The second part of the series has to do with taking down philosophical fortresses. Although we have not covered chapter 3 on worldviews you may consider this prep work as a number of principles will nicely lead into the next series.
Try to understand why the unbelieving mind is hostile to the Christian worldview; understand why no one can be neutral and still remain philosophically consistent; what is meant by the “noetic” effects of sin.
The main points to be observed from this chapter are:
- Factually we must recognize that the unbeliever is not neutral.
- Morally, we must understand that the believer should not be neutral.
- Any claim to neturality is a pretense, and it is philosophically impossible.
- “Noetic” is derived from the Greek word, nous, which means “mind”.
- This is one aspect of the doctrine of “total depravity”, which declares that the fall reaches deep down into a man’s very being, even to his mind, and his reasoning faculties.
- The world and the universe do not operate randomly by blind chance or under their own inherent power.
- In fact, you will even give account for every “idle word” that you speak (Matt 12:36).
- None of your words is neutral; each one is subject to God’s evaluative judgement.
- We are not saying unbelievers “know nothing.” We are saying that they do not know anything “truly,” because they do not recognize the most fundamental reality: All facts are God-created facts, not brute facts.
Flashing, Sarah J., “The Myth of Secular Neutrality: Unbiased Bioethics?”
Kruger, Michael J., “The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics”
Oliphant, Scott, “The Noetic Effects of Sin”
Woodward, Thomas E., “Staring Down Darwinism: A Book Review”
I had acquired through a friend on Twitter, a copy of Greg Bahnsen’s, “Pushing the Antithesis“. As such I have decided to publish a blog post for each chapter. This is the first of twelve blog posts. Each post will consist of some key bullet points along with some recommend reading links where available.
As the chapter title suggests, Dr. Bahnsen puts to bed the supposed “neutrality” that anyone has let along the Christian.
The main points to be observed from this chapter are:
- This “neutral” approach is neither biblical nor effective.
- Christians must not set aside their faith commitment even temporarily in an attempt to approach the unbeliever on “neutral ground”.
- If you don’t start with God as your basic assumption, you can’t prove anything./
- The assumption of God’s existence required to all reasoning.
- Evolution theory is taken for granted throughout the college curriculum, just as it is in all aspects of modern though and experience.
- Modern education is effectively subliminal advertising for atheism.
- The university and the media supposedly encourage neutrality by urging tolerance of all views.
- But we are all aware that the Christian view is seldom given equal tolerance.
- The Christian who strives for neutrality unwittingly endorses assumptions which are hostile to his faith.
- Simply put, you cannot adopt a position of neutrality toward God if you are to remain faithful to Christ.
- The Bible claims infallible and obligatory authority which demands commitment to its truth claims.
- Such neutrality actually amounts to skepticism regarding the existence of God and the authority of His Word.
- He (Satan) suggested that she must remain neutral in order to decide who was right, God or Satan. She did not accept God’s word as authoritative and conclusive, but as a true neutralist, determined for herself which option to take. (Gen 3:4-6)
- Robert South (1634-1716) said, “He who would fight the devil with his own weapons, must not wonder if he finds himself over matched.”
- Van Til – “there simply is no presupposition-free and neutral way to approach reasoning.”
- A true biblical apologetic does not set aside Christ from our hearts, but sets apart Christ in our hearts.
Bahnsen, Greg L., Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith
Demar, Gary, Thinking Straight in a Crooked World: A Christian Defense Manual
Gentry, Kenneth L., Jr., Defending the Faith: An Introduction to Biblical Apologetics
Here are some new security-related (for the most part ;) links from the month of March 2016
Bitcoin Wisdom – Trading-type Terminal for Bitcoin – https://bitcoinwisdom.com/
Zone Transfer Tutorial – https://digi.ninja/projects/zonetransferme.php
Debian Hardening Wiki – https://wiki.debian.org/Hardening
Standard Password Manager for UNIX – https://www.passwordstore.org/
Is your Browser safe against tracking? – https://panopticlick.eff.org
Have I been Pwned? – https://haveibeenpwned.com/
CryptoPals -Cool CTF for Crypto – http://cryptopals.com/
Nice Tool to Tell What CMS A Site is Running – https://whatcms.org/
A simple SSL/TLS proxy with mutual authentication for securing non-TLS services – https://github.com/square/ghostunnel
Find out if a site is down globally – http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/
DNS Zone Transfer Tool – https://github.com/stryngs/axfr-tools
Nice Coding Guide for N00bs – http://download-mirror.savannah.gnu.org/releases/pgubook/ProgrammingGroundUp-1-0-booksize.pdf
Ransomware seems to be popular these days. Here’s a site that tracks the variants – https://ransomwaretracker.abuse.ch/tracker/
Need I say more? – http://www.routerpwn.com/
Made a blunder on the droplet that runs this blog on Digital Ocean and lost the previous two security link blogs. Luckily had a backup from August that I was able to restore from. Anyways, here’s the security links for February 2016.
Application Security Learning Resources – https://github.com/paragonie/awesome-appsec#application-security-learning-resources
A Dead Simple TCP Intercepting Proxy Tool Set – https://www.praetorian.com/blog/trudy-a-dead-simple-tcp-intercepting-proxy-mitm-vm
Let’s Encrypt Audit – https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/independent-audits-of-lets-encrypt-finished/6518
Introducing the Keybase filesystem – Sounds like a sane approach to encrypting data at rest – https://keybase.io/docs/kbfs
Securely Hash Passwords – https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/211/how-to-securely-hash-passwords
An Interesting Online Scanner – https://www.censys.io/
Another Attempt at Creating a Secure Linux Distro – https://www.parabola.nu/
An open-source network simulator/emulator hybrid (Tor & Bitcoin) – https://shadow.github.io/
For Encrypting/Decrypting Data on the Fly – https://encipher.it/
Red Team Field Manual – http://www.amazon.com/Rtfm-Red-Team-Field-Manual/dp/1494295504/ref=pd_bxgy_14_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=19V4X7X4WW7215V446N7
for Blockchain Applications – https://blockstack.org/
Github Bounty Program – https://bounty.github.com/index.html#open-bounties
Send An Urgent Message to a Friend When your in Trouble (i.e. Feds are knocking at your door) – http://www.snapmailemergency.com/
Get your cheap exploits here – http://cheapbugs.net/#home
This past week I attended the Northeast Ohio Cyberconsortium conference sponsored by a number of entities in the Cleveland,Oh area. The goal of the conference was to stimulate a collaborative effort around building up and sharing information around Cyber Security as it relates to the North East Ohio area. One of the main talks was about the skills shortage in Information Security and what should be done to increase the talent pool. The proposition(they loved throwing this word around) offered was to build educational programs in the school systems around Cyber Security at as early of an age as possible. I think the NSA said that they get the gifted ones as early as 3rd grade and for security we should consider preschool.
The goal is an excellent ones, but the reductionist attitude offered presents a number of challenges. The one problem is that you simply cannot teach Information Security as an isolated discipline. There are a number of prerequisites that are necessary before you can even start to teach kids security. To name a few:
Computer Architecture – X86/X64/ARM
Operating Systems – UNIX/Windows/OSX/Android/IOS
Programming – Powershell/Python/Perl/Bash
Networking – TCP/IP, OSI, Ethernet, Wifi
These are all complex domains by themselves and then add on to that the various security principles that need to be applied and you can see it’s not as cut and dry as you may think.
Then there are the ethical challenges in that to really understand how to secure things is you have to understand how to break things. This will no doubt create dilemmas with existing school policy and what the kids can currently do with school equipment.
So I think what really needs to happen to make this achievable is a complete rewrite of existing educational plans. I think a structure more like college should be implemented where kids that are interested in a given domain like Cyber Security can elect to make it their ‘major’ and by doing so a specific roadmap would be produced for their educational career.
The other thing to keep in mind is not all kids will be interested in such a field nor have an aptitude as you need to think about problems in a very detailed and logical way and not everyone’s brain is wired this way.
At this years Debconf15, a nice overview of the Let’s Encrypt project was given that you can view here. It’s a nice exposition as to the current broken state of CA’s and the projects plan to solve them. Let’s Encrypt is going to be making free certificates available in the next month or so.
Will this be a game changer for commercial CA’s that make their profit off of selling certificates? Probably not in the short term and a large part of the answer will depend upon adoption and getting the Root & Issuing CA’s added to the trusted browser stores.
I have been doing Information Security for a decade and a half and there is a disturbing pattern that still to this day has not abated. That pattern involves more of a philosophy than the actual scaling you would need to for designing a security solution for an organization. The scaling law I’m talking about is one that is usually recognized too late in the implementation process, namely the post-production phase of a project.
What I’m referring to is the amount of output you have to deal with that is a result of implementing a security solution without considering the resources necessary to manage and the resulting business process that need to accommodate this reality.
One of the best use cases that demonstrates this phenomena is around the implementation of a Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solution for an enterprise. A typical DLP solution usually involves three main areas:
Data in Motion – Data that traverses the network
Data at Rest – Data that is stored on disk
Endpoint Data – Data that typically is read and written to removable media
You have a number of approaches you could take. The most reasonable would be to focus on one of the three areas that consider was vital and to scale the scope of the inspections to very specific set of criteria. Is this how most DLP deployments go? No, instead usually all three are turned on at the same time and there is no scaling back of the criteria.
The result; more incidents and false-positives than fleas at the Westminster Canine convention. Once this scenario is encountered you end up scaling back your efforts and loss at least 3 months of progress. So do yourself a favor when implementing a security solution and understand what our outputs are before they are produced.
One of the most important aspects of any aspect of Christianity is that it is itself a complete system. Try to isolate any one component from the system and the same is no longer consistent. We see good example of this expounded by Greg Bahnsen in his book on Van Til’s apologetic in regards to B.B.Warfields method of apologetics:
“We thus see two things about the philosophical (epistomological) perspective which Warfield encouraged the apologist to take: it should be (1) outside of a commitment to Scripture and (2) in agreement with the right reason of the unbeliever-in a word, autonomous.”
Here we see two grave mistakes; one in that God’s authoritative word is not relevant at the outset of our dialogue with the unbeliever and two that Scriptures themselves must bow down to the rationality of the unbeliever before they can be accepted. So right out of the gate the Christian apologist who takes this approach is already defeated since the whold foundation for which he/she stands (The Holy Scriptures) is removed as a foundational basis for the apologetic and therefore it’s just a matter of whose rationality is more convincing.
I hope you can see another danger in this approach and that this approach is reduced to mere opinion and probability among may ideas. Of course this will fail from a pure reasoning standpoint with the unbeliever, because the unbeliever has become vain in his reasoning (Romans 1:21), and he cannot receive the things of the Spirit, because they are foolishness. (I Cor 2:14)
Let us remember that apologetics just like theology, evanlgelism, and philosophy are all part of a single system derived from the single authoratitive source of God’s Word.
Source of Quote: Van Til’s Apologetic – Greg Bahnsen
So I was looking to cleanup my Twitter favorites list and starting with the oldest one that was dated from 2011, it was from an article for using a Python script for searching the local ExploitDB instance on Backtrack.So of course it peaked my interest and click on the source link directed me to a parked domain. Common problem with Open Source tools. After performing some Google-Fu, I found a copy and downloaded it to my Kali instance and of course it didn’t work as the path for the ExploitDB path has changed.
So after a trivial change of pointing it to the correct path, bingo, it works.I have created a ‘Kali‘ repo on my Github if you want to grab it and I’m probably going to be making some updates to it over time.
From Van Tils Apologetic by Greg Bahnsen:
As Van Til goes on to say, if one does not begin with some such general truths (universals) with which to understand the particular observations in one’s experience, those factual particulars would be unrelated and uninterpretable -i.e., “brute”. In a chance universe, all particular facts would be random, have no classifiable identity, bear no predetermined order or relation and thus be unintelligible to man’s mind.
I recently ran across what I consider a good use case for applying this principle of Christian apologetic’s; On the Reformed Theology G+ forum someone posted the following question: Do you accept the idea of objective morality? If so, what is your criteria for morality that isn’t subjective (open to interpretation)?
Christianity asserts that it is the law of God as revealed in the Bible. This is not a subjective response as it’s an assertion of worldview and is not bound in a single subject or a few peoples opinion. We can also not treat the question of morality as say the shooting average of Lebron James. The rules of interpretation of shooting averages facts do not conflict with opposing worldviews, but of a basic understanding of mathematics.
When we interpret the facts of morality we are dealing with transcendence in that the object is not bound by space or time. For the non-theist that believes everything is essentially ‘matter in motion’ this is antithetical to his presuppositions for which he interprets reality.
So it’s not simply a matter of providing an argument that isn’t open to interpretation, but comes down to how one interprets the facts for which they are observing. And the method of interpretation is driven by their presuppositions.