Thursday, April 3rd, 2008 @ 06:08:57.
So, as you’ve probably heard, at some courthouse in Crossville, Tennasee, there’s now a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (along with Jesus, etc.).
Someone, apparently, is quite upset by the whole thing. Its not completely clear what he is upset about, but at the very least he is poorly informed about almost everything he discusses. As a disclaimer, I have to admit (if you don’t already know it) that I don’t see any significant difference between FSM and Jesus, or, at least, I don’t see one of them as more or less bizarre or likely than the other. Interestingly, I don’t see this as an insult to Christianity. I think that, once you have an omnipotent, supernatural being, and his son being sent to Earth, and all these miracles, you just gone into the realm of the strange so far that it becomes difficult to see anything as being impossible.
That said, the Josh appears to be suffering from some sort of persecution syndrome which is common amoung those who have a massive majority (whites, men, christians) or disproportionate amounts of power in society. They become very agitated when their views are not taken as law, or they have to share their space with others, etc. One has to wonder, would Mr. Hayes be so quick to jump to the defense of Scientology? Buddhism? Taoism? Probably not.
Here’s my initial breakdown.
1. He’s complaining that people who vote based on their religions are being kept out of public debate.
“In our present context, those advocating for a completely secular state
discriminate against those who appeal to Christianity or the Bible for
guidance in public policy by merely labeling their agenda as religious”
But it seems to me that if you are guided by your religion, and your religious text, then by definition you have a religions agenda. Call me nuts.
Further, once you have a religious agenda, there’s no point to debating.
Let’s see an example using abortion.
Person 1: Abortion should be illegal because the child within that womb has a soul and is therefor alive.
Person 2: Abortion should be illegal because the foetus is sufficiently developed to be considered alive and human. Further, the foetus feels pain when the abortion is done.
Person 1 is stating a dogmatic belief which can’t possibly be argued against. It may, in fact, be true, but there’s no point in debating it.
Person 2, however, is offering up evidence and making an argument. His first statement may be a little hazy, but his second statement is clear as day. Either one of these could be discussed and new information could be introduced to support or undermine his claims.
If Person 1 is prevented from taking part in a debate (and I’ve yet to see any evidence of this sort of thing happening…just look at the Republican Presidential debates), its only because they aren’t bringing anything to the table that can be debated (I suppose you could have a theological debate about whether or not the ‘child’ has a soul).
2. Secular people are not neutral.
”In spite of their best efforts to appear as the objective, rational party, those opposed to Intelligent Design and the influence of religion upon the state have shown themselves to not be so “neutral” after all.”
I’m not at all certain what he’s talking about here. In what way does any of this show a lack of neutrality? Further, where does rationality imply neutrality?
A rational person approaches a situation or issue with an open mind, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a priori knowledge. If you tell me a rock is made of gold, I can approach it rationally, and, knowing what I
know, test to see if it is really gold. That test does not mean I am biased towards or against it being gold.
I have acquired knowledge and applied it. Further, more than just factual knowledge can be applied to situations a rational person finds themselves in. If we decide that logic is a useful tool, then in every situation, I can then apply logic to help me judge truth from fiction. I do not have to recompile all the rules of logic in every situation.
In the case of I.D., the same thing applies. Arguments might be made for Intelligent Design against evolution, but that doesn’t mean that both theories must wiegh equally (which is what proponants of I.D. want you to see as ‘fairness’). Were one to apply this rule to all things, then we’d have to include, say, ‘time cube’ in out classrooms and all conspiracy theories about the moon landing, JFK’s assasination, and the Masons. That isn’t neutrality. Neutrality would be looking at the arguments for and against each side and determining which makes the stronger case, without presupposing the outcome (assuming you have no knowledge of the topic).
Again, neutrality doesn’t mean not having an informed opinion, nor does it mean going into every situation tabula rasa. A rational person need not claim neutrality as a characteristic. A rational person claims adherance to facts in evidence and logic.
3. He appears to be angry at Darwin
” While the idea of creation via the Flying Spaghetti Monster may seem ridiculous, modern Darwinist dogma is even more ridiculous in saying the universe came into existence out of nothing. To put it in mathematical terms, nobody multiplied by nothing equals everything”
Of course, Darwin, and evolutionary biologists don’t make that claim at all. In fact, that claim falls well outside the boundaries of biology. So this may be the result of anger based on a misunderstanding, I suppose.
Mr. Hayes, I do suggest that perhaps your energy spent writing this ‘editorial’ would have been better spent reading about rational thought and evolutionary theory (Darwinism, Neo-darwinism) so that you at least know what your opponant is actually saying.
Sphere: Related Content