I found the answer buried in the acknowledgements when Benedict mentioned in passing that someone offered him his first commercial-publishing contract when he was a first-year law student. (p. 381.) Bingo.

Highly recommended to lawyer and layperson alike.

Book Review: The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University (2009).

2009-06-07T12:01:00.000-07:00

Undercover journalism, conducted out in the open.

That's my brief, oxymoronic description of Kevin Roose's The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University (March, 2009)--a product of his semester as a student at Liberty University.

Taking a leave of absence from his studies at Brown University, Roose decided to spend Spring semester, 2007 at Liberty and then write about it.

While hiding his writing agenda, Roose didn't hide his identity. He matriculated as Kevin Roose, from Brown, and a Christian (p. 12), albeit from a nominally Quaker background (pp. 6-7). "If anyone ever asked, I'd say that I was a Christian (strictly true)" (p. 12), "although I wasn't an evangelical Christian" (p. 12). Interestingly, "Liberty application [didn't] require a mandatory statement of faith" (p. 12) like many other conservative Christian colleges such as Biola University.

Roose explains his approach: "I did want to see what Christian college was like, with as little prejudgment as possible....If I went to Liberty, it would be to learn with an open mind, not to mock Liberty students or the evangelical world in toto." (p. 11.)

Roose was largely successful in this two-fold endeavor. By throwing himself into the experience he learned what a Christian college was like, and largely did so without mocking Liberty "or the evangelical world in toto."

Roose actively participated in Liberty life perhaps much more than his fellow students. For example, he sang in the Thomas Road Baptist Church (connected to Liberty) choir (singing in front of millions on tv); conducted "cold turkey evangelism" at Daytona Beach during Spring Break; interviewed Rev. Jerry Falwell (Liberty's chancellor at the time) and wrote about it in the school newspaper (which turned out to be Rev. Falwell's last print interview before dying at the end of that semester); participated in a men's accountability group; played intramural sports, among other activities.

Some of his observations were not so profound and some were. For example, Roose acts like it's a revelation that it's easier to wake up on a Sunday morning without a hangover. (pp. 56-57.) On a more serious note, Roose poignantly summarizes his learning at Liberty: "By experiencing [Liberty people's] warmth, [their] vigorous generosity of spirit, and [their] deep complexity, I was ultimately convinced--not that [Liberty people] were right, necessarily, but I had been wrong." (p. 319; emphasis added.)

This multi-faceted learning process forms the bulk of the book. Given this "deep complexity", Roose mercifully (mostly) leaves behind the simplistic stereotypes of "evangelical Christians" (a hackneyed term poorly defined in the book and elsewhere). As an Ivy League student, he discovers that Liberty's studies are quite rigorous on the whole, and even admits some struggles to achieve high grades in the courses. "I work twice as hard at Liberty as I ever did at Brown." (p. 106.)

This book does better than Hanna Rosin's similar, but more detached and political God's Harvard: A Christian College on a Mission to Save America--a reporter's book about Patrick Henry College reviewed here on December 13, 2007. (Roose mentions reading Rosin's related New Yorker article while writing his book. (p. 241).)

Unlike Rosin, Roose investigated while a student at the subject school. Perhaps as a result, Roose's book is much more empathetic and nuanced. For this reason, The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University (a lame title especially since Liberty doesn't tout itself as the nation's "Holiest University") receives a much higher recommendation. Look for more from Roose--as of the publication he was a Brown senior. This book portends well for his writing career.

"Please State Your Name for the Record".

2009-05-27T22:09:00.000-07:00

During trial this week, immediately after the clerk instructed the Petitioner (the other side) to state his name for the record, I heard deep breaths and loud sighs emanating from the witness stand. I looked up to see the witness's eyelids fluttering.

The witness was finally able to compose and identify himself.

Since the case involved Petitioner's allegation that a will was obtained through my client's "undue influence", his attorney (a former judge) asked him some foundational questions about his knowledge about the subject will.

In response, the Petitioner steadfastly denied any knowledge about the will. Visibly flustered by his numerous, fruitless attempts to get his client on track with his testimony, my worthy opponent finally asked, "Don't you remember the conversation we just had in the courthouse hallway about 15 minutes ago?" "Don't you remember what we talked about?" For a split-second, I thought about asserting the attorney-client privilege, but refrained since it was his client.

The court wasted no time in resolving the case. After each side rested, and made its closing arguments, the judge immediately ruled from the bench in favor of my client and awarded her attorneys' fees.

Book Review: Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain by Michael Paterniti.

2009-05-24T14:52:00.000-07:00

On a recent flight, I flipped through an airline magazine and found an article about road-trip books.

While road-trips and air travel represent different experiences, they both tap into the same wanderlust spirit.

Among the five or so books featured in the 2009 piece, Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain (2000) by Michael Paterniti piqued my interest. It was presented as a memoir about a road trip wherein Paterniti transported via car Einstein’s brain across the United States. For obvious reasons, many questions surfaced. Why was Einstein's brain not with the body? Why was it being transported? Why did Paterniti's traveling companion have the brain?

I also wondered how the cargo--the defunct brain--could drive the traveling story, occurring decades later.

I found my answers with Driving Mr. Albert, and discovered much more. The book was part biography, part travelogue, part autobiography, part philosophical ruminations, and part cultural commentary.

The author, Paterniti, also expresses surprise at how it turned out. "To be honest I thought the road trip would be a caper. That's what I imagined. And I thought the old doctor [Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, who performed Einstein's 1955 autopsy and had the brain] would be entertaining. And yet desire is a tricky thing. It can transform a quick outing to the store for milk into a lifelong, shoeless quest through the Himalayas in search of enlightenment. It can put you on the road to Canterbury without your realizing it at first. And some version of that happened." (p. vii.)

Operating as a biography, the book delved into the lives of Einstein as well as Harvey, both of whom led colorful lives. Einstein has been quoted by both atheists and theists to support their views and Paterniti couldn't resist either, but he captures something for everyone in a single quote: "'Science without religion is lame...religion without science is blind.'" (p. 126.)

As a travelogue, the book covers stops ranging from the mundane to the bizarre. For examples, a tour of a Truman museum as well as a strange encounter with novelist William S. Burroughs spice the text. From chance exchanges with fellow travellers to a tour of a concrete "Garden of Eden" Paterniti does not disappoint in capturing the wildly unpredictable nature of road-tripping.

Working as an autobiography (with his philosophical ruminations), Paterniti records how the multifaceted experience stretched, challenged and strengthened him. An example of his thoughts and exquisite writing: "And the land--the way American keeps coming and coming in rich, if now fallow fields, stretching to the horizon, the way the awesome power of this endlessness is the key to some deep sense of freedom--begins to reimpose an ancient language of wind and silence. It's all so strangely beautiful and at the same time raises the ghost of some kind of melancholy, a thought that, though we belong to this country as much as this country belongs to us, we only move through its rooms as momentary visitors, projected our ideas on its walls, that the best we can do is live a good life, perhaps add a couple of replicas of ourselves, but then must hand it over, however temporarily again, to another generation..." (p. 60.)

Highly recommended.

Book Review: Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul.

2009-05-21T21:44:00.001-07:00

Unlike Matthew Chapman's 40 Days and 40 Nights (reviewed here on April 30, 2009), Edward Humes' 2007 book, Monkey Girl would resemble a mural depicting the sprawling case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, spanning around an arena.

By contrast, Chapman's would resemble a self-portrait--on an 8x10 glossy (due to Chapman's omnipresent bias and scant legal analysis).

A Pulitzer Prize recipient, Humes paints a much broader picture about the federal lawsuit seeking to halt an Intelligent Design ("ID") policy in a Pennsylvania school district, which was tried for six weeks in 2005. In fact, Humes spents about 200 pages setting the stage for the legal drama. Once he arrives at the lawsuit, he expertly delves into it. He provides some interesting tidbits, including the decision-making concerning whether or not to bring a temporary restraining order, how about half of the school district's experts were lost from testifying (e.g. one of ID's most prominent spokespersons, mathematician Dr. William Dembski), the ID policy and legal issues at play, crucial cross-examinations, and the trial judge's reasoning in his 139-page ruling.

Fully grasping the tension between science and law in Kitzmiller, Humes insightfully writes: "It is often said, with good cause, that a trial is a poor place to have a reasonable, informative debate about science, because the goal of a trial and the goal of science are so often at odds. Science, at least as it has been practiced for the last century or two, begins by assembling facts--the data--and then seeks an overarching theory to unify and explain those facts.... In the law, however, the process works in exactly the opposite direction. Each side of a legal dispute starts with a theory: 'The accused is guilty' versus 'My client is not guilty' (or 'Intelligent design is religion' versus 'No, it's science'). Once the opponents have settled on their mutually exclusive theories of the case, each side lines up the facts that support its own preferred version of reality. And each side studiously ignores, minimizes or attempts to disprove the facts that the belie its own theory of the case. One consequence of this time-honored approach is that, as a general rule, the courts don't do science very well." (p. 257; emphasis in original).

Humes mostly submerges his bias so the reader can derive a generally balanced understanding of the case and its backdrop. Humes however abandons any pretence of objectivity in his "Epilogue" (pp. 339-51) with some surprisingly charged rhetoric including an odd, lengthy and personal attack on Ann Coulter, who had nothing to do with the case, whom he curiously evicerated earlier (with no support). "[Dembski] has allied himself with the extremist right-wing pundit Ann Coulter, known for her vehement hate speech and her well-documented history of writing books riddled with factual errors." (p. 236.)

Humes pays a nice tribute to his editor, thanking her for her "excellent editing." (p. viii.) I'm not sure then who is responsible for this, but, without even trying, I found at least four glaring editing errors in this book published by an imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers. First, Humes inaccurately identifies Bill O'Reilly, who commented on the case, twice as a "Cable News Network" or "CNN" pundit. (pp. 211 and 224.) For example, "Within days after the lawsuit was filed, Bill O'Reilly, CNN's most popular and highest-paid pundit, dedicated a segment to the controversy in Dover." (p. 224.) This might be surprising to CNN, since O'Reilly is a FOX News fixture, and was at the time of Kitzmiller's filing, trial and decision.

Second, Humes erroneously refers to the author of The God Delusion (reviewed here July 13, 2008), as "Robert Dawkins". (p. 237.) Humes seems to know this is inaccurate, as he also refers to Dr. Dawkins as "Richard Dawkins" later in the same book. (p. 286.)

Third, a chapter begins, "Seven the [sic] of the nine board members faced challenges in the election...." (p. 248.) No further comment is necessary.

Accordingly, the adage about throwing stones from a glass house seems apropos.

In any event, Humes has written the definitive text to date about this important case, a modern-day Scopes trial, which as Humes astutely observes, is actually Scopes in reverse. Kitzmiller sought a ban of any teaching, explanation or challenge concerning the origin of life or the origin of species other than Darwinistic evolution from the Dover schools. Evolutionary purity is now the order of the day.

Praising the Good (An Occasional Series).

2009-05-20T22:44:00.000-07:00

Regardless of one's philosophical or theological views, one has to be impressed with Dr. William Lane Craig's accomplishments. Whether it's the multiple doctorates, the voluminous writings, or the formidable debates (see, e.g., my immediately preceding post), Dr. Craig has achieved much. And he hasn't done it alone. He lauds his wife, Jan:

"And it was at Wheaton that my vision began to focus on presenting the gospel in the context of giving an intellectual defense of the faith, to appeal not only to the heart but also to the head, as well. And so I determined that I would go on to seminary for further training.

"But, my senior year, in chapel, we heard a speaker who challenged us, before going on to further education, to take a couple of years out, and to wring out the sponge, so to speak, that had been soaking up all that knowledge, and to work with university students while we were still about the same age.

"And so I joined the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ for 2 years, and was assigned to Northern Illinois University. And that was where I met my wife Jan. She was a graduate of the University of North Dakota where she had come to faith in Christ. And she had a similar vision for her life of evangelism and discipleship.

"And as we worked at NIU together, she with gals and I with the guys, leading students to Christ and discipling them to walk with the Lord, we fell in love. And we decided that we would be more effective if we joined forces and became a team.

"And it was also at that time [while working on his first master's degree] that I began to see what an invaluable asset the Lord had given me in Jan. I remember I came home from classes one day, and found her at the kitchen table with all the catalogs and schedules and papers spread out in front of her and she said, '[L]ook! I’ve figured out how you can get two Masters degrees at the same time that it would normally take to get one! All you have to do is take overloads every semester, go to all full-time summer school and do all these other things, and you can do two MAs in the time it takes to do one!'

"And I thought, whoa! Are you sure you really want to make the commitment it takes to do this kind of thing? And she said, 'Yeah! Go for it!' And it was then I began to see that God had given me a very special woman who was my supporter – my cheerleader – and who really believed in me. And as long as she believed in me, that gave me the confidence to dream bigger dreams, and to take on challenges that I had never thought of before.

"As graduation from Trinity neared, Jan and I were sitting one evening at the supper table in our little campus apartment, talking about what to do after graduation. Neither of us had any clear leading or inclination of what we should do next.

"So Jan said to me, 'Well, if money were no object, what would you really like to do next?' I replied, 'If money were no object, what I’d really like to do is go to England and do a doctorate under John Hick.'

“'Who’s he?' she asked.

“'Oh, he’s this famous British philosopher who’s written extensively on arguments for the existence of God,' I explained. 'If I could study with him, I could develop a cosmological argument for God’s existence.'

"But it hardly seemed a realistic idea.

"The next evening at supper Jan handed me a slip of paper with John Hick’s address on it. 'I went to the library today and found out that he’s at the University of Birmingham in England,' she said. 'Why don’t you write him a letter and ask him if you can do a doctoral thesis under him on the cosmological argument?'

"What a woman! So I did, and to our amazement and delight Professor Hick wrote back saying he’d be very pleased to supervise my doctoral work on that subject. So it was an open door!

"As Jan and I neared the completion of my doctoral studies in Birmingham, our future path was again unclear to us. I had sent out a number of applications for teaching positions in philosophy at American universities but had received no bites. We didn’t know what to do.
I remember it like yesterday. We were sitting at the supper table in our little house outside Birmingham, and Jan suddenly said to me, 'Well, if money were no object, what would you really like to do next?'

"I laughed because I remembered how the Lord had used her question to guide us in the past. I had no trouble answering the question. 'If money were no object, what I’d really like to do is go to Germany and study under Wolfhart Pannenberg.'

“'Who’s he?'

“'Oh, he’s this famous German theologian who’s defended the resurrection of Christ historically,' I explained. 'If I could study with him, I could develop a historical apologetic for the resurrection of Jesus.'

"Our conversation drifted to other subjects, but Jan later told me that my remark had just lit a fire under her. The next day while I was at the university, she slipped away to the library and began to research grants-in-aid for study at German universities. Most of the leads proved to be defunct or otherwise inapplicable to our situation. But there were two grants she found that were possibilities. You can imagine how surprised I was when she sprung them on me!

"I am so thankful to be married to a woman who is tremendously resourceful, tremendously talented and energetic, who could have pursued an independent career in any number of areas, but instead, she has chose to wed her aspirations to mine, and to make it her goal to make me the most effective person I can be, for Christ. And she has been like my right arm in ministry over these many years. And it is a tremendous privilege to be a team with a person like that.
And you young men, I would encourage you, if you marry, to find a gal who shares your vision, not some independent vision, but who is interested in aligning herself with you, and pursuing together a common vision and goal that will draw you [together], so that you will avoid the growing separateness that so often creeps into marriages."

via: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/is-it-ok-for-christians-to-marry-non-christians/

Book Review: Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan.

2009-05-13T15:40:00.000-07:00

Grape-Nuts isn't either.

Like the cereal that doesn't literally live up to its name, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan (moderated by William F. Buckley, Jr., edited by Paul Copan) is neither a debate nor a book in a literal sense.

Not A Debate

It isn't really a debate because while Dr. Craig seems anxious to engage in verbal combat, Dr. Crossan isn't. Dr. Craig employs traditional debating tactics, such as setting up contentions with support, and then chides Dr. Crossan for not rebutting them (called "drops" in debate parlance). Dr. Craig laments after the debate, "Fully expecting these points to be vigorously disputed by Dr. Crossan, I came to the debate prepared to defend each of them; but Dr. Crossan, to my surprise, failed to contest a single piece of evidence which I adduced in support of the four main facts." (p. 163.) Dr. Craig continues: "Again, I came to the debate fully expecting a lively exchange concerning these presuppositions, but my preparation proved superfluous, as Dr. Crossan made almost no effort to defend his presuppositions." (p. 167.)

As Dr. Craig is essentially correct in his criticism (and Dr. Crossan even seems to concede that he was more interested in a dialogue [see, p. 71; pp. 154-55]), this curious one-sided scenario approximated a boxing match where only one participant made any effort to punch or even defend.

Further, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? isn't a mere transcription of a debate. For example, Dr. Craig's "Opening Address" contained 25 footnotes. I doubt the audience at Moody Memorial Church in Chicago heard them (mostly citations).

Finally, the "debate" between Drs. Crossan and Craig is sandwiched between an introduction by the editor, Paul Copan, and various essays by New Testament scholars, including Ben Witherington III and Marcus Borg, which foment some intriguing exchanges and some zingers. For example, Crossan embarrasses Witherington who surprisingly misquotes Crossan as saying, "Easter never happened. Easter always happens." (p. 141.) To the contrary, Crossan actually said, "Emmaus never happened. Emmaus always happens." (p. 121; p. 153.)

Not a Book

It's not really a book because it is based, in part, on an audio recording of the exchange at Moody Memorial. "The book version of the debate between John Dominic Crossan and Willliam Lane Craig is based on the audio version available from Pearl Publishing Company...." (p. 4.)

In other words, the book does, at least partially, try to hew to what was said at the debate. It contains moderator Buckley's "Introduction to the Debate" (p. 24); the "Opening Addresses" (p. 25-39); rebuttals (pp. 40- 47); a "Dialogue" (pp. 48-67); and then "Closing Statements", including one from the moderator (pp. 68-73.) Moreover, as noted previously, the text contains essays from four scholars who did not participate in the earlier "debate", which makes it more like a compilation than a unified book. Nevertheless, these essays often used the "debate" as a springboard to thoughtful interactions.

I'll close with some remarks about Dr. Craig's approach. While he doesn't have formal legal training (but does hold two earned doctorates), Dr. Craig argues in a very lawyerly fashion. In his opening statement, he made "two main contentions": (I) "The real Jesus rose from the dead in confirmation of his radical personal claims to divinity"; and (II) If Contention I is false--that is, if Jesus did not rise--then Christianity is a fairy tale which no rational person should believe." (p. 25.)

In turn, he supported these contentions with "four facts" (and those with evidences or reasonings): (1) "After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in his personal tomb" (p. 26); (2) "On the Sunday following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers" (p. 27); (3) "On multiple occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead" (p. 28); and (4) "The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every reason not to." (p. 28).

Evidenced by this occasion (and others), Dr. Craig has established himself as a formidable debater. There's no doubt he outdistanced Dr. Crossan on points here. Interestingly, Dr. Craig is so skilled in this type of forum that a recent piece has been written (by a lawyer, no less), on how to debate him: http://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/advice-for-debating-william-lane-craig/.

Given his mode of argumentation, and an ostensible objective to persuade outsiders (see, e.g., pp. 178-79), Dr. Craig surprises when says in his concluding essay (after the debate) that he is not "an evidentialist, if by that term is meant someone who holds that Christian faith is based on evidence." (p. 171.) Dr. Craig writes in this vein, "I see faith in Christ as what epistemologists called a properly basic belief which is grounded in the witness of God's Holy Spirit." (p. 171.)

Book Review: 40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin and Other Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania (2007).

2009-04-30T22:58:00.000-07:00

"[B]ut he's got high hopes, he's got high hopes".
--Frank Sinatra, "High Hopes"

I had high hopes for 2007's 40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin and Other Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania by Matthew Chapman.

The book purported to cover a collision of origin-of-life issues (such as Intelligent Design v. Darwinism), religion and law in a modern-day Scopes trial—a case called Kitzmiller v. Dover, which was tried before a Pennsylvania federal district court judge for six weeks in 2005.

Unfortunately, the hopes were never realized for two primary reasons.

First, the bias permeating the text was oppressive, distracting and eventually comical. The author, Matthew Chapman, admits his bias upfront as the great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin. (p. 3.) However, even that admission didn’t prepare me for the abject prejudices that followed. For example, like he customarily does for people he agrees with, he portrays the lawyers representing the plaintiffs (those challenging an Intelligent Design policy in a Pennsylvania school district) as geniuses at their craft, phenomenal family people, and (for the most part) like GQ models. “Katzkee, a tall handsome man, soft spoken, and civilized, was the scholar in the crowd, an expert on constitutional law, and the lawyer who would contribute the constitutional arguments in the final document briefing the judge on the plaintiffs’ case. He also looked as if he had just stepped out of the pages of GQ.” (p. 53; emphasis supplied.)

By contrast, when describing the intellectual father of the Intelligent Design movement, Phillip Johnson, Chapman refers to him dismissively as “a retired law professor from San Francisco.” (p. 142.) Chapman fails to mention that Johnson clerked at the US Supreme Court, authored one of the most influential criminal law casebooks, and was a tenured professor at UC Berkeley’s law school (Boalt Hall). Likewise, Chapman sneers: “If the plaintiffs’ legal team was a well-oiled collegial machine, the defense was a dysfunctional family with a frequently absent father.” (p. 54.) How’s that for objective reporting?

Second, because Chapman was ill-equipped to report the legal issues (he states he has no legal training, as “a high school dropout” [p. 84]), he never properly frames the legal questions before the court. Chapman writes: “Kitzmiller v. Dover had two distinct legal themes. One was the story of neighbors in conflict in Dover, the other the clash of opposing scientific and philosophical views on the origin and development of life.” (p. 38.) Similarly, he fails to provide adequate references to the record, instead furnishing snippets too narrow and too isolated to give the reader full understanding of the trial. As a result, this book stands far from a work of legal reportage as I hoped.

It’s a shame.

Book Review: There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007).

2009-04-24T16:29:00.000-07:00

One of my property law professors once complained about legal writers who circle around a point for many prefatory revolutions before making it, like dogs encircling a resting place before laying down. Thus, he would have loved the writing in Antony Flew's (with Roy Abraham Varghese) There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

Surprisingly concise at 158 pages (sans appendices), There is a God gets right to the heart of the matter. It explains the philosophic basis for Flew's changing his mind about God's existence. At its core, Flew now finds the design argument persusive, although he recasts it a bit.

"Perhaps the most popular and intuitively plausible argument for God's existence is the so-called argument from design. According to this argument, the design that is apparent in nature suggests the existence of a cosmic Designer. I have often stressed that this is actually an argument to design from order, as such arguments proceed from the perceived order in nature to show evidence of design, and thus, a Designer. Although I was once sharply critical of the argument to design, I have since come to see that, when correctly formulated, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God." (p. 95; emphasis in original.)

Notably, Flew characterizes his arrival at this conclusion as "a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith." (p. 93.) He stresses that his "discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, wihout any reference to supernatural phenomena." (p. 93.)

In roughly the first half of There is a God, entitled "My Denial of the Divine", Flew provides his athestic background primarly as an academic and author, and in the second half, entitled "My Discovery of the Divine", he explains how he came to believe that God exists.

Christians, for example, should not be so quick to adopt Flew as one of their own, however. Flew stresses that he makes no claim to "any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous." (p. 93.) On the other hand, Flex repeats an intriguing line: "As I have said more than once, no other religion [besides Christianity] enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!" (p. 157; see also pp. 185-86.) Flew continues: "I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true." (p. 185.)

In this vein, Flew includes an excellent appendix from New Testament scholar N.T. Wright that succinctly addresses these core questions, "How Do We Know that Jesus Existed?"; "What Grounds Are There for Claiming from the Texts, That Jesus Is God Incarnate?"; and "What Evidence Is There for the Resurrection of Christ?" (pp. 187-213.) Flew responds: "I am very impressed with Bishop Wright's approach, which is absolutely fresh. He presents the case for Christianity as something new for the first time....It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful." (p. 213.)

Accordingly, it's a compelling combination to find two building blocks of the Christian religion in a single, lean volume. Flew outlines the architecture for the existence of God, and Wright sketches it for Christianity. Thus, one doesn't have to go round-and-round with redundancies or irrelevancies--like following a dog encircling his mat--to get to the heart of these crucial inquiries.

Adventure Review: Long Beach Grand Prix.

2009-04-20T22:36:00.000-07:00

"Goose knuckles."

That's how one young man described the phenomenon appearing on his hand as the IndyCars screamed by us this past weekend at the Long Beach Grand Prix.

Like hockey, this is another sporting event that doesn't really translate to television. It has to be experienced in the flesh to be believed. The overpowering sounds of open-wheel racing evoke visceral responses unlike anything else.

In addition to the race, the promoters really know how to put on a first-rate show. For example, one race was inaugurated with what appeared to be an immense military cargo jet buzzing the crowd about a couple of hundred feet up while turning its wings perpendicularly to the ground, which immediately followed sky divers with one unfurling a huge US flag. Complementing the contests, the organizers had commandeered a vast swath of Long Beach (including the Convention Center) with myriad other exhibitions, entertainment and experiences.

This is a world-class event, not to be missed, if you are in Southern California for the 36th installment of the Long Beach Grand Prix next April.

Summiting, Part III.

2009-04-14T23:28:00.000-07:00

At oral argument, my certified-appellate-specialist counterpart responded to a justice's question by evidently abandoning his first of two primary arguments.

Seizing on this curious concession, I pinned him on this point and then advanced to his second contention.

The next day, I received a copy of a letter he sent to the justices. In the missive, he attempted to retract his concession imploring the court to consider his first claimed error. To gain the court's benevolence, he asserted that he wasn't prepared for the question and his remark was ill-considered and hasty.

Incredibly, about 14 days later, I received a second letter he later sent to the justices. In the second correspondence, he attempted to “clarify” his first letter, again saying that he wanted the court to rule in his client's favor on his first argument.

Three bites at the proverbial apple. That was a first.

Summiting, Part II.

2009-04-08T21:10:00.000-07:00

In Summiting (Part I), I provided excerpts from my Respondent's brief:
http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2009/01/summiting.html

In this brief, I adopted an alpine climbing theme and started with a Nelson Mandela quote: “After climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb.”

To switch things up at oral argument (since it's a good idea not to repeat one's brief), I quoted Randy Pausch, the late Carnegie-Mellon professor, who alighted the world with his "Last Lecture" viral video and book.

As Dr. Pausch said, "If there is an elephant in the room, introduce it." I then posited that the trial court's statement of decision, spanning 28 pages--replete with evidentiary citations and credibility determinations--was the proverbial "elephant in the room" in this case. Appellant could not get around the myriad exhibits and testimony relied upon in the document, as much as he wished to ignore it.

In its opinion today (affirming in favor of my client 3-0), the appellate court adopted my arguments that (1) Appellant had waived his insufficiency of the evidence argument by not citing all of the evidence favoring the decision (or even acknowledging its existence in the statement of decision); and (2) even if Appellant hadn't waived the argument, the evidence cited in the statement of decision more than amply supported the judgment.

At oral argument, Appellant's counsel (a certified appellate specialist) in part tried to undermine the trial court's determination by claiming that the trial court got a fact wrong. When it was my turn, I corrected this allegation by noting that the trial court nowhere made such a finding or relied on said "fact", but rather based its ruling for that issue on seven (7) other evidences, which I cited from the statement of decision--the "elephant in the room". You could have heard a pin drop when that evisceration was complete. Not surprisingly, these seven evidences were quoted in the opinion--with enumeration.

Book Review: Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (2008).

2009-04-05T15:57:00.000-07:00

John W. Loftus’ Why I Became an Atheist: a Former Preacher Rejects Christianity doesn't really blaze new ground, but it does cover a lot of it.

In fact, this comprehensiveness is a key distinctive that separates it from the work of the "New Atheist" trio, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris (the "Trio"). The other two distinctives are its author's credentials and candor.

Comprehensiveness

Why I Became an Atheist is a serious, comprehensive critique of Christianity (especially conservative Protestantism [see, e.g., p. 12]). Loftus writes, "In it I present a cumulative case argument against Christianity." (p. 12.) Exhibiting its expansive scope, it includes chapters or lengthy discussions on “the problem of evil” (theodicy), philosophical arguments about the existence of God, the origin of life, textual criticism, prayer, the historicity of the biblical record, prophesy, the existence of hell, and living as an atheist, among many other topics.

I’ve read works from today’s big four religion critics: the Trio, plus Bart D. Ehrman—whom I’ve heard amusingly referred to collectively as the “Four Horsemen”. Loftus' book explores topics found in their works, which emphasize certain critiques of religion.

For example, Ehrman recently published a book on theodicy, God’s Problem, and Dawkins largely advocates for an evolutionary rather than theistic explanation for the origin of life in numerous books, such as The God Delusion. Ehrman also has authored books closely examining the New Testament record, such as Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted, covering material far beyond anything in Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris'. Uniquely, Loftus provides a taste of all these critiques in his over 400-page, densely-packed tome. In other words, if one were look for a recent survey text for atheistic argumentation, this book would more than suffice. Then, if one wanted to drill down into areas of the other author's expertise, then one could follow up with the respective expert, say Ehrman on New Testament critical scholarship or Dawkins on Darwinism.

I have read that Loftus posits that his "Outsider Test for Faith" (Chapter 4) constitutes an innovation, but I found it just another challenge to employ critical thinking, which a serious Christian should do in any event, and perhaps a recasting of the burden of proof--placing it on the believer.

Credentials

Unlike the Trio, Loftus holds credentials from within the evangelical academic community. He obtained M.A. and M.Div. degrees from Lincoln Christian Seminary in Lincoln, Illinois. (p. 13.) Thereafter, he received a Th.M. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School ("TEDS") under the mentoring of Dr. William Lane Craig (p. 13), now a professor at Biola University. Additionally, Loftus "spent a year and a half in a Ph.D. program at Marquette University with a double major in theology and ethics... and taught classes for several Christian colleges...." (p. 13.)

However, this Dr. Craig connection leads to a critique. The book seems largely personalized to refute Dr. Craig--his former mentor, even though Loftus denies it at the outset. (p. 14.) Loftus curiously includes incidents occurring in class with Dr. Craig (his former professor) and personal interactions with him. A picture with Dr. Craig at Loftus' graduation from TEDS is even reproduced. (p. 14.) Moreover, large swaths of text are disproportionately dedicated to setting forth Dr. Craig's apologetic argumentations, only to endeavor to knock them down. While I recognize that Dr. Craig is a leading Christian apologist, he is far from the only one now or before. For example, Loftus does not similarly attack prominent evangelical apologist Dr. Norman L. Geisler's arguments with the same frequency or ferocity as directed to Dr. Craig's. This omission is underscored by Loftus' observation that Dr. Geisler has produced "more than sixty apologetics books, including The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics." (p. 11.)

Loftus interestingly points out that Dr. Geisler "is recommending this book of mine to his students." (p. 11.) Loftus also quotes Dr. Geisler's review of Why I Became An Atheist, which review I endorse: "[I]t 'is an honest and open account of how a Christian became an atheist. Seldom are unbelievers so candid and open. Second, every Christian--let alone Christian apologists--can learn some valuable lessons from it on how to treat wayward believers. Third, it is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face.'" (p. 11.)

Candor

As Dr. Geisler observed, this book is remarkably "candid and open" (p. 11). To Loftus' credit, and perhaps discredit, he provides the impetus for his "de-conversion." (Chapter 1). Contrasting his de-conversion from one based solely upon a rejection of the evidence itself, Loftus candidly admits "there were three major circumstances that happened in [his] life that changed his thinking." (p. 24.) At its locus was a moral failure followed by mistreatment by the church. (pp. 24-30.)

He tries to answer anticipated critiques by writing, "While the things I have just written [about his personal experiences] might explain to some degree why my thinking has changed, I want to stress the fact that my thinking has indeed changed. You cannot explain away my present thinking by pointing to these experiences I've had in my life." (pp. 31-32.) Despite Loftus' protestations, I couldn't help but conclude that much of Loftus' book that follows Chapter 1's personal story constitutes post-hoc rationalizations for his rejection of Christianity. Nevertheless, I do concur with Loftus that his arguments must be dealt with on their merits--regardless of how Loftus got there. (p. 32.)

"That's When We Were Going to Get Married", Part II.

2009-03-30T12:48:00.000-07:00

One avenue I pursued at trial was to show that the purported will or trust amendment was not merely “transcribed” from the decedent’s dictation (as the Respondent claimed), but was actually drafted by the Respondent. (Generally, California law invalidates testamentary documents benefiting such drafters).

One my clients served as a university professor, with a Ph.D. in linguistics, in addition to being familiar with his father’s speech and writing patters over several decades. After laying this foundation (and introducing exemplars of his father’s communications), I asked him if the language contained in the subject handwritten note (which Respondent admitted was her own handwriting) could have been his father’s. Focusing on the numerous grammatical, spelling and word choice errors, he opined it could not be the product of his father’s speech or writing. For example, the note used “dismiss” and “dismissal” in place of “death” in two places. Because the other side had not served a demand for exchange of expert witness information, and this witness (the son) had been on the witness list from the beginning, my opponent could only watch as this damaging testimony came in without rebuttal.

In the ruling, the trial court found the decedent “did not dictate” the disputed document “based on the” fact that “the language … contain[ed] spelling and grammar errors in addition to the use of incorrect words” which the court found in contrast to how the decedent communicated.

Nice bonus to have a client who can offer salient expert testimony.

"That's When We Were Going to Get Married", Part I.

2009-03-27T09:37:00.001-07:00

On my cross-examination of the Respondent, she blurted out, "That's when we were going to get married in Las Vegas."

And that's when I knew we were going to win this trial.

By way of background, the Respondent was a caregiver to a gentleman north of 90 years of age. At the very end of his life, while in the endstages of lung cancer (and suffering from hypoxia), he had allegedly signed two documents which she posited changed his will or trust to give her one-third of his considerable estate.

When we subpoenaed this gentleman's bank records we uncovered that he had signed numerous checks to the caregiver towards the end of his life, which she cashed. These checks included one for $20,000 and one for $1,350 (apart from her wages). In her deposition, she gave an explanation for the $20,000 and claimed that she couldn't remember what the $1,350 one was for.

At trial, she changed her story about the $20,000, and then I impeached her with her deposition testimony and earlier interrogatory responses.

Regarding the $1,350 check, I showed it to her on the stand and expected to get the same response that she allegedly didn't know its purpose.

Instead, I got a gift.

As noted above, she said that it was for their hotel expenses in Las Vegas to get married. Given that the case involved issues of undue influence, I pursued the matter. I had remembered from earlier discovery responses (under oath) that she was married, so I asked her, "You were married at the time, right?"

She said she hadn't been with a man for years.

I replied, "That's not my question; you were married when you went to Las Vegas with this 91-year-old man thinking that he was going to marry you, correct?"

She hedged: "I was separated."

I persisted: "Again, that's not my question; you were not divorced at the time you went to Las Vegas with this 91-year old man thinking he was going to marry a woman he could not legally marry, true?"

She finally conceded that he was not legally divorced and hence still legally married.

My trial instincts impelled me to inquire just a bit further about the Vegas trip (even though I didn't know the precise answer to the next question, because I quickly calculated the risk was minimal to my side to ask). After she said they travelled by bus to Vegas and stayed only a weekend, I asked where they stayed in Las Vegas, thinking the only accomodations that could reasonably explain this huge charge would be the Venetian, Bellagio or the like. She incredibly testified: "the Super 8". So, $1,350 was the alleged charge to stay at the "Super 8" in Las Vegas for a couple of nights. Obviously implausible. I wondered, but didn't ask, if the charge also included bullet-proof vests for them.

We received the ruling this week. Relying heavily on the complete evisceration of her credibility at trial via the cross-examination, the Court declared the purported will/trust amendments to be invalid, and ordered the money the caregiver "wrongfully" took from the decedent returned
--multiplied by a factor of two pursuant to California Probate Code Section 859--and then ordered that my clients (the gentleman's two children) receive their attorneys' fees from the Respondent.

Part II will involve how I turned one client into an expert witness on linguistics in the trial.

Book Review: A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity by Bill O'Reilly.

2009-03-20T22:08:00.000-07:00

Bill O’Reilly’s “simple and straightforward.”

Just ask him. That’s how he characterizes himself in his 2008 book, A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity. (p. 59.) I’ll resolve the mystery at the outset: the title comes from how his exasperated teacher described him in elementary school. (p. 3.)

I prefer O’Reilly’s self-description to the teacher’s because it frames the thoughts that follow. While the book mostly operates as a memoir, it is interrupted with large sections containing O’Reilly’s “simple and straightforward” views of the world on such topics as politics (chapter 1 and passim), evil (chapter 4), and religion (chapter 5).

For example, I found O’Reilly’s understanding of Christianity (he’s Roman Catholic) to be rather startling: “There’s a reason the cross is the symbol of Christianity. It is a powerful statement: that a good man suffered for me, that a just God was looking out for me, and if I lived a good life, I would be rewarded after death.” (pp. 74-75; emphasis added.) Likewise, “The endgame, of course, is to earn God’s reward in the afterlife by rejecting evil. And in Catholicism and other Christian religions, the actions of Jesus demonstrate how to do that.” (p. 88.)

On one’s legacy: “[Y]our legacy will be defined by two simple [there’s that word again] questions: “How many wrongs did you right, and how many people did you help when they needed it?” (p. 51.)

In the midst of this quasi-memoir, an entire chapter (“Mysteries of the Universe”) is oddly dedicated to O’Reilly’s random musings about mostly antiquated cultural relics, which I could only conclude constituted filler material to stretch the manuscript to an acceptable length for a hardcover book. In this chapter, O’Reilly ponders such “mysteries” as “Captain Kangaroo”, the 1965 song “Hang On Sloopy” by the McCoys, Vice President from the Nixon Administration Spiro Agnew, the “Mummy” from the 1932 movie starring Boris Karloff, 1960s character “Tiny Tim”, long since cancelled tv shows "The Beverly Hillbillies", "Green Acres" and "Gilligan’s Island", and the 1970 film Love Story, among other irrelevancies (pp. 217-21).

When the book reads as a memoir it improves. It contains many intriguing aspects to O’Reilly’s background. For instance, he taught high school for two years in Miami. He played football in college. He organized adventure trips with his friends. He includes stories about his climb through the ranks of television news, with the constant being O’Reilly’s determination in the face of extreme resistance. He seems to live fearlessly. He sees his purpose as almost messianic. "I can wield the pen and speak my mind without fear. These gifts were given to me, I believe, by a higher power." (p. 111.) Similarly, “When people ask me what drives my fierce work ethic, why I work so hard when I don’t have to anymore, I simply tell them that I’m still on a quest to make sure others get treated fairly.” (p. 238.)

Leaving the memoir track again, the book contains "self-help" tips that fit neatly within his own characterization of being "simple" such as grooming (p. 249), eating healthily (pp. 245-48), helping others (p. 239), thinking first (p. 243), and practicing (p. 243) are important.

If you are able to parse through the lesser portions, you can mine some funny vignettes (and some understanding) about this cultural force.

Justification as Legal Term.

2009-03-18T11:34:00.001-07:00

In a recent interview, theologian N.T. Wright once again showed the interrelatedness of law and theology:

"I understand justification as basically a law-court term, where it means the judge’s creative declaration that a person is ‘in the right’ in terms of the lawcourt."

via: http://trevinwax.com/2009/01/13/interview-with-nt-wright-responding-to-piper-on-justification/