As a Christian I find it rarely makes sense to try to convince a non-believer of some religious, spiritual principle, if they do not share the same foundation for establishing truth. However, when it comes to extremely important issues, issues that effect life and death, issues that effect public policy and legislation, which in turn affect us all, Christians understandably want to reach non-believers with their message. When this is the case Christians need to resist the urge to say that 'The Bible says ____', because, as it relates to public policy, and as it relates to convincing non-believers, what it says is not going to be relevant from their perspective.
Thankfully God has made many truths accessible even to those who do not believe. The most obvious way is through authoring the human conscience. However some issues are murky even to those of us who possess a conscience. Our conscience can tell us that ending a human life is wrong, for example, but our conscience can't tell us whether or not a just-conceived embryo constitutes a 'human life'. Luckily, modern science (i.e. embryology) can.
Since the pro-choice position is more prevalent among non-religious people, one would expect that the argument against abortion to be at least partially grounded in supernatural, religious presupposition and dogma. This turns out to not be the case. What we actually find is that the Christian argument against abortion is not contingent upon any specific scriptures (though it is often supplemented by them), or commands from God, and is an argument that can be made completely independent of any belief in any particular God. Though the Christian argument is often made with reference to the soul, and to various scriptures suggesting the soul is present at conception, it is not necessary to posit a soul at any point in order to show that abortion is wrong.
You need only to assert that the wanton destruction of a unique, innocent, human life is wrong (a point virtually all secularists and humanists will grant you), and that a just-conceived embryo is all of these things (which is almost just as obvious, but will take a little more to convince them of). Which, per the definition of each adjective, it factually is.
Thanks to modern science we know that conception is the point at which we become 'unique' (that is, when our own DNA is formed). Just before conception the unfertilized egg and the sperm are still parts of the person they came from, and, as such, the destruction of either the unfertilized egg or the acting sperm would not represent the destruction of a unique, individual entity. The secularist should grant 'unique' without any difficulty, I only mention this to preemptively counter slippery slope arguments such as 'well then is contraception/masturbation murder also?' No, they aren't, for the reasons stated.
'Innocent' should be no problem for the secularist to concede. That one is actually a more interesting debate among and between believers, rather than when dealing with non-believers.
'Human' should be fairly intuitive. The embryo has human DNA, not duck DNA, or platypus DNA, or pterodactyl DNA. This also should be granted readily, and if it isn't then whoever you are trying to convince is probably conflating 'Human' with the philosophical issue of 'personhood', which is not what this is about, because we are arguing the issue from a strictly materialist perspective. It's simply about which particular mammalian species we are discussing.
'Life' might be the only slight sticking point, though it simply is biologically, factually, just that. Biology recognizes single-celled organisms as life, and an embryo consists of many thousands (possibly millions? Biology experts help me out) times more than a single cell.
Thus, if you are against the wanton destruction of unique, innocent, human life, you must be against abortion.
Also, as an addendum, the secularist will often appeal to the social benefits of abortion in arguments that they make, however, even if there are many, I submit that IF we know that an embryo is a human life with rights, then whatever social ills (or benefits) that come from it existing are moot. There are many social benefits to be derived from euthanasia and genocide as well, but few would make the argument that those benefits make euthanasia or genocide justifiable.
Lastly the secularist will appeal to the rights of the mother. And in situations where the life of the mother is in danger, then this becomes relevant. Other than that though, your rights end where the rights of another begin, and the right to life trumps the right to choose.
I've always found it peculiar that the abortion issue is often fought along religious lines, or is at least perceived to be. Pro-life, anti-abortionists should be able to find allies in all walks of life, and across spiritual divides. I think this fact is illustrated well in Christopher Hitchens. He is of course a militant atheist, fervently anti- all things God, but he believes that abortion is wrong on materialist grounds (presumably arriving at that conclusion using some line of reasoning similar to what I have presented).
Monday, November 16, 2009
Naturalism: Self-refuting - Nihilism: At least it's coherent
If you have witnessed (or taken part in) a debate between a religious person and an atheist the religious person will often make the assertion that atheism is a belief system as well, or that atheism is a 'faith'. The atheist will usually reject this notion and assert that atheism is merely a singular disbelief in God, not a belief system. The atheist is technically right; atheism in and of itself is not a worldview just as theism is not. However every atheist HAS a belief system or worldview or 'faith', of which atheism is one of the tenets of that worldview. For example there are nihilists and secular humanists. Both are worldviews that have atheism as a fundamental principle.
This being the case, while one can't rightly say that atheism is a belief system, one can say that atheists HAVE belief systems, and it can then be examined which of these belief systems is the most internally consistent, given atheism as the fundamental premise. That is, starting with the assumption that atheists (specifically naturalists) make which is 'the natural world is all that exists', we can determine which worldview best conforms with this assumption. And if an atheist's worldview is not consistent with the consequences of this assumption, the atheist will be forced to either reject his current worldview in favor of either a coherent atheistic worldview, or for a theistic worldview.
"You can not get an 'ought' from an 'is'"
David Hume expressed this notion that one can not derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Essentially that you can not derive morality from facts and data. Since then some have tried to refute this argument (Searle), but unsuccessfully. You indeed can not derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. This is problematic for any naturalist who also claims to have a belief in morality. If the natural world is all that exists, then all that exists are 'is's. The naturalist claims that empirical observation of the natural world is the only method of determining truth. If this is the case, then a naturalist can not affirm any belief in morality (as anything other than arbitrary human delusion) without being inconsistent with his own beleifs. We know what the physical world IS and we have broken in down to it's most basic elements. If atomic particles and energy are all that there IS, then it is of course to absurd to state that atomic particles 'ought' to go left, or they 'ought' to go right. That electrical currents 'ought' to go up or 'ought' to go down. And humans, in the eyes of the naturalist, at our most basic level, are nothing other than atomic particles and electrical currents going up or down, left or right.
If the universe is a chain of undirected causal events, then 'oughts' can have no meaning. The nihilist recognizes this, and therefore rejects all notions of morality. While I disagree with the nihilist that the natural world is all that exists, if we grant him this premise, then his worldview is AT LEAST internally consistent. Just as if you grant the Christian the premise that Jesus Christ is God's only son, then pretty much all the rest of the Christian's beliefs will be internally consistent. The vast majority of atheists however are not nihilists, they are mostly affirmed secular humanists, secular humanists who don't self-describe at such but who hold the same beliefs, or some third worldview that is often very similar to secular humanism in the most relevant ways. And, unlike nihilism or Christianity, even if we grant the secular humanist his fundamental assumption (the natural world is all that exists), we find that this system of beliefs is NOT internally coherent or consistent. Because secular humanism also affirms the existence of things such as justice, morality, goodness, evil etc. Despite having no foundation from which to derive such concepts.
Therefore the naturalist must reject notions of justice, good, morality etc. as nothing more than human abstractions with no real use or purpose, if he is to be consistent, and adopt a nihilistic world view. Or reject metaphysical naturalism altogether. Now, the naturalist will likely respond that what we call morality is important biologically because it's based on self-preservation and survival. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that self-preservation, survival, propagation of the species etc. are inherently good, desirable goals. Which is a reasonable assumption, but not one that can be shown to be true through empirical observation, which they claim is the only way to know anything. Thus the naturalist who affirms belief in morality (as something other than arbitrary delusion), has a self-refuting world view.
This being the case, while one can't rightly say that atheism is a belief system, one can say that atheists HAVE belief systems, and it can then be examined which of these belief systems is the most internally consistent, given atheism as the fundamental premise. That is, starting with the assumption that atheists (specifically naturalists) make which is 'the natural world is all that exists', we can determine which worldview best conforms with this assumption. And if an atheist's worldview is not consistent with the consequences of this assumption, the atheist will be forced to either reject his current worldview in favor of either a coherent atheistic worldview, or for a theistic worldview.
"You can not get an 'ought' from an 'is'"
David Hume expressed this notion that one can not derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Essentially that you can not derive morality from facts and data. Since then some have tried to refute this argument (Searle), but unsuccessfully. You indeed can not derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. This is problematic for any naturalist who also claims to have a belief in morality. If the natural world is all that exists, then all that exists are 'is's. The naturalist claims that empirical observation of the natural world is the only method of determining truth. If this is the case, then a naturalist can not affirm any belief in morality (as anything other than arbitrary human delusion) without being inconsistent with his own beleifs. We know what the physical world IS and we have broken in down to it's most basic elements. If atomic particles and energy are all that there IS, then it is of course to absurd to state that atomic particles 'ought' to go left, or they 'ought' to go right. That electrical currents 'ought' to go up or 'ought' to go down. And humans, in the eyes of the naturalist, at our most basic level, are nothing other than atomic particles and electrical currents going up or down, left or right.
If the universe is a chain of undirected causal events, then 'oughts' can have no meaning. The nihilist recognizes this, and therefore rejects all notions of morality. While I disagree with the nihilist that the natural world is all that exists, if we grant him this premise, then his worldview is AT LEAST internally consistent. Just as if you grant the Christian the premise that Jesus Christ is God's only son, then pretty much all the rest of the Christian's beliefs will be internally consistent. The vast majority of atheists however are not nihilists, they are mostly affirmed secular humanists, secular humanists who don't self-describe at such but who hold the same beliefs, or some third worldview that is often very similar to secular humanism in the most relevant ways. And, unlike nihilism or Christianity, even if we grant the secular humanist his fundamental assumption (the natural world is all that exists), we find that this system of beliefs is NOT internally coherent or consistent. Because secular humanism also affirms the existence of things such as justice, morality, goodness, evil etc. Despite having no foundation from which to derive such concepts.
Therefore the naturalist must reject notions of justice, good, morality etc. as nothing more than human abstractions with no real use or purpose, if he is to be consistent, and adopt a nihilistic world view. Or reject metaphysical naturalism altogether. Now, the naturalist will likely respond that what we call morality is important biologically because it's based on self-preservation and survival. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that self-preservation, survival, propagation of the species etc. are inherently good, desirable goals. Which is a reasonable assumption, but not one that can be shown to be true through empirical observation, which they claim is the only way to know anything. Thus the naturalist who affirms belief in morality (as something other than arbitrary delusion), has a self-refuting world view.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
A few recent issues (Obama at Notre Dame, Supreme court nominee, prop 8 upheld, etc.) have converged and got me thinking about some issues, so i thought I'd let a few of them out.
What's in a name? In this case, there is a lot in a name. Both advocacy groups obviously carefully chose their titles for PR purposes, and as it turns out, there is something revealing in what they came up with. The first thing that needs to be noted is that neither title is an absolute. Not all pro-lifers are always truly pro-life, and not all pro-choicers are always truly pro-choice.
Many people who are pro-life are in favor of the death penalty, in favor of killing terrorists, or minimally in favor of killing in self defense. So in that sense many pro-lifers are not absolutely 'pro-life'. If you are pro-life I'm sure you've heard this comment from someone in the pro-choice camps in various forms, and though it's a legitimate point, it's not really significant. Pro-lifers are largely, and generally 'pro-life' in almost all situations, so the title is still appropriate. Titles are not meant to encapsulate every subtlety and nuance of a particular belief or movement.
I imagine the pro-choice camp had to work a lot harder to come up with a palatable title for the pro-baby-killing movement, and considering the difficult task that they had, they did a reasonably good job. I mean, who is against the freedom of choice, right? Well, as it turns out, pro-choicers are. First and foremost they are not pro-choice when it comes to the right of unborn children to choose life over death. They would argue that a fetus is incapable of making that decision, to which i would respond, that that is all the more reason we need to error on the side of life until they are capable of making that decision for themselves. Secondly pro-choicers are not pro-choice when it comes to the rights of fathers. A father has an implicit right to defend the life of that which he is 50% responsible for creating, despite the fact that the mother is the carrier. Pro-choicers deny this fact and believe that the mother's rights absolves those of all other parties involved in the situation. Lastly, and in a legal sense, most importantly, pro-choicers (or at least pro Roe-v-Waders) are not pro-choice when it comes to states deciding how to govern themselves on the issue of abortion, an issue that is within the states jurisdiction. The 10th amendment to the Constitution reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal governement for the states, and the supposed 'right to privacy' that Roe is based upon is not actually in the Constitution. And therefore the issue of abortion is to be reserved for the states to choose or decide upon. And yet pro-choicers (at least those who defend Roe) would deny people in all 50 states the right to choose how to govern themselves on such an important issue. So the the fundamental basis upon which the pro-choice camp builds, is a decidedly anti choice judicial decision that affects the entire nation. As it turns out pro-choicers are ONLY pro-choice when it comes specifically to the rights of a small, specific group (pregnant mothers) and decidedly anti-choice when it comes to every other party involved in the equation.
So while the pro-life title is at least generally true, the pro-choice title is decidedly untrue, even in a general sense.
One final important thing we can learn from the titles of the two groups. Take out 'pro-' in both and you're left with 'life' and 'choice'. Whenever the right to life bumps head with the right to choose in ANY other arena in civil society, life trumps choice. So even if we accept the titles as generally good for both camps, life still takes precedence over choice. And that is the core issue at the heart of the debate. The right to life of unborn children versus the right for mothers to choose what to do with their bodies (even if that includes destroying a human life). Which is why i find it odd to even debate this issue... murder is never framed as the right to life of an individual versus another individual's right to choose to plunge a knife into their chest. And even if it were, we all answer that question unanimously that right to life trumps the right to choose.
And so it should be.
What's in a name? In this case, there is a lot in a name. Both advocacy groups obviously carefully chose their titles for PR purposes, and as it turns out, there is something revealing in what they came up with. The first thing that needs to be noted is that neither title is an absolute. Not all pro-lifers are always truly pro-life, and not all pro-choicers are always truly pro-choice.
Many people who are pro-life are in favor of the death penalty, in favor of killing terrorists, or minimally in favor of killing in self defense. So in that sense many pro-lifers are not absolutely 'pro-life'. If you are pro-life I'm sure you've heard this comment from someone in the pro-choice camps in various forms, and though it's a legitimate point, it's not really significant. Pro-lifers are largely, and generally 'pro-life' in almost all situations, so the title is still appropriate. Titles are not meant to encapsulate every subtlety and nuance of a particular belief or movement.
I imagine the pro-choice camp had to work a lot harder to come up with a palatable title for the pro-baby-killing movement, and considering the difficult task that they had, they did a reasonably good job. I mean, who is against the freedom of choice, right? Well, as it turns out, pro-choicers are. First and foremost they are not pro-choice when it comes to the right of unborn children to choose life over death. They would argue that a fetus is incapable of making that decision, to which i would respond, that that is all the more reason we need to error on the side of life until they are capable of making that decision for themselves. Secondly pro-choicers are not pro-choice when it comes to the rights of fathers. A father has an implicit right to defend the life of that which he is 50% responsible for creating, despite the fact that the mother is the carrier. Pro-choicers deny this fact and believe that the mother's rights absolves those of all other parties involved in the situation. Lastly, and in a legal sense, most importantly, pro-choicers (or at least pro Roe-v-Waders) are not pro-choice when it comes to states deciding how to govern themselves on the issue of abortion, an issue that is within the states jurisdiction. The 10th amendment to the Constitution reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal governement for the states, and the supposed 'right to privacy' that Roe is based upon is not actually in the Constitution. And therefore the issue of abortion is to be reserved for the states to choose or decide upon. And yet pro-choicers (at least those who defend Roe) would deny people in all 50 states the right to choose how to govern themselves on such an important issue. So the the fundamental basis upon which the pro-choice camp builds, is a decidedly anti choice judicial decision that affects the entire nation. As it turns out pro-choicers are ONLY pro-choice when it comes specifically to the rights of a small, specific group (pregnant mothers) and decidedly anti-choice when it comes to every other party involved in the equation.
So while the pro-life title is at least generally true, the pro-choice title is decidedly untrue, even in a general sense.
One final important thing we can learn from the titles of the two groups. Take out 'pro-' in both and you're left with 'life' and 'choice'. Whenever the right to life bumps head with the right to choose in ANY other arena in civil society, life trumps choice. So even if we accept the titles as generally good for both camps, life still takes precedence over choice. And that is the core issue at the heart of the debate. The right to life of unborn children versus the right for mothers to choose what to do with their bodies (even if that includes destroying a human life). Which is why i find it odd to even debate this issue... murder is never framed as the right to life of an individual versus another individual's right to choose to plunge a knife into their chest. And even if it were, we all answer that question unanimously that right to life trumps the right to choose.
And so it should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)