Concepts Have Consequences
For some bizarre reason Creationists like to mix ethics and science as if somehow one's moral viewpoint has any relationship whatsoever to how the universe works.
"Concepts Have Consequences" is an essay that can be found on Kent Hovind's (Dr. Dino) site. It was authored by a gentlemen named Bruce Malone and addresses the relationship between Evolution and Morality. Now to be honest my initial reaction was there is no relationship, but decided that perhaps Mr. Malone knew something I didn't, so I proceeded to read his essay.
"Concepts have consequences. People act on what they believe to be true. If children are indoctrinated through a public education system which only allows evidences which neatly fit into a naturalistic explanation of life, we will increasingly become a society which looks only to itself for answers to life's questions."
Indoctrinated through a public school system? Now do you suppose that Mr. Malone is knowledgable enough to realize the double meaning here?
INDOCTRINATE: transitive verb, 1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments, 2:to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle.
Perhaps clearer would be to say educated if the first definition is intended and simply ignore the implication if its the second that is intended.
EDUCATE: verb, 1:to provide schooling for, 2: to develop mentally, morally, or aesthetically especially by instruction.
Becoming a society that looks to itself for answers sounds like a good thing to me! Where should we look? Is there a Jovian Help Desk I don't know about? Or could Mr. Malone be refering to the gods? Seems to me a wise man once said that the "gods help those that help themselves."
Is there even such a word as "evidences?" I always thought the plural of "evidence" was, well, "evidence."
"If we have evolved from apes, if we are just another animal...then who sets the rules? Whose standards should define right from wrong, good from bad, helpful from harmful, lawful from unlawful?"
Hey, I've got a great idea. How about WE set the rules. Don't you think the human race has matured to the point where it can begin to take responsibility for itself? Gee, I mean, we cross the street all by ourselves and everything.
"Without an absolute basis for morals, the distinction between these antithetical concepts becomes blurred."
You need to learn a little about ethical systems. While Divine Command Theory requires a source of absolute moral values, other ethical systems do not. For example:
ETHICAL RELATIVISM - No principles are universally valid. All moral principles are valid relative to cultural tastes. The rules of the society serve as a standard.
UTILITARIANISM - Actions are judged right or wrong solely by their consequences. Right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. Each person's happiness is equally important.
DEONTOLOGY - Emphasis is on moral rules and duty. If it’s not OK for everyone to follow the rule, then it is not morally permissible. Emphasis is on autonomy, justice and kind acts. People treated as ends, never means.
"Acknowledgement of creation provides answers to these foundational questions of life which are based on factual scientific and historical evidence. If evolution is true, then only a leap of faith provides answers."
Only if "Acknowledgement of creation" implies also accepting the rules you have put into the mouth of God.
Just out of curiousity, how can an ethical or moral answer be based upon scientific and historical evidence?
I might point out (for the 2,000th time at least) that evolution and God are not incompatible. Only the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis is incompatible. Even if evolution implied that we need to supply our own answers to these questions, what's wrong with that? Don't all parents, at some point in time, want to see their children making their own way and their own decisions?
I seriously wonder if a lot of these creationist types are just folks that are insecure and uncomfortable about being out in the cold cruel world on their own. They need to have a wise and kindly father figure looking out for them and telling them how to behave.
Well guess what? Those of us that have grown up would rather forego that pleasure. Especially since we have some issues with the creationist source of morality.
But what is really absurd here is the glaring logical fallacy known as The Appeal to Consequences of a Belief. The general form of the fallacy is X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences or X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.
The CLASSIC EXAMPLE, invariably used to illustrate this fallacy, is "God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!"
This of course is precisely the fallacy Mr. Malone and every other creationist that mixes ethics and science falls into. The fact that you may not like the implications of the truth, doesn't affect the truth one iota!
"Concepts Have Consequences" is an essay that can be found on Kent Hovind's (Dr. Dino) site. It was authored by a gentlemen named Bruce Malone and addresses the relationship between Evolution and Morality. Now to be honest my initial reaction was there is no relationship, but decided that perhaps Mr. Malone knew something I didn't, so I proceeded to read his essay.
"Concepts have consequences. People act on what they believe to be true. If children are indoctrinated through a public education system which only allows evidences which neatly fit into a naturalistic explanation of life, we will increasingly become a society which looks only to itself for answers to life's questions."
Indoctrinated through a public school system? Now do you suppose that Mr. Malone is knowledgable enough to realize the double meaning here?
INDOCTRINATE: transitive verb, 1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments, 2:to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle.
Perhaps clearer would be to say educated if the first definition is intended and simply ignore the implication if its the second that is intended.
EDUCATE: verb, 1:to provide schooling for, 2: to develop mentally, morally, or aesthetically especially by instruction.
Becoming a society that looks to itself for answers sounds like a good thing to me! Where should we look? Is there a Jovian Help Desk I don't know about? Or could Mr. Malone be refering to the gods? Seems to me a wise man once said that the "gods help those that help themselves."
Is there even such a word as "evidences?" I always thought the plural of "evidence" was, well, "evidence."
"If we have evolved from apes, if we are just another animal...then who sets the rules? Whose standards should define right from wrong, good from bad, helpful from harmful, lawful from unlawful?"
Hey, I've got a great idea. How about WE set the rules. Don't you think the human race has matured to the point where it can begin to take responsibility for itself? Gee, I mean, we cross the street all by ourselves and everything.
"Without an absolute basis for morals, the distinction between these antithetical concepts becomes blurred."
You need to learn a little about ethical systems. While Divine Command Theory requires a source of absolute moral values, other ethical systems do not. For example:
ETHICAL RELATIVISM - No principles are universally valid. All moral principles are valid relative to cultural tastes. The rules of the society serve as a standard.
UTILITARIANISM - Actions are judged right or wrong solely by their consequences. Right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. Each person's happiness is equally important.
DEONTOLOGY - Emphasis is on moral rules and duty. If it’s not OK for everyone to follow the rule, then it is not morally permissible. Emphasis is on autonomy, justice and kind acts. People treated as ends, never means.
"Acknowledgement of creation provides answers to these foundational questions of life which are based on factual scientific and historical evidence. If evolution is true, then only a leap of faith provides answers."
Only if "Acknowledgement of creation" implies also accepting the rules you have put into the mouth of God.
Just out of curiousity, how can an ethical or moral answer be based upon scientific and historical evidence?
I might point out (for the 2,000th time at least) that evolution and God are not incompatible. Only the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis is incompatible. Even if evolution implied that we need to supply our own answers to these questions, what's wrong with that? Don't all parents, at some point in time, want to see their children making their own way and their own decisions?
I seriously wonder if a lot of these creationist types are just folks that are insecure and uncomfortable about being out in the cold cruel world on their own. They need to have a wise and kindly father figure looking out for them and telling them how to behave.
Well guess what? Those of us that have grown up would rather forego that pleasure. Especially since we have some issues with the creationist source of morality.
But what is really absurd here is the glaring logical fallacy known as The Appeal to Consequences of a Belief. The general form of the fallacy is X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences or X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.
The CLASSIC EXAMPLE, invariably used to illustrate this fallacy, is "God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!"
This of course is precisely the fallacy Mr. Malone and every other creationist that mixes ethics and science falls into. The fact that you may not like the implications of the truth, doesn't affect the truth one iota!
posted by Alencon at 2:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home