Thursday, July 9, 2009

Disproof of one theory does not validate another.

This is a common logical fallacy committed by Christians, Creationists and other religions the world over. Disproving an aspect(or attempting to disprove) of someone else's theory does not suddenly give yours more credence. This is the fallacy of the False Dichotomy- the idea that there are only two choices. This usually goes hand in hand with the idea that two things are inseperably related - "Are you a patriot and do you support the war, or are you a terrorist and you are against it?" is a common theme, but there are others. "Do you reject God's Teachings and believe in evolution or are you a righteous person and reject evolution?" is another.
These are loaded questions and serve no purpose other than to confuse the listener into believing the proposition.

Tearing down someone else's argument does not validate your own- for all you have actually done is proven them wrong. This does not mean your idea has any validity- proving that one religion is false does not prove that yours is true, nor does attacking evolution create a case for creationism.

Many people believe Creationism is the "default" and that evolution is the one who must bear the burden of proof, when this is not the case. Creationism has no proof behind it- there is no evidince of design or forethought to any genetic structure or to any creature's actual biological structure. Even if evolution were to be torn down and discarded as a theory, creationism couldn't be accepted on these grounds as they have offered no proof of their own.

Because of this, the current "Teach the Controversy" method of getting Christianity in the classroom will fail because it lends itself to this falacy. Upon giving precedent to theories not accpeted by mainstream science being taught in the classroom things will certainly go very arwy for science classes, as equal time must be given to other unaccepted theories.

As you can see, this kind of thinking is dangerous because it does not take into account any kind of diversity of thought at all, as well as having the unfortunate tendancy to lump people into categories they would not typically fit into.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Words from on High: Morals, or How Convert an Atheist: Part 3: The Reckoning

Sequels are fun. Trilogies? Only for epics- and what is more epic than saving souls?

So- you've got this religion. So far, you haven't found a miracle, and none of your prophecies stick to the wall. Fear not, as I propose a third option among my list of conversion techniques, and it's a doosey.

Item the Third: Morality
Conversion Status: Absolute, and it should stick
Ease of Evidence: Easy- all you have to do is armchair philosopher me into a corner. Or should I revise that to "Harder than it looks."

All I purpose for you to do is to find me a religion that is absolute in it's morality. From the beginning.

Being that morals are tricky things because morality is defined as : "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"- but since good is defined as "Morally Admirable" and evil is defined as "Morally Wrong" we find ourselves with a circular definition that leaves the true meaning subjective. So we'll go another route, as this one will take us toward every known religion on the planet.

What I am looking for is a religion that not only sticks to it's convictions but also has absolute moral values that one can use in every situation- a religion that does not contradict itself morally. Once wrong, always wrong and once right, always right. A religion that does not allow itself to be marred by the precedent of evil being tolerated, one that speaks from a creator that has absolute goodness in their heart.
I will follow a religion that has a true north moral compass, that will point it's followers undoubtedly past the eras of bloodshed, beyond underhanded tactics such as deceit, slavery and genocide. These followers will be admired among their peers, a testament to humanity- for all our flaws a moral guide that could not be misinterpreted to condone hate, killing or torture, a religion that outright denies the animal taint in human benevolence and rises above our humble roots to truly transcend our humanity, bringing us as close as possible to godhood.

Now, I know what you're going to say- "My religion is moral! It's the only morality" or some variation of such. Allow me to give you a checklist, see if your religion matches all of these criteria. I won't fault your followers, but the actual texts of the religion must have always stated thus:

  • Must not ever discriminate between human beings. Sex, Race, Sexual Orientation, Disability. Humans are fundamentally the same- a creator and truly good being would not only mention this, but make it a tenet.
  • Human Rights Violations are right out. Killing, Slavery, Rape, Violence. These are all violations of our rights and must never be tolerated
  • Deception by individuals, or by the Church. A true religion needs no lies, cover ups, conspiracy. Let the light shine in and reveal pristine cisterns of truth.
  • Must be written in a transcendent language understandable by mankind. Something that is clear, concise and translatable through the ages. A creator with foreknowledge of the future would know that this is paramount to the success of human kind.
  • Must protect children, and those who cannot speak for themselves. There is nothing about child abuse, pedophilia, the rights of those who are invalid or in a comatose state in any holy book I have read, and in many places calls for horrendous crimes to be done against them.
  • Must account for the environment, and the future. Morally, we must assure our great grandchildren have water to drink and air to breathe- it is through inaction we commit indirect violations of their rights to the pursuit of happiness.
Now- most objections to this is that these were the morals in the context of the society the books were written in. This is, while true, not a valid argument. Killing, Rape, Slavery, Child Abuse, Incest- these things have been wrong to do since we developed complex central nervous systems and are wrong today. They have always been wrong. The people who suffered, the planet that was damaged and the trauma that was done will not go away because of the ignorance of the times or the will of the culture- a truly good God would have given these laws to man as soon as we could write them- they would ensure that ignorance would never be an excuse to harm others and have made it abundantly clear that these things were taboo from the start.

Now- since these are subjective terms, I shall give you a sporting chance. Give me a book or a creed that is consistent all the way through- then argue why it is morally absolute. Please be aware that I shall go over this statement very thoroughly and more than likely, you will lose. Why? Because there is no such text.