Examination of the "is-ought" fallacy and its implications on the nature of the epistemic warrant of ethics (part 2)

     So, previously, I talked about some well respected thinkers' assessment of the "is-ought" fallacy (part 1) here.
     As Dr. McDurmon reiterated and as Hume and Moore actually believe, when one is entirely consistent with (atheistic) naturalism, all three thinkers are exactly correct in understanding that one cannot derive any notion of an "ought" from an "is." In other words, we cannot logically say that since little Johnny is Timothy's son (is/indicative), and therefore, Johnny must obey his father (ought/imperative). This is further confirm when Moore rightly understood that naturalism "offers no reason at all, far less any valid reason, for any ethical principle whatsoever; and in this it already fails to satisfy the requirement of Ethics."
     At this point, it is probably helpful to define what exactly I mean by "naturalism." Generally speaking, we can think of naturalism as subdivided into several different "strains."  Metaphysical (philosophical) naturalism from which you can derive moral naturalism, and methodological naturalism (science related).
     Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful (Rational Wiki). There is a lot to be said about methodological naturalism but I am going to focus more so on metaphysical naturalism in this post, although methodological naturalism does have relevance to this discussion as well.
     Metaphysical naturalism (MN) (or "ontological naturalism" / "philosophical naturalism" is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences. Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene (dependent) upon, nature. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism (Wikipedia).
     "Nature" in the sense that MN defines it necessarily excludes anything immaterial (e.g. God, logic etc..). It is crucial to understand how MN defines nature because the Christian view of nature is remarkably different in certain respects. If you ever studied science (chemistry, bio, physics) in college or high school, you will understand that science's inherent function can never study anything beyond the material, or "natural," realm.
     So, from a proper understanding of metaphysical naturalism, "nature" (as MN understands it) is purely physical and material, and never immaterial. Within MN, morals, ideas, emotions etc... are logically accounted for by regarding them as merely chemical reactions or physical movements of molecules in our brains etc... With this "naturalistic" understanding of morals, ideas etc... (anything immaterial), if they are simply chemical reactions, or movement of molecules, and if we understand that there is no such thing as an immaterial concept/object, the conclusion will necessarily follow that morals, ideas etc... are ultimately meaningless, arbitrary and are not under a transcendent standard. You can try putting it into a syllogism to test out how the propositional variables will logically lead to my conclusions.
     From this understanding and conclusion of MN, we can see how the "is-ought" statement really is a fallacy when looking at it from a purely MN point of view. Johnny obeying his father could simply be seen as a merely pragmatic thing to do (in order to survive etc...). Timothy knows more to keep Johnny safe and secure and to help him grow etc... So, there is some value in Johnny obeying his dad, but it is never regarded as an imperative. It is only regarded as a survival/evolutionary issue. If the immaterial doesn't exist, we have no basis for saying that Johnny must obey his father.
     If we look at a garden variety non-Christian, we see that MN is working in his mind and heart. From the Bible, we also see that he does have the natural law that was implanted in his heart from his birth (Rom 2:14-16). Related to MN, we see that the non-Christian is heavily influenced by evolution, and the "scientific" claims that there is no God. If there is no God, MN is necessarily true. So, in the non-Christian, we have three things that are in an inconsistent "harmony" with each other. The evolutionary worldview and from this, MN originates. And the natural law that God has implanted in a man's heart.   
     It is important to understand that this is the current state of every man who does not know God. And this is crucially important to help understand why the (R)2K doctrine and the way in which Escondido espouses natural law, while beneficial in a limited temporal sense, can never actually be a fully epistemologically sufficient means of arguing ethics.
      The (R)2K doctrine emphasizes heavily upon appealing to nature and attempting to convince a non-Christian on the basis of nature for various creational truths (marriage, man, woman, morals etc...). Yes, appealing on the basis of nature is necessary condition (A cannot occur without B). However, what all (R)2K proponents misunderstand is that simply appealing solely upon the basis of nature is NOT a sufficient condition (A guarantees B).
     This is why: I mentioned before how the natural man has three things in his heart and mind that are in inconsistent "harmony" with each other. The evolutionary worldview, the MN that flows from it, and the natural law that God gave him. Natural law does say all of these various creational truths, and from the beginning, natural man understands and in fact. ***knows*** these things. However, natural man is also influenced and affected by evolution and MN (and thus sin). Because of this (among other things), he cannot properly understand natural law.
     Because of this, there are several problems with the (R)2K understanding of appealing to natural man.

(1) (R)2K's insistence that the non-Christian man can consistently understand nature or at least certain parts of it is true (sometimes). However, (R)2K then overcompensates by then using natural man's proper understanding of nature as the de facto standard for the necessary and sufficient conditions of an argument.
 This methodology does not take into account the evolutionary worldview and MN that are at war (or are in inconsistent harmony) with the natural law in his heart. I mentioned how MN's understanding of nature is completely different from a Christian's understanding of nature. The presuppositions are entirely different. MN believes that nature is completely material. The Christian's understanding of nature includes both material and immaterial (natural law).
(R)2K fails to take this issue of entirely different presuppositional understandings of nature into account at all. 

(2) (R)2K's insistence that we appeal to what non-Christian man knows or understands "by nature" is of some value (very limited). Because of the natural law in their hearts, there is some intersection of agreement between what we as Christians understand about nature, and what non-Christians can understand about "nature". However, there are some subtle yet very significant problems.
      (a) I mentioned before about the issue of necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. It is necessary to bring up nature as a basis (as Christians properly understand it) for morals etc... However the fatal flaw in (R)2K is that they seriously misunderstand in thinking that something being necessary automatically means that it is sufficient.
      (b) When you appeal to nature, and to nature ONLY, although your conditions and conclusions about nature are correct, if (R)2K never actually deals with the transcendent basis behind nature (ie: God, the Bible), the arguments placed forth for the Christian position become exactly as arbitrary as the non-Christian's MN position. Therefore, the arguments are not sufficient.

     Christian: "I am right about nature and how things should be ordered."
     Non-Christian: "Well, I dont accept and don't agree with your statement about nature. What basis do you have to say that I am wrong and you are right?"
     Christian: "The natural law"
     Non-Christian: "Where does natural law come from? From my MN point of view, natural law is simply a figment of chemical reactions in my brain."
     Christian: ......... (since he can't use the Bible to refer to as the ultimate transcendent standard)


To in fact be unwilling to refer back to the Bible and the Triune God as the epistemic warrant for your conditions of natural law, morals etc..., and to simply stand behind your statement that natural law is true (which it is) without proper argument, you are simply asserting it without proof.

When you simply assert something without argument, you are being just as arbitrary as the non-Christian and committing question begging.

(3) Finally, part 2(b) really speaks to a larger issue of evidentialism and presuppositionalism. (R)2K will ardently say that they are being Van Tillian and presuppositionalist. But, simply asserting that you are these things doesn't mean that you actually are.

If we are to understand that we are not ***allowed*** to use the Bible when discussing ethics with a non-Christian, and we are to only appeal to what they already know, I already discussed about how this does not make sense from a presuppositional point of view (part 1).
It is clear from this brief study of MN (and the evolutionary world view) that the non-Christian man absolutely does not have the same presuppositions as the Christian does when looking at nature. He doesnt even define it the same as the Christian!

And yet, we see how (R)2K demands that we appeal to their understanding of the evidence of natural law and what they already ***know***. I mentioned before how this does have limited value because of the natural law in their hearts, and because of that natural law, they do understand certain things.
However, I would never recognize these arguments as sufficient in the way that (R)2K understands it.
(R)2K in fact does recognize these arguments as sufficient.

Think about it. If you insist on only appealing to man's understanding, and the evidence of natural law, and what he knows, this smack's of evidentialism at its methodological and apologetical core. With this understanding, you have never dealt with his presuppositions about what nature exactly is, and what he knows about nature, and how he can come to know exactly what nature is.

The entire basis behind VT and presuppositionalism is in fact the understanding that we don't ultimately argue with the non-Christian on his terms, on "neutral" ground, or on anyone else's basis except the standard of God.

(R)2K will say that they believe the basis is God when they argue for natural law. and I do agree with them that they do. However, their particular methodology belies this point. Even Josh McDowell believes that God is the eternal moral standard. But, how does he argue? He is a strict evidentialist, and argues from that "ultimate" starting point of "evidence."

There are more nuances to this... and I dont want to sound like I am overstating myself. There is value is using natural law arguments, but they have to be done properly.. I will try to show this next time and I will also try to round out the discussion about the "is-ought" fallacy as well.

We as a nation and as the Church are killing ourselves

I received this quote from a friend. I responded back to him that I felt that this was painfully relevant. 

"Wearing a benign mask, the secularist loudly proclaims his commitment to religious tolerance on behalf of those weak minded souls who still cannot bear to face a hostile or, worse, an indifferent universe, without the narcotic effect of ecclesiastical opium. The church is safe from vicious persecution at the hands of the secularist, as educated people have finished with stake burning circuses and torture racks. No martyr's blood is shed in the secularist West--so long as the church knows her place on her modern reservation. Let the babes pray and sing and read their Bibles, continuing steadfast in their intellectual retardation; the church's extinction will come not by sword or pillory, but by the quiet death of irrelevance. It will pass away with a whimper not a bang. But let the church step off the reservation, let her penetrate once more the culture of the day and the Janus-face of secularism will change from benign smile to savage snarl" (Christian Apologetics, R.C. Sproul, pg. 4). 

Why do we as the church willingly let ourselves do this? Why do we so easily capitulate to the world, when we are the ones who have THE eternal salvific, meta-ethical and epistemological truth?

Examination of the "is-ought" fallacy and its implications on the nature of the epistemic warrant of ethics (part 1)

   In my personal studies, I came across something interesting that I think gets easily lost in the discussion concerning ethics. It is a little nuanced, and so, it comes as no surprise that you can have highly respected thinkers look at this particular issue from completely opposite ends of the spectrum. I would like to offer my own observations on how the gap can be bridged.
   The particular issue is called the "is-ought" fallacy.  The "is-ought" fallacy is what is called an informal fallacy. An informal fallacy is an argument that errors despite acceptable form or structure. To think about it from a different angle, they are counterfeit arguments because they consist of premises and conclusions which seem to be related, since conclusions drawn logically from true premises. However, while there might be some connection between premises and conclusion in such arguments, the connection is ultimately a ***psychological*** one, not an actual logical relation.
     As an aside: a formal fallacy is a mistake in the actual forms of the argument (the forms are incorrect). Informal fallacies have correct forms (in the premises and conclusions), but the issue is that the sound (correct) conclusion cannot be inferred from those particular premises. Suffice to say, most of the time, in various debates and everyday conversation, we mainly deal with informal fallacies.
     Simply put, the "is-ought" fallacy involves attempting to derive moral directions (imperatives or normatives) from descriptions of nature (indicatives or descriptives). For instance, say Johnny has a father, Timothy (indicative). From this, we can infer that the proper moral direction for Johnny is to obey his father (imperative). The fallacy affirms that we can properly draw a conclusion about Johnny's obligation to obey his father.

    At this point, this is where this particular fallacy becomes a little interesting.
    Dr. Joel McDurmon in his Biblical Logic In Theory and Practice, says that the "fallacy lies in assuming that allegedly impersonal nature can direct personal and social standards of living. You cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is.'" In other words, Dr. McDurmon would say that the you cannot simply conclude that Johnny has an obligation (imperative) to obey his father simply from the description (indicative) that Johnny has a father.
     In John-Michael Kucynski's Analytic Philosophy, he delves a little bit into metaethics, and says that this "fallacy" may well actually be true. Specifically, he mentions that you can derive an "ought" from an "is" since "'x is what ought to be done' can be inferred from the fact that 'x is more likely than the other possible courses of action to maximize happiness/the actualization of human potential."
     Atheist philsophers David Hume, and G.E. Moore both expressed doubts about this. In Principia Ethica, Moore says, "My objections to naturalism are then... that it offers no reason at all, far less any valid reason, for any ethical principle whatsoever; and in this it already fails to satisfy the requirement of Ethics, as a scientific study.... though it gives a reason for no ethical principle, it is a cause of the acceptance of false principles - it deludes the mind into accepting ethical principles, which are false; and in this it is contrary to every aim of Ethics." In other words, there is no foundation for and therefore no such thing as values and morals, and if you do believe in morals, you are creating a delusion for yourself.

     So, who is right? You have Dr. McDurmon and Hume/Moore on one side. Dr. McDurmon is not arguing this point as an atheist, but as a Christian attempting to explain the naturalist worldview. Hume/Moore are simply expressing what they actually believe in terms of their worldview.

And on the other side, you have Dr. Kucynski, who says that we can derive "ought" from "is" based on human flourishing etc...

     The next blog post will deal with this question, the nuances behind the issue, how it relates to worldviews and the Christian epistemic warrant. And I hope to round out the discussion on how this relates to our current reformed polemic of the NL2K (natural law 2 kingdoms as espoused by Westminster Seminary Escondido) and the other "side" (theonomy, kuyperianism, neo-calvinism).
   

The canard of academic elitism

     I think that a lot of reformed people struggle with the air of academic enlightenment/superiority or some sort of arrogance (present company included!) when discussing the Bible or theology with other Christians who are not reformed or even with other reformed Christians.
     To a certain extent, this is understandable (but never excusable). When you sit in a sermon, and you clearly hear something that is so grossly wrong that your 10 year old son who has been catechized since the womb can point out the error, our sinful pride rears its ugly head.
     I think that this speaks to our selfish tendency to look more impressive than the other person, and to be puffed up with pride. The subject matter of the Bible is the most important subject in all of human thought and study, and no wonder, people can be puffed up and arrogant. You are well versed in the most important subject that humans have ever studied, and you are good at it too! It's only natural in our sinful state that we would then develop some sort of sinful, selfish arrogance.
     At the same time, this selfish confidence in your own understanding of the Bible has actually led to probably one of the most intellectually and academically dishonest acts wrought by Christians, seminary students, and seminary professors. You know them, you have been on their blogs, and their websites.
     I think that this issue of academic elitism can also swing the other way as well, in which you are pining so much for that academic credibility within the broader secular community, that it can nearly destroy you.
     George Eldon Ladd was a NT scholar (1911-1982), who eventually taught at Fuller Seminary, and incidentally, the NT chair is named after him. He went to then Gordon Divinity School and later to Harvard University for his PhD. By any standard, his work on the NT has taught legions of laymen and seminary students, and I have personally benefited from his book "The Gospel of the Kingdom."
    Even with his great contributions that would rival any of your favorite theologians, he unfortunately bowed down to the idol of academic recognition and craved the approval of secular NT scholars. There were many failures in his personal life all the while hopelessly pursuing the canard of academic respectability. His academic achievements came at a high price. He was a workaholic, with an estranged his wife and his two children in favor of his studies. He ended up struggling also with alcoholism, and even made a pass at one of his graduate students' wife.
     Amidst these moral failings, Ladd was not merely to “rehabilitate evangelical scholarship” but to gain respectability for himself personally.  He was so driven to finding “a place at the table,” amongst the secular scholars, that this was beyond a desire to improve his own academic performance for the glory of God, but it was really the idol of gaining respectable recognition from the secular NT/academic community.
     This is different from when you are trying to speak truth and defend God's word in the academic community. This was more of being accepted within the circle of love. When Ladd wrote his magnum opus "Jesus and the Kingdom," Norman Perrin wrote a very critical review, and according to John Piper, Ladd "was almost undone emotionally and professionally." Piper goes on to describe how Ladd walked through the halls of Fuller shouting and waving a royalty check when A Theology of the New Testament was a stunning success ten years later.
    This account of Ladd should serve as a very cautionary tale to us as Christians, whether in the pews, as seminary students, or as professors: Ladd's entire life accelerated into a drunken tailspin when he could not achieve what he wanted so much from the secular world.
     This is written about in a biography, written by John D'Elia. See picture at the right hand side.

     We should all be wary of the “approval of men” (Gal 1:10) — rather than seeking the truth of God simply for the sake of the glory of God.
     This doesnt simply apply to Christians confronting the secular world, but it is the most obvious example. Your own personal life is probably replete with examples in which your adherence to the Word of God, and concern for glorifying God and not bending towards secular humanism has been tested, or even mocked.
     I remember one time when one person flat out mocked my strict adherence to the Bible for my worldview as narrow minded. "Chris, stop being so narrow minded in using only the Bible to understand ethics." And this man is a Christian who attends a PCA church in southern California.
    And this is how it goes. So, the canard of academic elitism can go either way. It can either make you an arrogant, unloving Christian who dishonors God by abusing his truth as your own personal soap box. Or the canard can make you into someone who is an idol worshipper and will readily forgo the worship and approval of God for the approval and pleasing accolades from mere temporal creatures.
    May God give us the strength and integrity to flee from both.

Putting things into perspective

Bahnsen had some choice and visibly frustrated words to say. I can understand his frustration, here.

"If you sincerely try to stand against the slide into the cesspool of wickedness in our state, and in our culture by looking for a consistent biblical position from which you can witness against the disgrace all around us, (as many of us have found), you’ll lose your job within the seminary community. You’ll lose your standing in the Church establishment. You’ll virtually become unemployable — even if your orthodox. You’ll become ostracized. You’ll be called ‘dangerous.’

What’s wrong with us?! That theonomists are dangerous when we have to lock our windows at night?! It’s crazy isn’t it?

How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?

Of all the wicked heresies and threatening movements facing the Church in our day, when Westminster Seminary finally organized their faculty to write something in unison, they gave their determined political efforts:
not to fight Socialism, 
not to fight homosexuality, 
not abortion, 
not crime and mayhem in our society, 
not subjectivism in theology, 
not Dispensationalism, 
not cultural relativism, 
not licentiousness, 
not defection from the New Testament, 
not defection from the Westminster Confession of Faith,

all of which are out there and they could give their legitimate efforts to. 

Boy, the thing they had to write about was ‘Theonomy.’

How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he doesn’t see?!

We are living in the cesspool of relativism and the Church doesn’t have an answer! Well, I praise God, not for my work, I think that it is the grace of God that allows me to have this ministry, but I praise God that the truth that the early Church knew and that is found in the Bible and is available to us and there are people like you who were willing to pay the price and say, ‘it’s worth it'"

A good way to help your children learn theology and the catechism

     Teaching your children about the Christian faith is always a challenge. I have noticed that my children (esp. my daughter) tend to retain things better when set to a tune.
     There is a CD called "Why Can't I See God" in which Judy Rogers enlists the help of the children at her PCA church and they crafted the songs in this CD.
It is basically portions of the Children's Catechism set to music. It is very well done, and the tunes of the songs are very pleasing to the ear.
     I even play it in the car even when the kids are not in with me. Even though it is meant for kids, it is very theologically rich that even adults by themselves can learn, be encouraged and refreshed. The link to her website to find out more and to purchase is here.
     One of my favorites is #12, "Jesus Our Redeemer".. This song takes you through creation, Adam's fall, the ruined race and our subsequent depravity, the salvation that Christ achieves for us, the judgement and second return of Christ. And this is in a kid's song CD! This CD song set is more theologically rich than any contemporary Christian artists that you may have listened to in the past. 

     Here are the lyrics for that song (Jesus Our Redeemer):

"Blessed be the wisdom and the power,
The justice and the grace,
That joined in counsel to restore
And save our ruined race!

Our father Adam ate the fruit
And from his glory fell;
And we his children then were brought to death
And near to hell.

Praise be to God that sent His Son
To take on flesh and blood;
He gave His life a sacrifice
To make our peace with God!

He honored all His Father's laws
Which we have disobeyed;
He bore our sins upon the cross,
For us the ransom paid.

He rose victorious from the grave
And now He lives on high;
He pleads His merits there to save
Transgressors doomed to die.

There on a glorious throne He reigns,
And by His  power divine,
Redeems us from the slavish chains
Of Satan and of sin.

Someday the Lord will come to judge
And with a sovereign voice,
Shall call the dead from every grave
While living saints rejoice!

Oh may I then with joy appear
Before the Judge's face;
And with the saints forevermore
Sing His redeeming grace!"
~By Isaac Watts; Adapted by Judy Rogers

Biblical Patriarchism

I was reading on aquilareport.com several weeks ago, and I came across a link to someone's blog for Biblical Patriarchism. The author was against it and makes it very clear in her blog entry, here. Even the title says it all, "What's Wrong With Biblical Patriarchy."

I read through her entry, and decided to write a response. It was fairly lengthy, and I spent a good deal of time writing it in such a way that it got my point across without sounding needlessly abrasive or like a arrogant jerk.

She ended up deleting my response. This is the second time that this has happened to me. ;-)
The only thing that I could do is smile when I realized that she deleted my response. 

Anyway, I have posted below my response to her blog entry. I felt it was right on the money.. Apparently, she didn't think so.
---------------------------------------------------

Rachel

Thanks for the article.. Pretty insightful comments that you make..

May I offer some insights of my own?

Based on your responses to 'biblical patriarchy', I think part of your disagreement may have to do with the way that Doug Wilson and crew have stated their positions. DTM (previous commenter) above alluded to it.

It basically comes down to one's worldview, and the logical train of thought that flows from that. And I went through the link that you sent out, and I think that they didn't really emphasize this enough.

They only mentioned "worldview" once in the entire post that you linked to.

The reason that I mention this is that, there is a difference between being offended because of that person's twisting of Scriptures vs someone who is genuinely trying to be consistent with the Scriptures.

And after what I read through the patriarchy link, I would say that they are simply trying to be consistent with their understanding of husband-wife-men-women relationships as they see it in the Bible.

Even in secular societies who dont have the revealed law of God, there is still some sense of women serving their husbands, and this generally carries over into the public domain.

I have also observed noticed that one can never simply separate the public sphere from one's own personal family government.

There is always going to some sort of analogous relationship.

If you ever notice the discussions about women "having it all", there is no clear distinction of men-women-husband-wife relationships between home-life and their career...

There is some of course, but that is why I called it an analogous relationship...

Anyway, the general mentality is: "I am equal in the workplace with men, I am equal in the home-place with my husband"...

And where does this thinking come from? It comes from the secular worldview that husbands and wives are ***positionally and functionally*** equal...

The biblical worldview says that while husbands and wives are ***inherently*** equal, they are not ***positionally and functionally*** equal..

How can we so easily see the results of this worldview???

You see this all the time in TV commercials..

The American husband is viewed as a moron, while the wife is viewed as the smart, sensible, mature adult.. Look at the way that Cox (internet) recently has done their commercials or the new Eggo waffle commercial which the husband and father of the family is ridiculed.

Again, where does this come from?

It comes from the egalitarian mindset that men and women are "equal".. This mindset tells women that they are equal in the workplace, and "equal" at home, when in fact it is actually the opposite (if you are treating your husband as a moron).

The secular mindset tells women that they are in fact superior to men, and their husbands..

(You also see this with the recent statements by women congressmen saying that if they were in office at the time, they would have come up with a better budget deal.. Why???? Simply because they are women!)

TV commercials are simply a reflection of that secular worldview. This understanding of "equality" between men and women is related to the understanding of "equality" of husbands and wives..

They are not mutually exclusive as the TV commercials make clear the evidence of this "egalitarian" worldview applied at home...

Moreover, it is odd to see that the secular worldview of husband-wife-men-women relations makes no attempt to "bifurcate" home life and work life, yet you demand that the Christian world view be done in this way. This would make your application of your Christian worldview inconsistent while the seculars apply their worldview with consistency (at least on this particular issue) with devastating consequences to the family order...

The point that I am trying to make is that Wilson and crew are trying to be consistent with their worldview, and trying to be consistent with how that worldview extends towards society in general.

I do agree with you that application is definitely hard... But I would encourage you to look at it from their angle. Their underlying motivation isn't to try to offend women or "put them in their place".. They are simply trying to be consistent with the principles that they understand in the Bible.. Even if you don't agree with them, you should try to address their worldview understanding instead of saying that they are wrong simply because you feel offended...

When you disagree, you offer up no Scriptural or exegetical argument as to why their points are wrong. You simply assert it by saying that "Scripture doesn't teach that", and then move on to quote someone. While quoting someone has value, it is more beneficial if you could offer up some biblically analyzed reasons for why you think that they are wrong, and not simply quoting someone who agrees with you.

You also quote various history, which provides good context, but the history that you quote never actually address their line of reasoning..

Simply because, say, Victorian culture coincides with some aspect with Christianity (or Doug Wilson's understanding of it) this doesn't actually prove your point.

Mormons pray to "God".. Christians pray to God.. Does that mean that prayer is wrong?

And, arguments from silence are not proper arguments to use as to why you disagree with someone. Scripture doesnt address masturbation at all.. But, we know that it is wrong because of our worldview on sexual purity.. 

And you wont ever see me quoting some historical aspect or sociological aspect or medical aspect as to the "health" benefits of masturbation as reasons why it is morally permissible.

For me, I think that it is demeaning for a woman to think that she is in a lower position because she doesnt have a job that pays 6 figures, while her husband does.. She has a role that God gave her as a wife and mother, and that is is something to be honored, not looked down upon.

Finally, what I am NOT saying is that women can never hold jobs or something like that... "All things are lawful"..

But, what I am saying is that how does one's actions and thoughts reconcile with the Biblical worldview of 'patriarchy'?

I really did enjoy reading your post, and I wanted to share my thoughts with you.. and I do appreciate your thoughts.. There is more that I can say, but, i think that this will suffice for now..

Thank you.. Keep thinking and writing!!!!!