Archive - relativism RSS Feed

The Logic of Secular Morality

August 14, 2011 in relativism with 0 Comments

Thankfully not everyone has the consistency of Ted Bundy:

Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong.” I even read somewhere that the Chief justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself: that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any “reason” to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring — the strength of character — to throw off its shackles. I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment” that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these “others”? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as “moral” or “good” and others a “immoral” or “bad”? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.1

  1. Harry V. Jaffa, Homosexuality and the Natural Law (Claremont, CA: The Claremont Institute of the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, 1990), 3-4. ↩

Fake Unity, A Water-Based Paint

May 16, 2011 in culture, Gospel, relativism, tolerance with 0 Comments

 

Over at Everyday Mommy there was a fascinating comment featured on a post. The comment was from a post that was submitted as a response to a commenter on this post, though (mercifully) was not published. The comment was this:

 

What if the Truth *is*, but God never intended for it to be something to be “hammered on” or “harped on” – and especially not at the expense of failing to show dignity and respect the children He created in His own image?  Not at the expense of creating an “us”/”them” dichotomy which fails to express the *love* of Chris? Loving one another does not mean we advocate for each and every one of each other’s sins or faulty positions – and *all* of us have them!   – rather it does mean we learn to sincerely grant everyone respect and dignity.  Whether they agree with us or not.  Whether they are even Believers or not.

This is a tragic comment that is reflective of more than an individual poster. Simply put, I will argue that this person is simply bold enough to say what too many professing believers already think, and worse — it is reflective of how an enormous number of Christians behave. The problems with what is expressed here are legion. Let me first get to the obvious thing — the premise of this comment is wholly self-defeating. The person opens by tepidly assenting that truth exists but posits the idea that maybe God doesn’t really care to see it defended. God, afterall, isn’t concerned with what’s right or good or true, right? We’re just supposed to be nice to everyone, yes?

Then why is this person opening their mouth (or typing on a keyboard, as it were)? They aren’t just writing letters down, this is offered as a correction… in the guise of an attitude of “we shouldn’t correct each other.” This is akin to the new liberal definition of tolerance: “We accept everyone and everything, except people that don’t. We hate them.” They obviously think some things are true… and by the nature of the post, they also think that some things (and some people) are wrong and need to be corrected, yet they’ve done it by suggesting that we should not advocate for truth. This philosophy is unlivable. Continue Reading…

Adamant About Ice Cream

August 19, 2008 in abortion, culture, relativism with 1 Comment

In a political sense, I can’t fault Obama for his performance at the Forum held by Saddleback Church in Lake Forrest, California. In that same political sense, however, I can withhold my vote from a man who seems to have a confused thought process, or at worst believes that likely voters have the inability to think through his own words. While I’m not certain if his position is confused or he is being intentionally manipulative, I think the latter comment about the public’s thought process being incompetent is accurate.

Obama made an astute observation embryonic regarding stem cell research. He said:
It’s not like people who are in favor of stem cell research are going around thinking to themselves, “Boy, let’s go destroy some embryos.” *
This type of reasoning plays (or should play) a very important role on both sides of the abortion debate. One one hand, the pro-lifer shouldn’t accuse the pro-abortion advocate of wanting to “kill babies.” At best it’s unproductive. It’s also inaccurate as I’ve yet to hear an advocate over-joyed at the thought of infanticide. Of course, I would appreciate that same level of respect from the otherside, inasmuch as I have not ever heard a pro-lifer exclaim, “let’s oppress women!” We all need to be mature, or at least “teenage” in our discussions. Pulling hair and spitting went out of fashion with eating boogers and “sword-fighting” in urinals.
Where I begin to take issue with Obama is in his comments regarding abortion. Warren asked Obama about this complex issue, to which the Senator responded thus:
Well, I think that wether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.
Fair enough. Keeping in mind that Obama has said that,
We live in a pluralistic society, and that I can’t impose my religious views on another”** .
Could I suggest that he take a look at the overwhelming scientific literature on the topic? Obama seems to think that it’s just some ungrounded assumption that puts life at conception.
On this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then—and you are consistent in that belief, then I can’t argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you. (emphasis mine) ***
Science doesn’t seem to think so. Keith Pavlischek posted a snipped on First Things that is very insightful.

Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic): “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School): “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Alfred Bongioanni (University of Pennsylvania): “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, “the Father of Modern Genetics” (University of Descartes, Paris): “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”

Science apparently has no issue identifying “life.” Even a cursory glance at the scientific literature would show this. But even in his uncertainty, wouldn’t someone that took the issue seriously (and thought through it seriously) want to avoid the chance that an abortion might kill something precious? Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason points out that we don’t demolish buildings before being sure that no one is inside. Why is abortion the only instance where it’s permissible to be “unsure.” (Though as highlighted in the quotes above, and confusion about when life begins is either fraudulent or at best, mistaken.

Obama later mentions his desire to confront evil, and uses as an example this.

We see evil in parents who have viciously abused their Children.****
So how is it that Obama feels that parents are evil to abuse their children, but that mothers are perfectly justified in “wrestling” with the decision to kill them? Is abuse more wrong than murder? I don’t think so, and neither does he, as he apparently has a problem with the genocide in Darfur. So what is one to conclude? If I were to look at the whole case presented thus far, my conclusion is that Obama doesn’t really think that abortion is anything wrong at all, either “theologically” or “scientifically.”

But if that’s the case, there are a few more things that just don’t make sense to me. Let’s look at a few points. To save space, allow me to inadequately and perhaps insensitively define some pregnant women’s situations as “unfortunate.”

Would we permit a woman in a similar unfortunate position to kill their teenager? What about their toddler? Hey, what about a newborn baby that is only minutes out of the birth canal? Simply no—no we wouldn’t allow women to kill their children at any age for emotional, financial or any other reasons. Why not? Because they are human beings.

Now, if abortion kills a defenseless and innocent human being, why do any of these reasons a defensible position? Simply put, they shouldn’t. Now, on the other hand, if that unborn is not a human being (which seems to go against modern science), then there is no reason to object to abortions at all. I’m not against women cutting their hair as they please; nor am I against a women getting the tattoo of her choice (though I have seen some I wouldn’t have chosen), and if I were  convinced that an abortion killed nothing of substance—I would immediately abandon my opposition to it. Like I pointed out above, I’m not twisting my Snidely Whiplash mustache, trying to figure out how to rob women of freedoms. I am solely interested in protecting innocent children.

So to me, it’s all or nothing. Either abortion is indefensible, or it needs no more justification than a manicure. So why does Obama make this statement?

I am in favor, for example, of limits on late term abortions.*
Why? The only reason I could see for this opinion is that he thinks that a late-term abortion either kills, or likely kills, a human being. But does Obama think his view has any merit, or is this simply a religious view? If it’s a religious view, as defined by him, then there is no reason to bother telling us about it. To him, religious views aren’t binding. He might as well talk about his favorite ice cream flavor. If it’s a grounded philosophical view, then why did he vote against a bill in his home state that would have required doctors to care for babies that survived abortions? By any account, an aborted fetus is now outside the womb, or born, so why would he oppose a bill requiring that doctors provide care to these “born” children?

I think it’s because he doesn’t take seriously at all the pro-life case. He isn’t “personally” against it any more than it is able to garnish him votes from an uninformed voting populace. From a pragmatic political sense, I can’t blame him—that’s how one gets elected (though this is partially what’s wrong with the whole process). But I am upset by the number of otherwise decent Christians that are taken in by this rhetoric. Oh, and I am also slightly upset by the some 40+ million deaths that have resulted from this type of faulty thinking.

Think about that number. That’s larger than the entire population of California. That’s higher than all of these killed by car crashes and deaths America has suffered in all of its wars put together.