Monday, January 17, 2005
Playing it Both Ways
DarkSyde, from Unscrewing the Inscrutable, has posted a really interesting post today. It starts with the famous quote from Martin Luther King, Jr:
Why is this interesting? Well, it’s interesting because DarkSyde is an atheist. I know this because it’s practically all he ever talks about. I know that he likes Pink Floyd, because of his net handle, but otherwise, I know he’s an atheist. Here’s a fun quote to support my characterization:
He didn’t post the MLK quote in order to fisk it. No, he posted it in order to praise it, and use it as a jumping off point for his own statements.
DarkSyde thinks racism is bad. I do too. But I think it’s bad for precisely the same reasons that MLK thought it was bad- because it was a self-evident truth that all men are created equal.
That “created” part is kind of an important part of the statement. MLK’s belief in God was kind of an important part of his belief system. Without his belief in God, MLK’s beliefs in equality cannot be understood. It is precisely his “imagined invisible deities” and “supernatural artifice” that provide the foundation for MLK’s dream. Therefore, the quote is a little bit problematic for a jumping off point for an anti-religious rant.
Some people think that “self-evident” means “obvious”, which it doesn’t. “Self-evident” means that the idea is self-attesting, or carries its truth within itself, without the need for external proof. But to an atheist, nothing can be self-evident. Everything must be tested, proved, disproved, doubted, suspected, and only very carefully and tentatively accepted. This is because there is no authoritative revelation. The atheist can trust only his own senses and reasoning, and these are notoriously unreliable. If something is “self-evident”, it is a matter of faith. So nothing can be self-evident to the atheist.
In particular, how could it be “self-evident” to the atheist that all men are created equal, when the atheist does not believe that all men are created at all? He does not believe in God, so how could man be said to be created? The best DS could agree with is the statement, “We believe these truths to most likely be correct, that all men are equal.”
But then what is the basis for believing that truth, that equality is something that can be predicated of all men? Our equality is not based on genetics, is it? If so, if someone could prove to DarkSyde that, say, Polish people were genetically inferior to Chinese, would DarkSyde then accept that all people were in fact not equal?
All men are not obviously equal. Some are poor, some are rich. Some are strong or smart or beautiful, and some are weak and stupid and ugly. Some people are born with terrible deficiencies that make rational thought practically impossible for such a person and likely curtails their lifespan quite a bit. Some people have tremendous political power, so that they can command the deaths of thousands at a whim. Some, on the other hand, will be one of those thousands.
Intelligence? Not equal. Power? Not equal. Strength? Beauty? Goodness? Independence, either in a political or biological sense? Not equal.
There is simply no criteria that science can establish by which people can be regarded as equal. If DarkSyde then claims to agree with MLK’s statement, which of course is from our Declaration of Independence, on what basis does he judge that claim? On what basis does he believe that men are in fact equal? What characteristic of man, which must override all other characteristics, is equal in its degree in every single instance of the species “human”? (and by the way, at what point in the womb of their mother does such an instance attain that magic predication of equality, DS?)
Within an evolutionary context, there seems to be no basis at all for the absolute adherence to the creed that racism is bad. If different segments of human beings were largely separated from each other for a period of time, why is it difficult to believe that some races developed more quickly than others? The worst you could say is that racism is a flawed scientific concept, but why should it be castigated as evil?
In MLK’s cosmology, and in mine, all men are equal because all men have souls created in the image of God. That is our source of equality. Take away the soul, and the equality is gone.
So I will ask you, DarkSyde- on what basis do you believe men to be equal? And what scientific evidence could I provide you with to prove to you that different races of people might in fact be unequal?
If there is no scientific evidence that I could provide you with to make that case, then that sounds a lot like religion to me.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."- I have a Dream by Martin Luther King, Jr.
Why is this interesting? Well, it’s interesting because DarkSyde is an atheist. I know this because it’s practically all he ever talks about. I know that he likes Pink Floyd, because of his net handle, but otherwise, I know he’s an atheist. Here’s a fun quote to support my characterization:
I too, have a dream, a vision of mankind's destiny. I dream that one day we will throw off the last vestigial illusions of supernatural beings meddling with humanity, and that we will take full responsibility for our own future. No longer will we helplessly huddle in the cave from the lightning Gods and the spirits of wind and rain. No more will we rely on the peculiarities of imagined invisible deities for direction, nor look desperately to miraculous salvation which will never come. We are embedded, for better or for worse, in a physical universe unimpressed and unaffected with the ancient rites of a bronze aged near east mythology. This supernatural artifice of our cultural childhood must be discarded, if we are to attain true liberty and cultivate a desirous future.
He didn’t post the MLK quote in order to fisk it. No, he posted it in order to praise it, and use it as a jumping off point for his own statements.
DarkSyde thinks racism is bad. I do too. But I think it’s bad for precisely the same reasons that MLK thought it was bad- because it was a self-evident truth that all men are created equal.
That “created” part is kind of an important part of the statement. MLK’s belief in God was kind of an important part of his belief system. Without his belief in God, MLK’s beliefs in equality cannot be understood. It is precisely his “imagined invisible deities” and “supernatural artifice” that provide the foundation for MLK’s dream. Therefore, the quote is a little bit problematic for a jumping off point for an anti-religious rant.
Some people think that “self-evident” means “obvious”, which it doesn’t. “Self-evident” means that the idea is self-attesting, or carries its truth within itself, without the need for external proof. But to an atheist, nothing can be self-evident. Everything must be tested, proved, disproved, doubted, suspected, and only very carefully and tentatively accepted. This is because there is no authoritative revelation. The atheist can trust only his own senses and reasoning, and these are notoriously unreliable. If something is “self-evident”, it is a matter of faith. So nothing can be self-evident to the atheist.
In particular, how could it be “self-evident” to the atheist that all men are created equal, when the atheist does not believe that all men are created at all? He does not believe in God, so how could man be said to be created? The best DS could agree with is the statement, “We believe these truths to most likely be correct, that all men are equal.”
But then what is the basis for believing that truth, that equality is something that can be predicated of all men? Our equality is not based on genetics, is it? If so, if someone could prove to DarkSyde that, say, Polish people were genetically inferior to Chinese, would DarkSyde then accept that all people were in fact not equal?
All men are not obviously equal. Some are poor, some are rich. Some are strong or smart or beautiful, and some are weak and stupid and ugly. Some people are born with terrible deficiencies that make rational thought practically impossible for such a person and likely curtails their lifespan quite a bit. Some people have tremendous political power, so that they can command the deaths of thousands at a whim. Some, on the other hand, will be one of those thousands.
Intelligence? Not equal. Power? Not equal. Strength? Beauty? Goodness? Independence, either in a political or biological sense? Not equal.
There is simply no criteria that science can establish by which people can be regarded as equal. If DarkSyde then claims to agree with MLK’s statement, which of course is from our Declaration of Independence, on what basis does he judge that claim? On what basis does he believe that men are in fact equal? What characteristic of man, which must override all other characteristics, is equal in its degree in every single instance of the species “human”? (and by the way, at what point in the womb of their mother does such an instance attain that magic predication of equality, DS?)
Within an evolutionary context, there seems to be no basis at all for the absolute adherence to the creed that racism is bad. If different segments of human beings were largely separated from each other for a period of time, why is it difficult to believe that some races developed more quickly than others? The worst you could say is that racism is a flawed scientific concept, but why should it be castigated as evil?
In MLK’s cosmology, and in mine, all men are equal because all men have souls created in the image of God. That is our source of equality. Take away the soul, and the equality is gone.
So I will ask you, DarkSyde- on what basis do you believe men to be equal? And what scientific evidence could I provide you with to prove to you that different races of people might in fact be unequal?
If there is no scientific evidence that I could provide you with to make that case, then that sounds a lot like religion to me.
Comments:
Matt,
Right on, man. You rock. The secularists have kidnapped the child of Christianity, liberty, and it is about time we rescued her. The atheist vaunts that he has the intellectual highground, when in fact he stands upon a foundation of sand, a shifting dune of irrationality. Just as they cannot find a valid ultimate premise, they are completely unable to deal with the logical and moral consequences of their assertions.
Andrew McIntyre
www.deadmensvoices.blogspot.com
Right on, man. You rock. The secularists have kidnapped the child of Christianity, liberty, and it is about time we rescued her. The atheist vaunts that he has the intellectual highground, when in fact he stands upon a foundation of sand, a shifting dune of irrationality. Just as they cannot find a valid ultimate premise, they are completely unable to deal with the logical and moral consequences of their assertions.
Andrew McIntyre
www.deadmensvoices.blogspot.com
So genetics is your basis for judging equality and you believe that while it's problematic to say that whole subgroups are unequal, it's not scientifically impossible. Further, it's likely that various adults are quite unequal.
Translation: Dr. King's dream really was just that- a dream, not reality. People are not equal, according to you. By any standard by which they can be judged, people are not equal and never have been.
Translation: Dr. King's dream really was just that- a dream, not reality. People are not equal, according to you. By any standard by which they can be judged, people are not equal and never have been.
Respectfully, DarkSyde should read Le Sabot Post-Moderne's recent post entitled "Pravda, UFOs and Nietzsche's "Rain of Gods" and decide if he really does want what he seeks.
this is the url:
http://www.postmodernclog.com/archives/000976.html
Timely.
this is the url:
http://www.postmodernclog.com/archives/000976.html
Timely.
DarkSyde,
I already told you what I mean by equal- all possessing a soul made in the image of God.
What do YOU mean by equal?
You said,
"Morally and legally, in our culture anyway, we grant all people the same basic constitutional rights."
Is this your only basis? Could we then rescind those rights, and that would make people not equal? MLK didn't believe that people were made equal by legal fiat- they are equal because they are created equal.
Maybe I need to make this clearer- Do you believe people actually are equal? And if so, please define in what way they are equal. You've mostly told me how you think people are not equal, with a vague statement to the effect that we just decided to call them equal despite their obvious inequality. Is that what you believe?
I already told you what I mean by equal- all possessing a soul made in the image of God.
What do YOU mean by equal?
You said,
"Morally and legally, in our culture anyway, we grant all people the same basic constitutional rights."
Is this your only basis? Could we then rescind those rights, and that would make people not equal? MLK didn't believe that people were made equal by legal fiat- they are equal because they are created equal.
Maybe I need to make this clearer- Do you believe people actually are equal? And if so, please define in what way they are equal. You've mostly told me how you think people are not equal, with a vague statement to the effect that we just decided to call them equal despite their obvious inequality. Is that what you believe?
Thanks, DarkSyde. You've just admitted that you used MLK's speech as a bit of gross manipulation, since you don't believe a word of it. You don't believe that people are "self-evidently" equal since you need to cite evidence to prove that they likely are equal. You don't believe that they were created, given your well-documented aversion to deities. (BTW, when you meet my God, you won't be calling him a "sky-pixie" anymore.) And you don't even really believe that they're equal at all, but that we have decided to call them equal by legal fiat.
MLK didn't use the legal system to declare people equal. He used the legal system to enforce the truth that they are equal. People are equal whatever the law says. I suppose if you'd grown up in certain parts of this country in the early 1800's, you'd accept "ethical outlook of most of your generation", that blacks were just sophisticated monkeys that were best off enslaved.
Next you'll use quotes from Copernicus to prove that the sun revolves around the earth.
MLK didn't use the legal system to declare people equal. He used the legal system to enforce the truth that they are equal. People are equal whatever the law says. I suppose if you'd grown up in certain parts of this country in the early 1800's, you'd accept "ethical outlook of most of your generation", that blacks were just sophisticated monkeys that were best off enslaved.
Next you'll use quotes from Copernicus to prove that the sun revolves around the earth.
One more thing- precisely what made MLK so extraordinary was that he fought so hard against the views of his times. That's what made him a hero. Having views simply because you're the product of your culture makes you just a sheep.
You spend all your time calling my religion "sky wizards" and other perjoratives, and insulting my intelligence for believing in them, and then get your nose bent out of shape at a sharp discussion? I have no hostility to you, though your views I find quite repugnant.
All I'm saying is, it's kind of ridiculous to use a quote to support a piece you're writing, when you disagree with most everything in the quote. You don't believe in creation, or that anything can be taken on faith ("Self-evident"), and yet you use that quote. It's silly. And that's what I'm pointing out.
I never said you were a sheep, DS. I said that if you simply take your ethical views from your cultural background and upbringing, then you're just a sheep. You obviously don't do that, which belies your own statement about where your views come from. I think you're a pretty ethical guy with some strong views, some of which contradict each other. And that's what I keep trying, without success, to point out to you.
And I never claimed to be any fan of all of MLK's politics. But I sure agree with that quote. You don't, which is why it's so strange that you use it.
All I'm saying is, it's kind of ridiculous to use a quote to support a piece you're writing, when you disagree with most everything in the quote. You don't believe in creation, or that anything can be taken on faith ("Self-evident"), and yet you use that quote. It's silly. And that's what I'm pointing out.
I never said you were a sheep, DS. I said that if you simply take your ethical views from your cultural background and upbringing, then you're just a sheep. You obviously don't do that, which belies your own statement about where your views come from. I think you're a pretty ethical guy with some strong views, some of which contradict each other. And that's what I keep trying, without success, to point out to you.
And I never claimed to be any fan of all of MLK's politics. But I sure agree with that quote. You don't, which is why it's so strange that you use it.
DS,
Your belief in moral absolutes- not cultural norms, but moral
absolutes- requires you to believe in a God who decrees those
absolutes. Your belief in the fundamental equality of man requires
you to believe in a creator who so created them. This is one way for
you to become consistent.
The only other way to become consistent in your views is to reject all
moral principles and do exactly as you please to whomever you please
all the time. This is the logical conclusion of the worldview you
hold now. It would not make you a more admirable person in my mind.
It would make you a monster. But you'd be a consistent monster. And
frankly, you'll end up at one or the other of these roads eventually
anyway. Either submit yourself to your heavenly father, who taught
you the difference between right and wrong, or reject all truth and
all morality along with the God who is their source.
Those, as I see it, are your, and every atheist's, only two options.
In fact, they are everyone's only two options.
Post a Comment
Your belief in moral absolutes- not cultural norms, but moral
absolutes- requires you to believe in a God who decrees those
absolutes. Your belief in the fundamental equality of man requires
you to believe in a creator who so created them. This is one way for
you to become consistent.
The only other way to become consistent in your views is to reject all
moral principles and do exactly as you please to whomever you please
all the time. This is the logical conclusion of the worldview you
hold now. It would not make you a more admirable person in my mind.
It would make you a monster. But you'd be a consistent monster. And
frankly, you'll end up at one or the other of these roads eventually
anyway. Either submit yourself to your heavenly father, who taught
you the difference between right and wrong, or reject all truth and
all morality along with the God who is their source.
Those, as I see it, are your, and every atheist's, only two options.
In fact, they are everyone's only two options.