The intro to my first book

Reason and Reasonability

The Search for Reasonable Doubt

Introduction

"If I put this knit cap on, who am I?" he asked. "I'm still Johnnie Cochran with a knit cap ... and O.J. Simpson in a knit cap from two blocks away is still O.J. Simpson. It's no disguise. It's no disguise. It makes no sense. It doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." —

This is the famous rhyming rhetoric of one Johnnie Cochran, defense attorney.

The Scopes trial, Nuremberg, Oscar Wilde, George Reeves, Timothy McVeigh, the trial of Leopold & Loeb, the Black Dahlia, O.J. Simpson, Harold Shipman, Dr. Ossian Sweet, Bob Crane, the Hurricane, and JonBenét. Arguably the most famous, and infamous, cases of the 20^th century. The murders, of Elizabeth Short (Black Dahlia) and Bob Crane (Hogan's Heroes), still unsolved today. The staged trial of John T. Scopes by the ACLU. The highly disputed acquittal of Orenthal James Simpson (SF 49ers RB). As well as, the highly disputed conviction of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter (American middleweight boxer). Consider these cases for a moment. If you would have asked anybody on the streets, at the times of these trials, for their opinions, you would have gotten an earful for sure. Sometimes unanimous opinions and other times contrasting and far spanning.

    No doubt, you can easily remember some of these trials yourself. In fact, you may have had very strong opinions on what the verdicts should have been. I can remember people being thoroughly convinced of the guilt of some of these infamous defendants before the cases had even come to an end or without even having had the same facts as the actual participants of the trials. Naturally though, regardless of actually being part of the courtroom proceedings, we sometimes genuinely make conclusions based on the evidence that we are privy to, in order to make our own convictions or acquittals. Yes, we are sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, that the defendant is guilty, or innocent, or whatever.

    'Beyond a reasonable doubt', that's what is used in court right? That's how someone is found guilty or innocent, 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Actually, when you think about it, we really do make a large majority of our decisions, throughout the day, based on this idea. We usually don't think about it but, we often do it, nonetheless. For example, every day that you leave your house for work, you leave home with enough time to get to work on time, so you aren't late. My guess is that, you don't leave home two hours earlier than yesterday, just in case there are several huge traffic jams. No, even though that may be a possibility, you still don't consider it as a possible option. You know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it will not take an additional two hours to get to work today, and you're right. In fact, I'd suggest that you use this philosophy just about every day.

    Now, if we, as people, do indeed let this idea dictate our day-to-day, menial, and mundane life decisions (If in fact unknowingly.) as well as, our criminal justice cases then, the question should be posed, "What about the truly HUGE life decisions?" Like, for example, "Will my fiancée be a good partner for me?" Or, "Is our President going to utterly destroy our country?" Or, "Does God exist?" Or, even more important, "Can I trust God with my life?" Is it still applicable? Does it still function? Well, I think we all rest a little easier at night when, after asking big questions like these, we have thought through them and have accumulated a sufficient amount of evidence to make a good decision. In fact, you probably do this often by recruiting a friend to help you think through tough issues like these. I would like to suggest that you can know whether you've made a good choice in a future spouse, you can know whether the Commander in Chief is heading us on an irreparable trajectory, and you can even know certainties about God. That is, unless you have already predetermined the outcome of the case, in advance.

    That brings us to the probing question of, "Is the amount or size of evidence that you are asking for to make your decision, reasonable?"

Are you being reasonable? If you are looking for a spouse, are you being reasonable? or are you looking for someone who is perfect? If you doubt God's existence, are you being reasonable in how much evidence you require?

 

ALLAHU AKBAR! or The Atheist Obfuscation

Are Atheists Trying To Trick You?

Obfuscation. Purposeful clouding. Fooling. Deceiving. A smoke screen.
Chances are good that you have heard about the Fort Hood Massacre. Where the killer, reportedly, shouted the phrase Allahu Akbar (usually translated as God Is Great link). However, I assume that the chances aren't good that you have heard about the book titled "god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" (yes it's written just like that).

Allahu Akbar does not mean god is great or God is great. It means Allah is great. (I'll note why that is important later.) Notice that the author bails on proper English grammar only to emphasize his dishonor of God. All words in a title should be capitalized. Of course, he could say that he did it to denote that he was not speaking of a specific god. Yet, he could just make that clear in his preface. This book was written by the Great christopher hitchens. See what I mean? Kinda sneaky? Kinda underhanded? (My computer is even demanding that I correct these errors. Smart computer. Good boy.) You would pick up on this right away if you were familiar with the spewing, venomous, sledgehammer rhetoric that Hitchens uses. (watch his rhetoric now or here)

Sneaky and underhanded. That brings me to my next point. Rhetoric. Rhetoric is best and most often used by lawyers. Clarence Darrow's defense of two boys that pleaded guilty to the wanton and guiltless murder of a young neighborhood boy, which they committed because they were bored, is a classic example. see here (The prosecutor labels the murder as cold-blooded. How else could you label it?) He says things like,

"Why need the state's attorney ask for something that never before has been demanded?"(How do you answer that?)

and

"I have never yet tried a case where the state's attorney did not say that it was the most cold-blooded, inexcusable, premeditated case that ever occurred. If this was murder, there never was such a murder...Lawyers are apt to say that." (Accusing opponent of using rhetoric.)

But this is what really good lawyers do. Clarence Darrow was a really good lawyer. But, of course, we know from common sense that when a defense attorney knows that their clients are guilty and advises them to plead innocent that their job is now to deceive twelve citizens and, if necessary, the judge. Using rhetoric is an excellent way to deceive people. It's more about the words you use and how they sound. It's more about how you say it and your body language. It's about making your opponents look stupid (straw man). It's more about the look, feel, and inherent power in your words than the raw unfettered logic in your argument. In Greece there was a famous orator (I can't recall his name) who would practice speaking, yes practice speaking, by putting pebbles or marbles in his mouth.

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.” -Nietzsche, The Gay Science.

Now, besides using rhetoric, Hitchens attempts to deceive his readers just in his title alone. The title is god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, stealing the title from the Muslim phrase. Well, in doing so, he paints all gods with the same religious brush. As Ravi Zacharias once said,

"Anyone who claims that all religions are the same betrays not only an ignorance of all religions but also a caricatured view of even the best known ones. "1

Though Christians do not know the exact name of their God, they do know that he has a name. After being robbed of its vowels by the Hebrew priests what we have left of God's name is YHWH, transliterated into English as JHVH. Looking familiar? Yes, Jehovah is the word we use as God's name. Jehovah encapsulates Father, Son, and Spirit as one God. Now with Islam you could say that Allah is just god in Arabic but, the Quran says in Chapter 20,

"Allah! There is no God save Him. His are the most beautiful names. (8) Hath there come unto thee the story of Moses? (9) When he saw a fire and said unto his folk: Wait! Lo! I see a fire afar off. Peradventure I may bring you a brand therefrom or may find guidance at the fire. (10) And when he reached it, he was called by name: O Moses! (11) Lo! I, even I, am thy Lord, So take off thy shoes, for lo! thou art in the holy valley of Tuwa. (12) And I have chosen thee, so hearken unto that which is inspired. (13) Lo! I, even I, am Allah, There is no God save Me. So serve Me and establish worship for My remembrance."

You see they say Allah is God, not God is God or Allah is Allah, but what's important is that Jehovah is not Allah. So when Hitchens says we should free ourselves from religion and uses 9/11 as a case against religion he is trying to say that god is god and all religions have the same effect. That is, evil, as defined by his relative and subjective morality given by his conscience and delivered to his mind to be recreated by his hardend heart.

So much deceit found in just the title of a book.


1. Doug Powell, Christian Apologetics (Nashville: Holman Reference) 114.

The SIMPLE Question of Evil

Temptation is a mandatory byproduct of ones free will.

Free will is necessary for the reality of love to exist.

If love is forced then love is false.

Sin was inevitable. Adam and/or Eve would have eventually sinned at one point in their living upon the earth.

God knew this and created mankind anyway. Now, every time that you've sinned you had an out.

God did this in order that He may rescue the humble by opening their eyes to the Good News of His experiencing the requirement for sin (though He had none of His own) which is death and in the process making enough payment for the worlds sin.

Is God A Murderer?

God can't steal.

He owns everything.

God can't murder.

All life is from Him.

God simply takes

back what He gives.

#2

No man can stand;

Before the Glory and Righteousness

of our Omnipotent Creator.

Let alone utter one solitary syllable;

in any pathetic and vain

attempt at proclaiming their own innocence.