Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bashing Mother Teresa: Christopher Hitchens Goes E. O. Wilson One Better

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

E. O. Wilson | Christopher Hitchens

In THE DESIGN OF LIFE, Jonathan Wells and I describe E. O. Wilson’s attack on Mother Teresa as follows (the context of the discussion is that whereas traditional morality must come to terms with the problem of evil, evolutionary morality must come to terms with the problem of good):

For E. O. Wilson, goodness depends on “lying, pretense, and deceit, including self-deceit, because the actor is most convincing who believes that his performance is real.” Accordingly, Wilson attributes Mother Teresa’s acts of goodness to her belief that she will be richly rewarded for them in heaven. In other words, she was simply looking out for number one, acting selfishly in her own self-interest, looking to cash in on the Church’s immortality. As Wilson puts it, “Mother Teresa is an extraordinary person but it should not be forgotten that she is secure in the service of Christ and the knowledge of her Church’s immortality.”

Not to be outdone in bashing Mother Teresa, Christopher Hitchens launched this missile on in a recent Dennis Miller interview (go here):

Mother Theresa spent her whole life saying (that what Calcutta needs) is a huge campaign against family planning. I mean, who comes to that conclusion who isn’t a complete fanatic? She took – and I would directly say stole…millions and millions of dollars and spent all the money not on the poor, but on the building of nearly 200 convents in her own name around the world to glorify herself and to continue to spread the doctrine that, as she put it — when she got her absurd Nobel Peace Prize — that the main threat to world peace is abortion and contraception. The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it’s a shame there is no hell for your bitch to go to.

Comments
StephenB @ 59
You have not yet told me where the right to life comes from.
From us. I want to live for as long as I can and so do most other people. The Golden Rule applies: you don't try kill me and I won't try to kill you. Simple.Seversky
November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
Berceuse, I have pushed the envelope too far already. Thanks for putting up with me.StephenB
November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
"On the matter of your question, it should be evident that one should not trust a moral authority that can’t make up its mind about morals." I wouldn't call it indecisiveness, and the Church isn't a moral authority anyway. "No." Why not?Berceuse
November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
---"I find it hard to believe that whatever Church you belong to has not changed a single thing since its inception, in which case the same consequences would apply. Nevertheless, let’s say, as you put it, the old interpretation was false. So what? How does that corrupt all trustworthiness?" My church has never changed a dogmatic teaching. On the matter of your question, it should be evident that one should not trust a moral authority that can't make up its mind about morals. ---"I think we can both agree that there are many issues in addition to this one that are up for debate." Sure. ---"After all, how many denominations of Christianity are there?" Tens of thousands. ---"I’ve asked repeatedly how you know your interpretation is right, and haven’t received an answer." OK. Fair enough. I guess I owe you that much. I know my answer is right because it comes from the one Church that Christ founded over two thousand years ago, which never has and never will change its mind about any doctrine. However, that is one issue that I will not press [indeed, I will not mention it again] out of respect for my hosts. ---"Is it those who follow the Bible word for word? Does your church enforce ALL the laws in Leviticus?" No. ---"I have a feeling that no matter what evidence I provide, you will write it off as a divorce from the Church to begin with, and therefore not worth recognizing as a legitimate example. This stategy reminds me of someone…" The two tests are these: Is it Scriptural, that is, does it reflect the whole of God's word, not just one part of it, and is it consistent with the natural moral law, which also cannot violate Scripture. By that way, this discussion is not much fun for me either. I would much rather critique Hitchens militant atheism or the morality of abortionsts who attack babies in their mothers womb and torture them to death. Perhaps we can come together on that one. ----Too easy. Those issues shouldn’t even be up for debate. I agree, and I salute you for saying so.StephenB
November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
"If they changed their “doctrine,” which the article you alluded to states, then either their old interpretation of Biblical morality was false, in which case it should never have been trusted, or else their new interpretation of Biblical morality is false, in which case it cannot be trusted now. If you are seeking truth, look for a Church or a moral source that doesn’t change its story." I find it hard to believe that whatever Church you belong to has not changed a single thing since its inception, in which case the same consequences would apply. Nevertheless, let's say, as you put it, the old interpretation was false. So what? How does that corrupt all trustworthiness? I think we can both agree that there are many issues in addition to this one that are up for debate. After all, how many denominations of Christianity are there? I've asked repeatedly how you know your interpretation is right, and haven't received an answer. Is it those who follow the Bible word for word? Does your church enforce ALL the laws in Leviticus? I have a feeling that no matter what evidence I provide, you will write it off as a divorce from the Church to begin with, and therefore not worth recognizing as a legitimate example. This stategy reminds me of someone... "By that way, this discussion is not much fun for me either. I would much rather critique Hitchens militant atheism or the morality of abortionsts who attack babies in their mothers womb and torture them to death. Perhaps we can come together on that one." Too easy. Those issues shouldn't even be up for debate.Berceuse
November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
----"Sorry, I forgot. You are right. I am deluded. I guess the Lutheran church is no longer “Biblically oriented”: Insofar as they recognize gay relationships, that is correct. If they changed their "doctrine," which the article you alluded to states, then either their old interpretation of Biblical morality was false, in which case it should never have been trusted, or else their new interpretation of Biblical morality is false, in which case it cannot be trusted now. If you are seeking truth, look for a Church or a moral source that doesn't change its story. ---"So if I’m understanding this correctly, it is okay for someone to be gay, for that is how they were made, but they have to be celibate to remain moral?" I didn't say that they were "made" that way. Quite the contrary, I submit that, for the most part, cultural conditions cause it, meaning that it is a learned behavior based on a multitude of factors. There is no credible evidence to suggest that homosexuals are born that way. So, there are a lot of reasons to think that they can change with the right help and under the right circumstances; that which is learned can be unlearned. In the meantime, yes, homosexuals must remain chase to be moral, just as single heterosexuals must remain chaste to be moral. Granted, it is a trial, for some a severe one, especially in a sex-crazed culture such as ours, but morality imposes trials on a lot of people. That is why moral relativism has become so popular and why some churches avoid all the hard sayings and change their doctrines to harmoize with the current zeitgeist. By that way, this discussion is not much fun for me either. I would much rather critique Hitchens militant atheism or the morality of abortionsts who attack babies in their mothers womb and torture them to death. Perhaps we can come together on that one.StephenB
November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
"If you want to delude yourself into believing that the Bible or any Biblically oriented church supports homosexual unions, I don’t think any argument would suffice for you." Sorry, I forgot. You are right. I am deluded. I guess the Lutheran church is no longer "Biblically oriented": http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/22/lutheran-church-to-allow-gay-clergy-couples/ Instead of tap-dancing around the question and insulting me, it'd be better to just answer it. "Are you talking about the homosexual orientation over which they have no control?" So if I'm understanding this correctly, it is okay for someone to be gay, for that is how they were made, but they have to be celibate to remain moral?Berceuse
November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
----seversky: "Yes, because it threatens an individual whose survival should be protected by the right to life." You have not yet told me where the right to life comes from.StephenB
November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
Both gay lifestyles and heterosexual cause the culture to disintegrate ---"Please elaborate how the former does." Among other things, the gay lifestyle [and heterosexual libertinism] leads the uninformed to believe that the purpose of sex, which is to create a loving bond between husband and wife, co-create children with God, and infuse the culture with a pro-life ethic, is negotiable and can be altered to suit one's personal desires. ---"Not all churches, and therefore interpretations of scripture, apparently. How do you know your Church, if you will, is right?" If you want to delude yourself into believing that the Bible or any Biblically oriented church supports homosexual unions, I don't think any argument would suffice for you. ---"Please elaborate." Ministers should support what the Bible teaches. ---"Well, it was you who brought it up to begin with. Maybe not openly gay pastors but certainly the idea that being gay is wrong." Well, not exactly. You asked me to visit a Christian gay website and render an opinion. ---"Again, if they accept Jesus Christ are their souls really in jeopardy?" Are you talking about the homosexual orientation over which they have no control? If so, the answer is no. Are you talking about the gay lifestyle, over which they do have control. The answer is yes? ---"By a 30 year reduction in life I’m assuming you’re referring to AIDS. While it’s statistically more likely for a person to have AIDS if he is gay, I think that was uncalled for. Being heterosexual doesn’t make one immune to AIDS, anyway." I don't think it is an act of compassion to ignore the fact that active gays typically lose decades out of their life and put their souls in jeopardy. I believe that most, not all, can change their orientation, because I think that it is, usually, not always, more of a "nurture" problem than a "nature" problem. On the other hand, I have not given heterosexual libertinsim a pass or suggested that it was any less sinful. ---"As far as popularity goes, I wasn’t suggesting you would hold your tongue for the sake being on good terms with others. My point is that it’s easier to have conviction on here than in the face of someone who has devoted himself to Christ and made it his life’s work, as well as made peace with who he is (or, as I guess you would put it, who he chooses to be)." I have not said anything about choosing identities, only behaviors. Can one devote himself to Christ while ignoring his commandments? I will leave that one to you. On the other matter, yes it is easier to dispense hard sayings from a distance. No doubt about it.StephenB
November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 46
Society doesn’t grant rights. It delegates that power to the state. What the state gives the state can take away. Only God granted rights can be inalienable.
In a democracy, the legislature is comprised of members who are chosen by the electorate to represent them. The legislature derives its authority and legitimacy from popular mandate. A significant difference between the British and US systems, though, is that, in the UK, Parliament is held to be supreme. The two Houses are able to make or unmake any law. Nothing is immune. In the US, the constitution incorporates a Bill of Rights which, while not immune from Congressional amendment, are to some extent shielded from the ebb and flow of political debate. Changes cannot be made lightly or in haste. To that extent the American system is superior. While rights in the US may not be inalienable, by being incorporated in a single statute they are better protected than they are in the UK. As for God-granted rights in what way are they inalienable? What is to prevent Him from changing His mind and withdrawing some or all of them if He chooses?
What happens if you think that the current abortion laws are reasonable and I think that they are unreasonable? We are both members of society are we not? How is that disagreement adjudicated?
The same way as such disputes are handled now. If the matter is important enough to the electorate it could become subject of public and political debate which could eventually lead to the tabling of draft legislation. This would be scrutinized, debated and finally put to the vote as with any other legislation.
I already explained that we cannot use your morality, my morality, or anyone else’s morality. That is precisely what gets us into trouble. We should use THE morality. If it doesn’t exist, we can’t invent it nor can we ever agree on it.
I prefer to believe that given sufficient time and goodwill we can reach an agreement on a collective morality. As with most such human endeavors, it will probably take time and be a messy business but that does not mean it cannot be done or that we shouldn't try.
****But what if all four parties agree to it? You said earlier that if consenting adults want to have sex, they should not be discouraged from doing so. So, if both husbands and wives agree to it, there would be no betrayal. Under those circumstances, is adultery moral? What if a whole community works out its own morality such that all couples married or not can exchange partners freely and often?
If it is consensual between responsible adults then it is not immoral in my view
****Is it immoral for adults fornicate with the intention to abort if pregnancy occurs?
Yes, because it threatens an individual whose survival should be protected by the right to life. On the other hand, if they plan to employ contraception then I see no problem.
Seversky
November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
Re: 54 "Both cause the culture to disintegrate." Please elaborate how the former does. "The Scriptures [and the Church] condemn both behaviors." Not all churches, and therefore interpretations of scripture, apparently. How do you know your Church, if you will, is right? "A big, big problem." Please elaborate. "I wouldn’t say it unless I was asked about it, just as I was asked about it here." Well, it was you who brought it up to begin with. Maybe not openly gay pastors but certainly the idea that being gay is wrong. "What matters more, their immortal soul, not to mention a 30 year reduction of their earthly life, or my popularity?" Again, if they accept Jesus Christ are their souls really in jeopardy? Are you saying their acceptance of Christ isn't legitimate because they're gay? By a 30 year reduction in life I'm assuming you're referring to AIDS. While it's statistically more likely for a person to have AIDS if he is gay, I think that was uncalled for. Being heterosexual doesn't make one immune to AIDS, anyway. As far as popularity goes, I wasn't suggesting you would hold your tongue for the sake being on good terms with others. My point is that it's easier to have conviction on here than in the face of someone who has devoted himself to Christ and made it his life's work, as well as made peace with who he is (or, as I guess you would put it, who he chooses to be).Berceuse
November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Re: 53 I was never advocating gay marriage. That's not the issue here. What I'm addressing is if same-sex attraction is fundamentally immoral. Immoral in the same way that theft and murder are immoral. I've yet to see a convincing argument.Berceuse
November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
---"How much more damage is the latter [committed homosexual relationship] causing to the world than the former [undisciplined heterosexual relationship?]" Both cause the culture to disintegrate. The Scriptures [and the Church] condemn both behaviors. ----"What do you make of any openly gay Christian pastors?" A big, big problem. ---"Would you say the same things to them as you’ve written on here? Or have you already?" If it was a one time meeting, I wouldn't say it unless I was asked about it, just as I was asked about it here. On the other hand, if I had multiple opportunities in an ongoing dialogue, as has sometimes been the case, I would express my disapproval, as lovingly as possible. What matters more, their immortal soul, not to mention a 30 year reduction of their earthly life, or my popularity? "Woe unto you when all men speak well of you."StephenB
November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
Here's some interesting reading, Berceuse. An excerpt (all emphasis mine): "Want to know what it really means for a society to recognize “gay marriage”? Or for a society to permit polygamy? Or when the stigma on out-of-wedlock birth disappears? Care to know what happens to a human community that tolerates sexual experimentation among pre-adolescents and teenagers? Are fathers and mothers really interchangeable? Anthropology actually has a large amount of empirical evidence on all these matters—and many others that are now on the table in the United States thanks to various advocacy movements."angryoldfatman
November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in terms of morality, are you saying a disciplined homosexual in a committed relationship is comparable to an undisciplined, hedonistic heterosexual? How much more damage is the latter causing to the world than the former? What do you make of any openly gay Christian pastors? Would you say the same things to them as you've written on here? Or have you already?Berceuse
November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Berceuse, to restore moral freedom to someone who has lost it is a very delicate operation that often requires the wisdom of more than one person. Indeed, some of us are better at describing what life, truth, beauty, unity, and goodness may look like, while others are better are warning how their absence can lead to death. Some are better at encouraging those who, tempted to despair, need a helping hand, others are better at goading those who, tempted to presumption, need a strong dose of reality. Both kinds of efforts are required. So, what are the current proportions and where should our emphasis be placed. Are there more homosexuals, or for that matter, heterosexuals equally bound to carnality, who feel shame and discouragement in their failed attempts to extricate themselves from their bondage, or are there more who are proud, happy, and defiant in the circumstances, announcing to all concerned that there is nothing at all wrong with undisciplined carnality, threatening anyone who would object to their lifestyle that they are liable be taken to court for a hate crime and, as a bonus, informing us that we will also have to live with a new definition of marriage and morality itself. I submit that the latter problem is more common and therefore the one to be addressed. Does that mean there are none who qualify for the first group, referring to those who may actually be hurt or unduly discouraged when cold reality hits them in the face? Of course not. Some do fall into that category, and for them, I sympathize and would go to great lengths to help---without condemnation or judgment, because those are the ones who are in danger of giving up. There are plenty of outlets for those so disposed, and if anyone ever asks me, I will, gently and lovingly, provide my best efforts at directing that initiative. However, to get to that stage, the homosexual, or the undisciplined heterosexual, which appears to now be the majority in our culture [just watch MTV], or the lecher, or the pedophile, or the pornography addict [you wouldn’t believe the numbers], or whoever has become a slave to his/her appetites, must first acknowledge that slavery is the problem. It is those who have indeed acknowledged that they are slaves that would be tempted to suicide, but then they would not be unduly affected by my warnings because they would already know the truth inherent in them and would be moving on to the second stage of seeking help. But how many in our culture really ask for help. Not enough. Quite the contrary, most are in our face telling us [or at least me] to get out of their face--that there is absolutely nothing wrong with undisciplined carnality—that such behavior is moral and normal---that there is no such thing as objective morality or normality in the first place---that we should not pay attention to the cultural movements to legitimize sexual sin, indoctrinate our children, change the definition of marriage—that we should end this discussion once and for all and to never speak of it again. I don’t think it is a legitimate Christian response to cower to those kinds of initiatives or to soft soap the problem. Too many young people face a sexual identity crisis and too many babies are dying all because a large portion of our population cannot manage their sexual instincts or are even aware of the fact that they ought to. In fact, Jesus Christ was capable both of anger, which prompted him to throw the money hungry Sadducees out of the temple [they were too lax and liberal] and condemn the self righteous Pharisees [they were too rigid and conservative], and yet he was also capable of exceeding kindness, with which he guided the sensibilities of the woman at the well and his own apostles, and finessed the difficult problems faced by the woman at the well. He harmonized his approach with the texture of the problem and the attitude of his listeners. In other words, he diagnosed the problem and shaped his response accordingly. Everything turns on the diagnosis. Concerning the problem of sexual immorality, I for one, perceive far more presumption than despair, so I respond accordingly. If I am wrong, or, if in my correspondence, I become the Pharisee [please God don’t let it happen], then I am subject to judgment myself. As I say, it is a very delicate operation, but one that requires a proper diagnosis nevertheless. According to my diagnosis, this is the wrong time to finesse the problem. If I am right, it is inappropriate to try to put out a raging fire with a fireside chat.StephenB
November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
StephenB: As you may have guessed, I got on this topic because I think calling homosexuality immoral, as well as comparing it to adultery, and especially abortion, is going a little far... To use your own arguments, who are you to say that your interpretation of the Word is the correct one, and isn't a distortion? But let's just say you're right. Won't the followers of this website be forgiven, since they accept Christ? Shouldn't you be, at the very least, glad that they know of Jesus? To compare them with Hitchens is a low, low blow. You are making Christianity's message of unconditional love quite conditional. I am not an atheist, but I have to say, you're making Christians seem awfully bigoted. But I guess that's the problem. Since intolerance is justified in the face of immorality, whether or not this is bigotry really depends on if you're correct in saying, "Homosexuality is immoral" And there are plenty of Christians who don't agree with that statement, but I imagine you will say, "then they aren't Christians." I think the most important message of Christianity is Jesus being our Savior. You seem to have lost that in a self-collapsing vortex of self-righteousness. I like you, StephenB. You're better than the presumption of claiming these people "pretend to love God" and concoct "poison" for the masses. I never expected to hear something so shocking from you, a Christian. It's polemics like these that drive some struggling homosexuals to suicide.Berceuse
November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT
Wow, angryoldfatman @46, that is quite a list. Here is my favorite list from all your sources: --Biologist Stephen Jay Gould: “We may yearn for a higher answer—but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating.” --Biologist Julian Huxley, the grandson of Darwin’s buddy and ally Thomas Henry Huxley, put it this way: “The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous.” --Julian’s brother Aldous Huxley, not to be outdone by his bro, stated, “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . . For myself as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation . . . liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.” --Bertrand Russell: “The worst feature of the Christian religion is its attitude toward sex.” And, or course, our man of the hour, --Christopher Hitchens: “The divorce between the sexual life and fear . . . can now at last be attempted on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse.” Good work, angry man.StephenB
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT
----Berceuse: "Is http://www.whosoever.org an atheistic valued website?" It is quite an irony when you think about it. In a sense, the site you allude to is promoting the same doctrine as Hitchens and Wilson, namely that man can be a law unto himself—a self created being who can invent his own sexual morality. Yet their approaches and styles are totally different.. On the one hand, Hitchens and Wilson hate God, militate against him, and take a hard line against theists, especially Christians. Even so, there is no pretense; the hate is palpable---and sincere. They fight morality with a fierce frown and an aggressive thrust of the sword. On the other hand, the hosts at the website in question pretend to love God even as they twist his word and use his name to justify their immoral teaching, exuding a feigned, insufferable sweetness---a kind of feminized Christianity that seeks to destroy morality with a smile and a brew of poison that tastes like sugar. While they represent two radically different journeys, they both lead to the same place: A culture of death and disorder in this life earth, which leads to eternal suffering in the next life.StephenB
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT
A blast from UD past - Atheism: An Intellectual Revolt or Pelvic Rebellion? Also, here's some fun stuff for Seversky et al to try and talk around (remember, you can't force your morality down other people's throats - that's hypocritical): Genetic sexual attraction (that's incest to you intellectual feebs out there) Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution. Slippery slope? Whatchutalkinbout? Heavy Petting, by that OTHER reknowned utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer And along similar lines, Interspecies Sex: Evolution's Hidden Secret? Finally, if the American Psychological Association ever proclaims pedophilia to be a lifestyle choice rather than a sickness, then who are we to say they're wrong?angryoldfatman
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
----seversky: “Rights are entitlements granted by a society to all its members by mutual agreement. There is no need for objective morality, even if such a thing made sense.” Society doesn’t grant rights. It delegates that power to the state. What the state gives the state can take away. Only God granted rights can be inalienable. ----“I suspect we will find we agree on a lot more than you think.” I suspect that you are right, although for different reasons. ----Criminal and civil law can be viewed as the codification of moral beliefs developed and refined through their practical application to specific cases. For it to work, rather than simply be enforced, the members of society to whom it applies must feel that it is reasonably just and fair. What happens if you think that the current abortion laws are reasonable and I think that they are unreasonable? We are both members of society are we not? How is that disagreement adjudicated? ----“If, as you seem to be suggesting, the moral beliefs of one section of society be imposed on the rest, you will forfeit the tacit consent of the majority. That will not work either.” I already explained that we cannot use your morality, my morality, or anyone else’s morality. That is precisely what gets us into trouble. We should use THE morality. If it doesn’t exist, we can’t invent it nor can we ever agree on it. Is adultery moral? ----No. It involves a deception and betrayal of trust. It is a breach of the Golden Rule inasmuch as most people would not like to be betrayed in that way.” ****But what if all four parties agree to it? You said earlier that if consenting adults want to have sex, they should not be discouraged from doing so. So, if both husbands and wives agree to it, there would be no betrayal. Under those circumstances, is adultery moral? What if a whole community works out its own morality such that all couples married or not can exchange partners freely and often? ****Is it immoral for adults fornicate with the intention to abort if pregnancy occurs?StephenB
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 37
—-Seversky: [concerning atheists proclivity to abuse sexuality] “As for the rest, it’s none of your damn business.” Yes it is. Many atheists are not content to simply pervert their own nature. They seek to remake the world in their own image and likeness.
No, it most certainly is not. Unlike the more extreme forms of fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity, atheism is not trying to foist some Puritanical notion of morality on the rest of us. And I will accept no lectures on morality from Christians who will not disavow some of the more egregious incidents from the Old Testament such as Judges 20-21.
Currently, the homosexual lobby is doing exactly the same thing—imposing their morality on the marriage contract itself.
What on earth are you talking about? Homosexuals are simply asking that their partnerships be recognized by society as being as legitimate as those of heterosexuals. It makes no difference at all to heterosexual marriages. Quite why they need the endorsement of such an uncharitable section of society is beyond me. I'd have thought they would be much better off with some sort of legally-recognized civil partnership.
I will make a political deal with the atheists. For now, [and only for now] if they will allow the 99% of aborted babies caused by unfettered sexual activity to live, I will let them kill the 1% caused by rape and incest.
I will make you a counter-offer. Persuade Congress to pass a law extending the status of personhood and thus the right to life to conception. That will prevent abortions except in cases of medical necessity.
What “right to life?” Are you saying that the right to life is an objective reality? On what do you base that assertion? I salute you for your belief, but, in your case, it is just a sentiment. If there is no objective morality, then there are no inalienable rights. Didn’t you know that?
Rights are entitlements granted by a society to all its members by mutual agreement. There is no need for objective morality, even if such a thing made sense.
Provide your standards and then we can negotiate. We have already been through this. You will not put your standard on the table because you have no standard except for the Golden Rule, which you “feel” is a good standard. That is a noble sentiment, but you cannot build a well ordered society around it. It is too vague.
If you want to negotiate I am quite happy to participate but we will need a more appropriate venue than this. I suspect we will find we agree on a lot more than you think.
First, you are confusing the moral law with the civil law, which derives from it. The standards for the former are higher, but the latter must depend on it nevertheless. The civil law is always based on someone’s morality. The only question is this: On whose morality will it be based?
That is a dangerous question. Criminal and civil law can be viewed as the codification of moral beliefs developed and refined through their practical application to specific cases. For it to work, rather than simply be enforced, the members of society to whom it applies must feel that it is reasonably just and fair. If, as you seem to be suggesting, the moral beliefs of one section of society be imposed on the rest, you will forfeit the tacit consent of the majority. That will not work either.
Second, sex is never a neutral activity. It always takes place within a context. Are you saying that adultery, which can certainly result from a “natural human appetite,” is morally neutral?
No. It involves a deception and betrayal of trust. It is a breach of the Golden Rule inasmuch as most people would not like to be betrayed in that way. Does society have an interest in such activities which entitles it to intervene? In accordance with the principles in Mill's On Liberty, unless there is a question of harm to the rights of any of the participants then I would say not.
Are you saying that ten year olds having sex on a school bus, another “natural” activity [it happens] is morally neutral?
My view is that society has no interest in what consenting adults choose to do together in private provided no unwanted harm occurs. That view assumes that the participants are old enough and mature enough to be able to give informed consent. Ten year-old children are not assumed to be capable of giving informed consent because they are too young to be able to understand let alone cope with the consequences of their actions. On those grounds, under-age sex should be discouraged although you are probably never going to be able to prevent all experimentation.
Are you saying that incest is morally neutral?
No, because in the case of siblings it is wrong for the reasons given above. In the case of an adult and a child, it is wrong because it involves the exploitation of someone who is not able to give informed consent.
Are you saying that pre-marital sex is morally neutral?
Again, if it is between consenting adults then there is nothing wrong with it morally.
From where does this “entitlement” come? The ten year olds who are having sex on the bus salute you. Also, what if fornicators are not “prepared to accept the consequences should pregnancy result.” What then? Or, what if they are prepared to accept the consequences and have decided to kill their offspring in the result of a pregnancy?
The source of entitlement and the question of under-age sex I have already dealt with very briefly above. On the question of abortion, if society allows it, as is the case at present, then I have no right to take any action against those who choose to avail themselves of that option. If you allow that people have a right to ignore the law whenever they feel it is justified, you have a recipe for chaos.
Seversky
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
More on Christopher's irrational obsession here: http://freshsensibility.com/allanius
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
To StephenB and bornagain77. I really tried to keep quiet, but I have to ask again: If ID tries so hard to distance itself from religion, why do you 2 (ID defenders I presume) keep dragging it back in ? (and why so loooong?) You are definitely not helping your case. BTW, bornagain77, I followed your link at #20. Oh dear. I dont think this helps your case either.Graham
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
StephenB, In light of your comments about atheism and sexuality, I did some quick Googling... is www.whosoever.org an atheistic valued website?Berceuse
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
----"Margaret Meade was an Episcopalian. I don’t think Episcopalians are atheists!" That's probably a fair objection, but it doesn't make much difference in the overall scheme of things. While Mead may not have been a full fledged atheist, at least by public admission, she promoted atheistic values, like free sex, bisexuality, and adultery. She simply wanted to remake the world with respect to atheistic attitudes about sex while maintaining her Christian affiliation. We have a few like that running around today. Eugene Robinson and John Shelby Spong come to mind. As Saul Alinsky pointed out long ago, the idea is to appear mainstrem while promoting a radical agenda. You get more traction that way.StephenB
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Great posts from Frost and StephenBBerceuse
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
StephenB Margaret Meade was an Episcopalian. I don't think Episcopalians are atheists!Zach Bailey
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
----Seversky: [concerning atheists proclivity to abuse sexuality] “As for the rest, it’s none of your damn business.” Yes it is. Many atheists are not content to simply pervert their own nature. They seek to remake the world in their own image and likeness. Sexual pervert and biologist Alfred Kinsey changed the entire moral landscape by visiting his own sexual dysfunction on the culture with his bogus science. Atheist anthropologist Margaret Mead, adulterer, cooked the books in cultural analysis to create the impression that adultery was far more widespread than it was. Currently, the homosexual lobby is doing exactly the same thing---imposing their morality on the marriage contract itself. -----“Why should anyone conform to a moral standard whose alleged “objectivity” has yet to be established? This is especially so when there is reason to think that this claim is nothing but an unfounded sectarian attempt to assert the supremacy of Christian morality.” So, make up your mind. First, you tell us that atheists are just as moral as everyone else. Then you tell us that atheists need not follow the moral code because they don’t believe in it. ----“Unwanted pregnancies can be the result of many causes other than “unfettered sexual activity”. I will make a political deal with the atheists. For now, [and only for now] if they will allow the 99% of aborted babies caused by unfettered sexual activity to live, I will let them kill the 1% caused by rape and incest. That will bring the number of US abortions down from over l,000,000 a year to less than 10,000 a year. [I will then try to save the 10.000, who deserve to live just as much as the others]. Of course, the atheists will never make such a deal with me. All this talk about rape and incest is a pretext to avoid the main issue, which is the atheistic proclivity to kill babies for convenience. ----“There are also atheists who are opposed to abortion. I am, on the grounds that I believe the right to life should extend from conception to death, although I would allow it if there were compelling medical reasons.” What “right to life?” Are you saying that the right to life is an objective reality? On what do you base that assertion? I salute you for your belief, but, in your case, it is just a sentiment. If there is no objective morality, then there are no inalienable rights. Didn’t you know that? -----“When I have written about our working out our own morality, I have meant it to include all humanity, not just atheists and agnostics. I would argue that there is a firmer rational basis for a collective morality than an objective morality.” As I have pointed out, there is no way to work out a collective morality. Would you like to work one out with me? Here is my opening gambit: The natural moral [The Tao] The Ten Commandments [Old Testament] The Sermon on the Mount [New Testament] The Beatitudes [New Testament] Provide your standards and then we can negotiate. We have already been through this. You will not put your standard on the table because you have no standard except for the Golden Rule, which you “feel” is a good standard. That is a noble sentiment, but you cannot build a well ordered society around it. It is too vague. Again, if you and I [two people cannot work out a morality] we can be certain that society at large cannot work it out. The moral law must precede it application. Subjective morality is a contradiction of terms. If it doesn’t exist outside the realm of personal opinion, it cannot be binding. Why should I be bound by your morality? Why should you be bound by mine. We can only both be bound by THE morality. ----“First, there is nothing either right or wrong about sex. It is a normal human appetite and activity. How people choose to indulge it is their business and provided no one is harmed then neither you nor I nor the State has any right to interfere.” First, you are confusing the moral law with the civil law, which derives from it. The standards for the former are higher, but the latter must depend on it nevertheless. The civil law is always based on someone’s morality. The only question is this: On whose morality will it be based? Will it derive from [A] The natural moral law, which brings order [B] Religious fanaticism, which leads to tyranny or [C] Atheism, which also leads to tyranny or [D] Popular opinion, which leads to the tyranny of the majority, which, in turn, leads to tyranny by a few. Second, sex is never a neutral activity. It always takes place within a context. Are you saying that adultery, which can certainly result from a “natural human appetite,” is morally neutral? Are you saying that ten year olds having sex on a school bus, another “natural” activity [it happens] is morally neutral? Are you saying that incest is morally neutral? Are you saying that pre-marital sex is morally neutral? If not, what is your moral standard for accepting some of these “natural” behaviors while rejecting others? ----“If someone chooses of their own free will to remain chaste that is a choice they are entitled to make for themselves not for others. If others prefer to have sex whenever and wherever they can, that is also their choice, provided it is consensual and all parties are prepared to accept the consequences should pregnancy result.” From where does this “entitlement” come? The ten year olds who are having sex on the bus salute you. Also, what if fornicators are not “prepared to accept the consequences should pregnancy result.” What then? Or, what if they are prepared to accept the consequences and have decided to kill their offspring in the result of a pregnancy? As good little moral relativists, they will tell you that no moral law prevents them from killing the baby. You will tell them that you are “personally opposed” to it, but, hey, you wouldn’t dream of imposing your subjective morality on them. So, the baby dies and everyone goes away much edified----accept the baby—--and the deteriorating culture.StephenB
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Who denies that the science of origins has profound religious implications? ID? Of course not. But many of Darwin’s children do—which is why Richard Dawkins can say, “I’m being a hell of a lot more frank and honest in this interview than many people in this field would be.” So it’s not ID that denies that the origins debate has religious implications—it’s the can’t-we-all-just-get-along Atheist and Theistic Darwinists. This wouldn’t even be an issue if it weren’t for the profound religious implications. Who really cares whether we question Ohm’s law. On the one hand it may not be that questionable—such as Darwinism is—and on the other hand what would be the religious implications if we did question it. No, what ID asks is that, whatever our religious preferences, we let Dawkins’ honesty trickle down into the science. It’s OK to question ID, even if you are an atheist. And it’s OK to question Darwin, even if you are a theist. And never trust anyone who says he has no biases, no religious preferences. If he is telling the truth he’s a fool, and if he’s not he’s a liar. When Graham mischaracterizes ID, “The world is so complex it must be made by God,” he reveals his own materialist bias: “Even though the world is so complex we will always be able to find a chance and necessity explanation.” His bias is OK, but not if he won’t admit it.Rude
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply