Votes for Oysters
Is self-contradiction an irresistible part of argument? How can we be so blinded by anger for those of other opinions that we fail to see our own inconsistencies?
A recent line of thought on my friend Aaron’s Blog has spurned some serious contemplation for me. In the string, an anonymous user attempts to de-humanize Terri Shiavo as an excuse for ending her current existence. He makes many outrageous claims, but the one I will key in on is his claim that she is no longer human and therefore should die. It brought to mind an inconsistency in liberals that I have noticed over the years, one in which I believe few people have mentioned.
It is an understood fact that most liberals support Darwin’s theory of Evolution (or is it Anaximander’s?). The enormous battle that has waged in recent years over Evolutionary theory in public schools and the insertion of Creationism masked under the name “Intelligent Design” is clear evidence of the liberal and conservative positions, respectively. But as liberals clasp to Evolution in an attempt to counter belief in God, they are squeezing so tightly that other issues important to their primary tenets are seeping through their fingers.
Let me yield some examples. The doctrine that all men are equal, that the differences in them are due entirely to education, background, and opportunity (see Helveticus), takes a serious blow. This view of mankind is wholly incompatible with the Evolutionary emphasis on the congenital differences between members of a species. Either Darwin was right and all men are NOT equal, or Helveticus was right and all men ARE equal. I cannot see how both men can be entirely correct simultaneously.
Another problem for liberals clinging to evolution is the blurring of the distinction between humans and animals (see Peter Singer). If man and animals share a common ancestry, and if mankind developed at such a slow stages that there were creatures that we are unable to classify as either animal or human, at what point in the evolutionary process did men all begin to be equal? Would Pithecanthropus Erectus have produced the great works of Shakespeare had there been someone to convict him of poaching? A resolute egalitarian who answers in the affirmative would find himself granting apes equality to humans. And why stop with apes? (again, see Singer) I can’t see how, once we head down this line of arguments, one cannot resist an argument in favor of Votes for Oysters. (Courtesy of Bertrand Russell) An adherent to both evolution and the equality of man must then concede that this equality must be condemned unbiological since it makes too large of a distinction between men and animals.
The Theory of Evolution in regards to creation is an incoherent weapon for liberals to wield. It is only when it is applied to society, as Social Evolution that the theory proves legitimately useful to liberals, as it can emphasise change and progress for the good, a tenet of original liberalism that many today have lost opting instead to hold to their dogmatic tendencies of being the antithesis to the religious right. Back to Basics?
A recent line of thought on my friend Aaron’s Blog has spurned some serious contemplation for me. In the string, an anonymous user attempts to de-humanize Terri Shiavo as an excuse for ending her current existence. He makes many outrageous claims, but the one I will key in on is his claim that she is no longer human and therefore should die. It brought to mind an inconsistency in liberals that I have noticed over the years, one in which I believe few people have mentioned.
It is an understood fact that most liberals support Darwin’s theory of Evolution (or is it Anaximander’s?). The enormous battle that has waged in recent years over Evolutionary theory in public schools and the insertion of Creationism masked under the name “Intelligent Design” is clear evidence of the liberal and conservative positions, respectively. But as liberals clasp to Evolution in an attempt to counter belief in God, they are squeezing so tightly that other issues important to their primary tenets are seeping through their fingers.
Let me yield some examples. The doctrine that all men are equal, that the differences in them are due entirely to education, background, and opportunity (see Helveticus), takes a serious blow. This view of mankind is wholly incompatible with the Evolutionary emphasis on the congenital differences between members of a species. Either Darwin was right and all men are NOT equal, or Helveticus was right and all men ARE equal. I cannot see how both men can be entirely correct simultaneously.
Another problem for liberals clinging to evolution is the blurring of the distinction between humans and animals (see Peter Singer). If man and animals share a common ancestry, and if mankind developed at such a slow stages that there were creatures that we are unable to classify as either animal or human, at what point in the evolutionary process did men all begin to be equal? Would Pithecanthropus Erectus have produced the great works of Shakespeare had there been someone to convict him of poaching? A resolute egalitarian who answers in the affirmative would find himself granting apes equality to humans. And why stop with apes? (again, see Singer) I can’t see how, once we head down this line of arguments, one cannot resist an argument in favor of Votes for Oysters. (Courtesy of Bertrand Russell) An adherent to both evolution and the equality of man must then concede that this equality must be condemned unbiological since it makes too large of a distinction between men and animals.
The Theory of Evolution in regards to creation is an incoherent weapon for liberals to wield. It is only when it is applied to society, as Social Evolution that the theory proves legitimately useful to liberals, as it can emphasise change and progress for the good, a tenet of original liberalism that many today have lost opting instead to hold to their dogmatic tendencies of being the antithesis to the religious right. Back to Basics?
posted by Cogito at 9:31 AM
9 Comments:
I have thought about this myself. Certainly this criticism applies to atheists who are also liberals.
But I would suspect that most liberals these days are not atheists. Most probably hold some kind of belief in God, whatever he/she/it might be. Most probably also combine this belief in God with a belief in evolution (so-called "theistic evolution," which to me is a contradiction in terms). Most would probably answer this charge with their vague spirituality as something that gives meaning to humanity and grounds human equality.
However, I don't think a vague belief in God can answer this criticism, because unless God is personal, then there is no way that he (it?) could give value to human existence. Pantheism is really just another form of naturalism, because nature/God is the whole show. And if impersonal nature/God is the whole show, then what distinguishes humanity or "personhood" (Peter Singer) as worthy of higher respect than other forms of life?
How is it that an impersonal God cannot co-exist with a valued human existence? I don't see any serious contradiction here, please elucidate.
As to the original post, I find the theory of evolution as it applies to humanity in a culmination in Nietzsche. But surely every level-headed, modern day person must find Nietzsche's self assertive, sexist, racist attitudes and opinions appaling. They were, after all, what plowed the soil of Germany (along with Hegel of course to some degree) for the acceptablility of Nazi beliefs to the people there. But doesn't this just bring us back full circle with some of the arguements against ending the life of Mrs. Schiavo?
Well, what is the value of personhood if personhood is not ultimate? How can personhood be valued unless a personal God grants value to it? An impersonal god cannot grant value to anything.
What is the destiny of humanity? In a pantheistic universe, we are on our way to being absorbed back into the One, losing our identity and personality in the cosmos. In that scenario, personality and individuality are sub-par, and the goal is to get away from it.
Of course, this philosophy has worked itself out in the viscious, evil caste system of India.
I guess it would very much depend on your definition of value and would depend very much upon your view of the entire Universe. If by value you mean my personal value to me as an individual, then you are quite right in saying that personhood would be invaluable under a pantheistic system. However, if by value you mean value to the whole of Creation, then personhood does have value, as each individual is a piece of the whole, leaving its indellible mark upon it. (It also depends on your view of creation, whether it is linear like Western thinkers tend to hold or cyclical like the Upanishads and many Eastern religions hold).
If the previous definition of value held, then it would seem that only humanity has value, and there is no value to be found outside of it (except of course God). There would then, be no real value in other forms of life upon this world. The beauty of flowers would have no value, nor would the songs of birds, the crashing waves...no other part of creation would have value without personality. These seem to all be values that do not require any personality to exist. (Can I not view the beauty of creation as a whole?)
Yet these definitions of value blur, when one thinks inside of time. People in the past have value in that they both had destinct personality and they left their indellible mark on creation. We at the present are also in the process of doing this, so it would seem that both regards would work. (I have, only defined value in what it is in regards to, I have not in actuality defined what value is here) And what is time anyway?
As to your statement that under a pantheistic system nothing would distinguish humanity as requiring higher respect, to this I do not at present have an answer. However, it would seem that although all are part of the Logos, there is undeniably an order and structure in living things, from the lowliest of life forms to man as supreme Earthly being. Man's supremacy would seem to lie along the lines of rationality and logic, characteristics lacking in other living things. (Think of the Trinity, each is part of the whole)
Opinions on the validity of a personal or impersonal God lie much deeper than can be expressed in a single statement, as it very much depends upon the canvas (or metaphysics) on which the opinion is painted.
(Aaron, I am, by the way, a firm believer in a Personal God)
My understanding of value is that it is based on the e"valu"ation of one who possesses the moral authority to determine what is good and what is not. Only a personal God who wills and chooses can make this kind of evaluation, whether in regard to humanity or to the lilies of the field (Of course, God values both of them, though certainly a human being has more value than the lilies). Human evaluations are worthless if not grounded on an authoritative, divine evaluation, which can only be the result of a divine will, which in turn can only be exercised by a personal divine being.
With the very straightforward, simplistic definition of value that you present here, I would have no course but to say that you are absolutely correct. If assigning value is the sole responsibility of the Almighty, then any assesment of value not grounded upon Him would be baseless.
However, this definition seems like a procatelectic verse, the unaccented portions missing. The question of value is without a doubt a complicated one. Without as plain a definition as stated, value is not a strong arguement for a personal God. Those not already having a firm belief in an personal God would have little difficulty dismissing the arguement as a dogmatic fallacy.
I too, must say that the definition is too oversimplified even for my liking. (Though I have no problem with anything stated in the definition accept its far reaching totality)
"procatelectic"?
....wha...?
Procatalectic. Sorry, misspelled it. =)
Okay, then let me rephrase:
"procatalectic"
...wha...?
Post a Comment
<< Home