Posted on 03/10/2002 11:53:20 AM PST by JediGirl
Common Creationist ArgumentsMorality |
|
The subject of religious morality is a thorny one. Believers of Judaism, Christianity or Islam bristle at any suggestion that their religions may justify or encourage violence, yet they all must deal with histories of incredible violence, many of which are enshrined in their own holy books. Worse yet, they actually have the gall to vilify atheism, secularism, and humanism as the source of immorality!
My position on the morality of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is simple: most modern followers are somewhat moderate, and I don't have any problem with them. They balance their ideologies against the values of secular humanism, and they come up with a compromise that, I suspect, works very well for them. Moreover, most of them are not even aware of the sheer extent of the violence and hatred in the Old Testament (see my Reference page on Old Testament violence, and you may be surprised).
However, the so-called "far-right" fundamentalists are a different breed; they have generally studied the Old Testament, and they don't see anything wrong with it. They will look you straight in the eye and insist that there was nothing wrong with butchering the women and children and little babies of Jericho, or that it was "just" and "righteous" to murder the babies of Egypt for the sins of their fathers!
To forgive or defend such atrocities is to proclaim that one's ideology is more "real" and more important than human life itself, and therein lies the seeds of violent fanaticism. When faced with such delusional zealotry, most people simply try to walk away, under the assumption that it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. Most people let them spout their hatred towards atheists, humanists, "pagans", heretics, and everyone else who doesn't share their ideology, because most people don't want to get into an argument about religion.
However, I am not "most people". I believe that if a zealot wants to start an argument about the "immorality" of secularism, he should expect criticism of his own belief system in return. I believe that zealots should not be buoyed by the apparent reluctance of others to confront them directly. I believe that religious beliefs are not a sacred shield against criticism, and that if someone defends atrocities, they should be held accountable for that, just as Nazi sympathizers and apologists are vilified in society today. And so, in addition to my Biblical Morality pages, I present the following arguments.
Please note that when I say "God" in the following arguments, I'm referring specifically to God as envisioned by the fundamentalists, and as described in the Old Testament. Their God is hopefully not the same as your God, if you have one.
"How can you defend the morality of evolution theory? Could anything be more ruthless than "survival of the fittest"?
Evolution theory identifies natural selection as an existing mechanism in nature. It did not invent it. It does not praise it. It does not pass any kind of moral judgement upon it. Evolution theory only describes it. Don't shoot the messenger.
"How can you defend secularism, with its drug abuse, divorce rate, pornography, and materialism?
Don't be ridiculous. Secularism has nothing to do with drug abuse or divorce rates. In fact, the largest opium producer in the world is the Taliban religious theocracy in Afghanistan, and in the 18th century, it was evangelical Britain. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that divorce rates are higher among atheists than they are among Christians, and in fact, the only attempt to produce statistical evidence for such a difference (a Barna Research study) backfired on its Christian backers: it found that Christians were more likely to divorce than atheists!
As for pornography and materialism, you have yet to produce evidence that either is bad. Pornography is merely the open expression of human sexuality, and while it may offend your prudish Victorian sensibilities, it is a victimless "crime" and there is nothing immoral about it. Violent pornography or child pornography is immoral, but it is the violence and statutory rape that makes it immoral, not the fact that it is pornography. Statutory rape is immoral regardless of whether it is filmed, and excessive violence in films is immoral regardless of whether sex is involved. As for materialism, it is merely the notion that the material world is all that exists; it is the underlying philosophy of science, and it is hardly immoral. You are obviously confusing it with greed, and quite frankly, given the history of church greed (particularly in the Catholic church, not to mention modern television evangelists), you throw stones from a glass house.
In short, there is no evidence whatsoever for a difference in ethical behaviour between atheists and Christians, despite the incredible volume of slanderous bigoted remarks made about atheists by Christian preachers across the world every Sunday. Your religion does not make you better than me. Get over it.
"Secularism condones hedonism: if it feels good, do it. Where's the moral self-restraint?"
Strawman. It's not "if it feels good, do it". It's "if it feels good and you're not hurting anyone, feel free to do it". And while that may offend your masochistic values of self-denial, it is not immoral. Self-restraint is admirable if it is employed toward some useful goal, such as not over-eating in order to preserve one's health or not succumbing to anger in a difficult situation. However, pointless self-restraint is simply stupid, and avoiding pleasure simply for the sake of self-denial is definitely pointless.
In fact, the world could use a little more hedonism and a little less ideology. When Hitler seized power and began to exterminate Jews, did he derive any physical pleasure from it? No, he was fighting for a twisted ideology. When terrorists plant car bombs, do they derive any physical pleasure from it? No, they are fighting for an ideology. Does anyone derive any physical pleasure from war? No, the soldiers fight and kill for ideologies and nation-states, and the politicians order them to do it for the same reasons, or in some cases, out of lust for power.
Even rape is not motivated by pleasure. More than half of all sexual assaults do not even involve a complete act of copulation. Many rapists can't do it at all; they are impotent, or they have reduced sexual function. Furthermore, sex with a struggling victim can't possibly provide the same kind of physical pleasure as sex with a willing partner. Rapists get off not on physical pleasure, but on their ability to dominate and humiliate their victims. They get off on their victims' pain and anguish, and physical pleasure quite frankly has little or nothing to do with it.
Many other social problems such as drug abuse and adultery and drug abuse are also not motivated by physical pleasure. People become drug abusers because of poor self-esteem and poor judgement, not physical pleasure. Anyone with even the most vague knowledge of drugs will know that while they may provide a short-term "hit", they eventually burn out the pleasure centres in your brain, thus robbing you of all life's physical pleasures. In the long term, drugs reduce physical pleasure. And what of adultery? Adultery is motivated by the excitement of its illicit nature and perhaps by dissatisfaction with one's marriage. However, to put it bluntly, another woman's vagina will not feel a whole lot different than your wife's vagina. To put it even more bluntly, the vagina of the most beautiful woman in the world won't feel any better than the vagina of an unattractive woman. Men stray for myriad psychological reasons, none of which have anything to do with physical pleasure. In the end, adultery is a relationship problem, not a hedonist problem.
You may find that my defense of hedonism offends your sensibilities. If so, ask yourself whether the world would be a more peaceful and harmonious place if people simply pursued their own physical pleasure instead of fighting over nation-states and ideologies. Whether it be good food, a good massage, or good sex, physical pleasure in and of itself harms no one. However, its demonization by religious zealots has harmed a lot of people.
"You're being unfair to the Bible. You mention all of the worst parts, but what about the good parts?" [This is usually followed by a list of nice quotes from the Bible, such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" or "Love Thy Neighbour"]"
You can't cancel out evil words or deeds by saying something nice. If your neighbour beats his wife but tells you that he abhors violence, would you believe him? Of course not! So if God murders and tortures millions of people but tells you that he's a "God of Love", why do you believe him? Al Capone once said that "you can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word." He was talking about his own ruthless approach to life, but he could just as easily have been talking about the Old Testament God.
Yes, God has a few kind words in the Bible. However, like Al Capone, he bundles every kind word with threats of violence, and then he ruthlessly demonstrates his capacity for violence, so that you will take those threats seriously. From his genocidal bloodlust in the Great Flood to his massacres at Sodom and Gomorrah, his infanticide in Egypt, his ethnic cleansing of Canaan, and his violent persecution of heretics, God demonstrated stunning cruelty and ruthlessness all throughout the Old Testament. And with his promise to torture unbelievers for all eternity, he attempts to enslave us through fear of even greater horrors. You can't make up for that kind of evil by simply saying a few nice things.
"You're wrong about the Bible. In [insert passage name here], it says quite clearly that [God never changes, God is perfect, God is just, God is merciful, whatever]. So much for your claim that [God changes, God is not perfect, God is unjust, God is unmerciful, whatever]"
Adolf Hitler claimed that he was perfect too. Get it? It doesn't matter whether God describes himself as perfect! What matters are his actions, and his actions speak for themselves. He commits all sorts of atrocities that are classified as acts of evil when committed by a human. Unlike moral relativists like you, I insist that the definition of evil is absolute. Evil is evil, regardless of who does it. Adolf was evil for his brutality, and God is evil for his brutality. God punishes children for the sins of their fathers. He murders indiscriminately: women, children, babies in their cribs. And after all of that, Jesus claims that he is a God of "love". In other words, God can change (or at least, claim to), he is imperfect, he is unjust, and he is unmerciful. The fact that his propaganda denies it proves nothing.
"God is all knowing and all powerful. We cannot judge God."
Power = righteousness? Wrong. The growth of the secular humanist democratic state is the direct result of people finally realizing that power does not confer unquestioned moral authority. That's why we replaced "rulers" with "public servants".
Evil is evil, no matter who does it. Kings, queens, emperors, and gods must observe the same ethics as everyone else, so if we can judge Adolf Hitler for mass murder, we can judge God for the same thing.
"The massacres of the Old Testament were righteous because God rewarded his innocent victims (such as children and babies) with an eternity of bliss. Only the truly guilty were truly punished, and they only got what they deserved."
Two-part rebuttal:
#1: So massacres are OK because innocent victims go to Heaven, eh? Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that I am 100% correct. Your religious beliefs do help you rationalize atrocities such as baby-killing! I have always maintained that the chief problem with Judaism and its offshoots is that it contains justifications for murder, warfare, and crimes against humanity, and you have just proven me right.
#2: So sinners get what they deserve in Hell, eh? How can anyone possibly deserve an eternity of torture? Even if you tortured ten people to death, their combined suffering would be a drop in the ocean compared to an eternity in Hell. And what of people who simply worship the wrong gods? Do they "deserve" an etenity of torture too? Is this God's "perfect justice"? If our justice systems were as harsh as God's "perfect justice", spitting on the sidewalk would be a death penalty offense.
"What gives us the right to judge anyone, much less God? Only a higher power has the right to pass judgement."
One word: Why?
Why does "higher power" confer the right to judge? Why should the powerful be exempt from judgement? Why can't the weak judge the strong?
I am nauseated by the common belief that judgement is based on a hierarchy of power rather than a rational, objective, analytical process. I am sickened by the common belief that standards of right and wrong should be unilaterally chosen by the strong and then imposed upon the weak through force, rather than being decided by the weak themselves, through reason, sympathy for others, and a genuine desire to make the world a happier place.
Throughout history, it has always been the weak who suffer from evil, whether it be Hitler's evil, Stalin's evil, Torquemada's evil, Columbus' evil, or God's evil. Who, then, is best qualified to judge what is and isn't evil, if not the weak? Who but the victim has the "right" to judge?
The authoritarian mindset betrayed by your argument is nothing more than medievalism, and it has no place in the modern era. Didn't you ever notice that a criminal suspect is judged by twelve of his peers? Not by a king, not by a bishop, and not by a pope, but by his own peers. Didn't you ever think to ask why?
"Jesus died on the Cross for our sins. Doesn't this prove that God truly loves us? He sent his own son to die for us! The only way to Heaven is through the Salvation of Jesus Christ. His perfect love ... [yadda yadda yadda]"
Tell me something about this "Salvation" of yours. Salvation implies a threat, correct? You must be saved from something. So who or what are we supposedly being saved from? God himself. What's the danger from which we need salvation? An eternity of agonizing torture, courtesy of a "loving" God. Call it God, call it Jesus, call it the Holy Trinity or the Heavenly Host, but whatever the name, the result is the same: he's supposedly "saving" us from himself.
Quite frankly, salvation doesn't mean a whole lot when the person "saving" you is the same person who's threatening you! The notion of Christian salvation is quite frankly the most incredibly audacious example of spin-doctoring in human history. If a mugger holds a gun to your head and says that out of his love for you, he will "save" you from his own violence as long as you give him your money, would you think him wondrously merciful? Would you be glad you ran into him? Or would you think that he's a deranged, violent sociopath?
|
This has already gotten more technical than most readers here can bear, so if you want more, I refer you to the Michael Spivak's Introduction to Differential Geometry, vol. 1 where compatification by ends is described in detail (in an exercise).
Yeah, well, I think we are probably the only ones left reading, so I'm game if you are.
In the case of the one point compactification, the neighborhoods of the (unique) point at infinity are the complements of compacta in the original space. In the case of compactification by ends, they are the connected components of complements of compacta which lie in the appropriate end. (Compactifying the reals by adding +infinity and -infinity is a special case of compactification by ends.)
First question. I was studying general topology in the early 80's in the Pacific Northwest of the USA. I never heard "compacta" used as the plural of a compact set. We just said, "compact sets." Do you know if "compacta" is of recent use or perhaps regional?
Second question. Unless definitions have changed, the finite union of compact sets (compacta?) is still compact. Correct? So, for example, the union of the intervals [3,4] and [6,7] is a compact set. This compact union of disjoint intervals could be described as a "compact neighborhood of 6" that includes 4 but not 5. Then there are probably as many compact neighborhoods of infinity that contain 1000 but not 1,000,000 as there are compact neighborhoods of infinity that contain 1,000,000 but not 1000. No, I haven't determined the cardinality of either.
I know that your example was a compact interval but I would still suggest that your argument was based more on the connectedness of intervals than on compactness. Am I misunderstanding what you were trying to say?
I think your query is addressed in 182.
Comparison of sets may be done by a one-to-one correspondence. An infinite set is one which may be put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself. For example, one can pair off each integer with its double, 1-2, 2-4, 3-6, 4-8, etc. This gives a one-to-one mapping of the integers to the even integers, showing that the set of integers is infinite. This is a different concept from that of natural density of integers.
Truth isn't but numerical errors are.
Granted it's not exactly Christian, but doesn't Darwin lead us to the conclusion that we're related to **ALL OTHER LIVING THINGS**. I personally find this awe-inspiring and highly spiritual.
Any comments?
Name a few of 'em.
And, by the way, why do whales sometimes have a birth defect of legs? It seems most probable to me that it's been in their genome as long as there's been whales. Is there a non-common-descent explanation?
And that *identical* mutation that prevents us and chimps from making vitamin C?
You must have posted this while I was working (with distractions) on my previous post. All right, now you are giving a privileged position to your topological basis. But your basis for that topology is not inherent in your topological space, only in your construction of it. There are other bases for the same topology on the extended line. A different basis for the topology would give a different notion of "closeness." Then your notion of closeness is not from your topology, but from your basis; i.e., from your method of compactification. Isn't that a little bit arbitrary?
Truth isn't but numerical errors are.
Truth isn't relative? Or Truth isn't absolute? Not to offend, but after seeing this I wanted to know for certain which one you intended.
Or was it your intent to leave us hanging?
|A-B| is the absolute error
|A-B|/A is the relative error.
For your second question, one needs to be a little more precise: that the cartesian product of a non-empty family of non-empty sets is non-empty is often considere to be almost a statement of the Axiom of Choice. In particular if such a product is always non-empty and once can choose an element out of any single non-empty set, then AC holds (the coordinates of the chosen element are a choice function for the family of sets). Again AC is independent of the other axioms of set theory, and there are perfectly fine models of set theory without AC, but the thing that goes awry with choice is not that the products are empty in the sense of being isomorphic to the empty set (the unique set with a unique set-map to any set), but that they do not have "global elements". (It turns out one can build a model of set-theory out of your favorite model of set theory with AC by considering as 'new sets' old sets with an action of the two-element group. In the new model one does not even have choice functions for non-empty families of at most two non-empty sets with at most two elements. (At most two defined in Russell's way as (for all x,y,z x=y or y=z or x=z).)
Re: 3 and 4. Not that I know of. :-(
Name a few of 'em.
Mathematicians who don't believe in evolution? I could start with Sir Fred Hoyle and Robert Bass, but the real starting point is Wistar.
The Wistar Institute Symposium was a milestone meeting held in Philadelphia in April 1966 to discuss the statistical possibility of Darwinian evolution. The conference was chaired by Sir Peter Medawar, whose work on graft rejection won him a Noble prize. By 1966, computers had progressed enough to determine statistically if random mutations alone could account for the level of evolution seen in organisms after five billion years. After a heated debate and several meetings, the Wistar Symposium deemed this statistically impossible.
Furthermore, many of the scientists at Wistar came forward to state that the fossil record did not support evolution. Few fossils showing transitional stages between species had been found. Arguments also came up about advanced organs such as the eye and that 5 billion years was not enough time for these organs to evolve.
For more details about the Wistar Institute Symposium, see the following links:
Wendell Bird, author of the article at the second site, is the author of a two-volumn destruction of modern evolutionary theory published by the Philosophical Society of New York, which could hardly be categorized as a bunch of bible-thumping rednecks or fundamentalists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.