Saturday, November 24, 2012
The Silent Yawn
A culture’s creation narrative is foundational, for it forms the template for everything else. One of the consequences of evolution—the belief that the world spontaneously arose by itself—is that it underwrites moral relativism, which is not to say there is no right and wrong but rather that right and wrong is something that we decide. And since evolution is true, it is to evolution that we go for our rights. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” proclaims the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But with evolution there is no such endowment, for there is no such Creator. Not that evolution derives from atheism, it does not. Evolution derives from a different kind of theism, a kind where we decide what is right.
One of the rights evolutionists decided we did not have is the right to Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. In the twentieth century eugenics movement evolutionary science was used to mutilate and institutionalize those whom evolutionists decided were not deserving of these rights. This was no backwater operation. It was a nationwide movement backed up by Supreme Court decisions. Next came the right to Life which evolutionists decided also is not universal, and should not be granted to the unborn. So the unborn do not have a right to life in our culture and now tens of millions have been “aborted.”
This holocaust makes no scientific sense (both eugenics and abortion are based on pseudo science), but then again our creation narrative comes from evolution. Religion drives science and it matters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I consider myself to be agnostic, atheist and an evolutionist. I also call myself a Millian Libertarian inasmuch as I endorse the principles of human liberty and civil rights set out in the essay On Liberty by the nineteenth-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, the eugenics movement of the early twentieth-century, while understandable within the social, political and moral context of the time, was a perversion of the science that led to some appalling abuses of human rights. It was also founded on the naturalistic fallacy by attempting to derive 'ought' from 'is'. However, I need hardly point out that it was not just some scientists who should have known better but that there were prominent religious leaders in the vanguard of the movement as well. To lay the whole blame for the excesses of the eugenicists at the door of evolutionary biology is unfair and a misrepresentation of what happened.
On the question of abortion, I am opposed to it on the grounds of human rights rather than religious belief. In my view, the right to life ought to be extended to cover the whole life of an individual human being, from conception to death, although I would allow exceptions on the grounds of a threat to the mother's life or long-term health. For those, however, who believe that only the development of 'personhood' - whatever that might be - entitles an individual to the right to life, abortion is not a moral problem as the unborn child is not a person at that point and consequently has no right to life. However, neither position - repeat, neither position - is logically derivable from the theory of evolution. Again, you cannot derive 'ought' from 'is'.
And it was not evolutionists who unilaterally decided that the right to life should not be universal. Society as a whole was and is divided on the issue. The Supreme Court acknowledged that in the majority opinion in Roe v Wade when it wrote:
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
From a scientific perspective, abortion simply refers to the process of terminating a pregnancy. Science takes no position on whether it is right or wrong. That must be decided by other means.
From a religious perspective it may well be that the number of unborn killed by abortion constitutes a "holocaust", although I consider that to be hyperbole. I agree, although for other reasons, that it should not be happening to the extent it does.
From an atheist perspective, however, it should be pointed out that research suggests that as many around 50% of pregnancies abort spontaneously, often before the woman is aware she is pregnant. If human beings were the product an all-knowing and all-powerful Creator then we have to note that they have been endowed with a remarkably inefficient and wasteful method of reproduction and that far more unborn have died as a result of this than have died at human hands. So wherein lies most of the blame?
God can do whatever He wills - Life is His. *You* can't. If He decides that in the grand scheme of things 50% of all newly created people go straight to Paradise before being born so be it. That doesn't give *you* carte blanche to do likewise.
ReplyDeleteAll must die. However, *THOU* shalt not kill. It's really very simple. You're just looking for an excuse to do whatever *you* want.
Ron Van Wegen November 24, 2012 6:26 PM
DeleteGod can do whatever He wills - Life is His.
Granted that is true, for the sake of argument, if God can do whatever He wills, why shouldn't we? Did He create us to be free and independent agents, able to follow whatever course we choose through life, or did he create a race of puppets that must jump whenever He pulls the strings?
If He decides that in the grand scheme of things 50% of all newly created people go straight to Paradise before being born so be it.
So if God were to ask you to kill a child, as He did of Abraham, you would do so, even though by any other moral standard, human sacrifice is an abomination and a crime against humanity?
All must die.
That seems to be the way this univese is set up, but why?
You're just looking for an excuse to do whatever *you* want.
As I asked before, if God can do whatever He wants, why shouldn't we? We are supposed to have been made in His image, after all.
Ian:
ReplyDeleteAnd it was not evolutionists who unilaterally decided that the right to life should not be universal.
Really. So who joined in with them, creationists?
Society as a whole was and is divided on the issue.
How is that relevant?
Really. So who joined in with them, creationists?
DeleteYes, quite probably.
I would argue it's been recognized for a long time that no right can be universal in the sense of being unlimited. An individual's right to do something is always limited, if by nothing else, by where it butts up against the rights of others.
For example, we all know the argument that freedom of speech does not extend to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. People could easily be hurt or killed in the ensuing panic and it is generally accepted, by creationists and others, that freedom of speech is no justification for that sort of behavior.
The abortion debate is another example. When the question of terminating a pregnancy is raised, there are two sets of rights to be considered, both the unborn child's and the mother's. Wher continuing the pregnancy would pose a direct threat to the mother's life then doctor's are faced with the terrible choice of choosing the lesser of two evils. Aborting the fetus would, on the face of it, be a violation of it's right to life. However, that right to life should not extend to threatening the life of another, in this case the mother. even accidentally. If the choice is between losing the fetus through abortion or losing both mother and child through complications following a failure to abort, as happened recently in that tragic case in Ireland, then I would suggest even creationists, some of them at least, would opt for abortion.
How is that relevant?
Because, in my view, morals and rights are, for want of a better term, social constructs. We work them out for ourselves over time. The debate over abortion is still to some extent a work-in-progress.
Ian:
DeleteCH: Really. So who joined in with them, creationists?
IS: Yes, quite probably.
No, not quite probably. The question was rhetorical.
God ( the one who sent His son Jesus) have mercy on us. may we wake soon from this dark night in our society and have a new dawning of just what is important, valuable and sacred.
ReplyDeleteIan
ReplyDelete“As I asked before, if God can do whatever He wants, why shouldn't we?”
Because God is God and we are we.
Why can’t you fly Air Force One? Because you are not el presidente.
As to man falling under the delusional hubris that he is equivalent to God, and can thus engineer a perfect societies (eugenics), select and discard life as he sees fit (abortion) this following comment is interesting for pointing out that such madness does not stop with man thinking he can design ‘perfect societies’ through discarding (killing) 'unworthy humans' but even extends to man designing the entire universe by himself:
ReplyDelete“So what are the theological implications of all this? Well Barrow and Tipler wrote this book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and they saw the design of the universe. But they’re atheists basically, there’s no God. And they go through some long arguments to describe why humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. That’s what they believe. So they got a problem. If the universe is clearly the product of design, but humans are the only intelligent life in the universe, who creates the universe? So you know what Barrow and Tipler’s solution is? It makes perfect sense. Humans evolve to a point some day where they reach back in time and create the universe for themselves. (Audience laughs) Hey these guys are respected scientists. So what brings them to that conclusion? It is because the evidence for design is so overwhelming that if you don’t have God you have humans creating the universe back in time for themselves.” –
Michael Strauss PhD. – Particle Physics
Quote taken from the 6:49 minute mark of the following video:
Anthropic Principle – God Created The Universe – Michael Strauss PhD. – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661
Verse and music:
2 Thessalonians 2:4
“He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.”
Steven Curtis Chapman – God is God (Original Version) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz94NQ5HRyk
It was also founded on the naturalistic fallacy by attempting to derive 'ought' from 'is'. However, I need hardly point out that it was not just some scientists who should have known better but that there were prominent religious leaders in the vanguard of the movement as well.
ReplyDeleteIn many respects, it was prominent religious leaders who gave birth to and protected evolutionary creation myths from criticism in the first place. Whatever the state of the science of their day, many have moved toward protecting evolutionary creation myths. This probably has more to do with the fact that doing so naturally protects the sphere of their professional identity and place in society than a real scientific principle or some type of scientifically verifiable form of separation between the spiritual and the physical "out there." Indeed, the idea that there is a separation between a spiritual realm and the "secular" is itself a deep aspect of Judaism, Christianity and religion in general. History shows that there is no separation in nature based paganism. So apparently that is why there is no separation in the evolutionary creation myths that the B$ religious establishment typically protects in order to sustain control over its symbolic or "religious" sphere.
So it's little wonder that many partnered with and were incorporated into the B$ of their day and Eugenics Inc. so easily. Is and ought? Where is there any space for knowledge of ought in evolutionary creation myths? Is it an ought of the gaps?
Because, in my view, morals and rights are, for want of a better term, social constructs.
ReplyDeleteIf it is all a matter of technique and technology then why do people keep doing the same things over and over? For instance, one would think that the Corrections Corporation of America would have developed better techniques to police itself and the rest of the police $tate by now.
We work them out for ourselves over time.
Yet for all the techniques involved, there still seems to be nothing new under the sun. Maybe if there was a way to manipulate the electromagnetic spectrum to change people's brain states?
The debate over abortion is still to some extent a work-in-progress.
But it's likely that even if the wealthiest women to have ever walked the face of the earth (i.e. American women) had even more wealth and could teleport babies out of the womb to be cared for by robots that they would still choose to kill them. Why? Probably because memes would slither around in their minds and it would hurt their feelings to know that they had created life. After all, they would still need to cremate their care based on maintaining their abortion rites somehow.
They could join the pagan ruling class of America with their support of abortion of the future and enslaving posterity with debt based on the Cremation of Care.*
For there being no such thing as a spiritual side or symbolic aspect to things according to modern creation myths, it sure seems like people have "religion" in their DNA. The modern and progressive mind, it seems to be as flat in its imagination as the "flat earth" mythologies that it imagines of the ancients.
Imagine that.
*A comment with respect to techniques and the theatrics typical to abortion rites:The idea that the Cremation of Care ceremony is merely a symbolic gesture for attendees to let loose and relax is not supported by the reality of the event.
For one thing, it’s extremely bad theater. If such a dramatization were to have occurred only in one year of the event’s existence, and happened to be caught on video, then we could understand the “harmless prankster” angle. But it didn’t. This particular event occurs every year. The same ritual. The same bad script. The same dumb theme. The same look. The same burning of the “effigy”. If it’s so “meaningless” why don’t they perform different rituals from one year to the next?
Secondly, as theater, it is amateur and dull. And for such an amateur and dull event, it drags on and on. Who wants to watch that kind of weird, crappy entertainment over and over every year.... Indeed. It's the banality of evil. So the entertainment value of paganism seems to be low in the end.