August 31, 2010

  • Response to Bryan

    Time and Facebook have pushed our discussion off my front page, so here's my response to you. I shall be copying this to my own facebook page as well, so whenever you get a chance, we can continue on either page. Just, if you respond a month or so from now, I might have stopped checking by then, and it would be cool if you could let me know.

    You say "if a woman doesn't want a child, for whatever reason, she shouldn't have sex. It's as simple as that. Anyone who engages in sexual activity must be OPEN to the possibility that a child will result; it is only natural..." I cannot believe that you are telling woman across the country how to live. It is legal for a woman to use birth control and have sex, and people can have sex when they wish, regardless of your approval or disapproval.

    Compare your statement "science shows us that human life begins at conception" to the statement "science shows us that death occurs when the brain dies." At the moment of conception, the embryo does not have a brain, therefore, it isn't actually alive. We could sit here throwing definitions around, but I will say right now that I don't actually believe either statement with any certainty. Last I checked, science does not have a clear answer for when life begins, which is partly why these debates still go on. In order to make a convincing argument, it will take something more specific than "science says," or the "any sane man" argument you tried earlier.

    "Talk to any young man who grew up without a father; he will tell you he knows he would have been better off with one, and that he has always yearned for one." Again, this is not relevant. I've said over and over again that the outcome has no effect on children REGARDLESS OF WHETHER gays can marry. It is legal for homosexuals to adopt children, and it will continue to be legal regardless the outcome! Meanwhile, here is a young girl who grew up with two fathers and no mother, and hear what she has to say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVa-M1ifa4U&feature=player_embedded

    Even if it were related, you are comparing married couples to DIVORCED COUPLES, not homosexual couples. You are saying that kids in married households do better than kids in divorced ones, and this is obvious. Therefore, gays should not marry? What? Kids do better in married than divorced or single households, therefore, gays should not marry? How does that even follow?

    "But human dignity is not scientific in any way whatsoever; and it is, whether you like it or not, a religious concept." Excuse me? You also used the word "mystical," which I interpreted as "metaphysical." Excuse me? Everything is either scientific or religious? What about literature or art or music? Those are not scientific, but they are certainly not necessarily religious. What about (in this case) politics or law? The world doesn't fall into exactly two categories of science and religion. As to human dignity, I consider that a philosophical (not scientific or religious!) question, although I find philosophy much closer to science than religion.

    ---

    I read somewhere (in the context of mathematics) something about proofs, but it's relevant here as well. Suppose you have a statement Q that you want to prove, and you offer proof P. You are very excited to have found such an elegant proof, and just before you show it to me, you read over it again, just to proofread it. Suddenly, you discover that a very similar proof, let's say P', can be used to prove a related statement, say, Q'. The problem is that Q' is known to be false, or contradictory to Q. Here, you should be worried that there is something you've overlooked with your original proof P.

    For example: your statement Q is that gays should not marry, and your proof P is that it is not natural or optimal, and not intended by god. There is a very similar statement Q', and Q' is that interracial couples should not marry, and there is a similar proof P'. P' states that different races were put on separate continents by god, and not intended to mingle, and that the resulting cultural mix would be bad for children, and that children of such couples would have a hard time socially because their family was so different. Obviously, Q' is wrong, so the proof P' must have an error somewhere. But P and P' are much the same proof. Therefore, we can't be certain that Q is valid either.

    For a second, perhaps even more dire example: your proof P is that "killing in the name of righteousness is not immoral, but heroic," or something like that, and I believe your statement Q is that Christians are moral people (it wasn't explicitly stated, but I think this is what you're saying). Consider the modified statement Q' = suicide bombers are moral people (I obviously don't believe this). Why? Because of P', which is very similar to P, which states that God is good and everything God commands is good, and if my friends and neighbors turn away from God, they will be punished, and Westerners do not follow my God, and they might lead my friends and family astray, and I ought to save my friends family from eternal damnation. I am being heroic in fighting for righteousness. (Thankfully, I do not really believe this. I do not think that they are morally right in their actions, but I will point out that they themselves think they are morally right.)

    This is perhaps extreme, but let's take a slightly less extreme P' and Q': doctors who perform abortions are killing people. It is heroic to kill for righteousness. Therefore, it is heroic to kill doctors who perform abortions.

    I am not for a moment accusing you of believing things like this. Undoubtedly, you believe it is immoral to kill, and wouldn't dream of taking a gun to an abortion clinic. But note that your same line of reasoning could be used to justify a great variety of outlandish claims. Therefore, there is probably something unreliable in the reasoning.

    Actually, the unreliable source is the religion. You are basing your arguments on beliefs derived from religion. It is just as easy for me to cite a religion with conflicting beliefs, and draw a wildly contradictory conclusion. On the contrary, a study like this one (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html) offers specific evidence to support its conclusion. It details its method, presents the evidence collected, and evidence such as "n percent of pedophiles are homosexual" cannot be used for any statements Q outside of a narrow range focused on homosexuality and pedophilia. Meanwhile, a statement like "religion is moral" is vague enough to be able to support pretty near anything. And if a statement can support anything, then it doesn't mean much at all.

    P.S. Please don't replace "religion is moral" with "Christianity is moral." Whatever reason you give for it, I will simply echo your reasoning back at you and replace "Christianity" with "Pastafarianism."

     

    Note to everyone who's made it this far: this is not intended to mock or demean Bryan in any way. It is my response, and it appears on his wall also, and that was just because time and Facebook pushed the preexisting discussion into internet obscurity. It is no longer on my wall's front page. Since it was a discussion that involved people from different schools, I opted to post a copy here, in case some of you do not have access to Bryan's wall. Just to make sure that everyone who was in it before can still have access to it, if they so choose. That's all. None of this is meant to offend anyone.