Friday, February 1, 2013

Darwin or Jesus? Racism and Sexism Pt. 4 - The point

I've been addressing an article about how Darwin is racist/sexist and evolution = bad, etc. These are my prior posts about the article:
I've only managed to address the first five paragraphs of this article. The author continues building the case that Darwin is a racist sexist jerk, and that Jesus is perfect and is, besides his occasional whipping-session, a nice guy.

I'll finish assessing this article by addressing the remaining key points.

After offering some evidence that Darwin was a raging sexist bastard, the author says this:

Was Darwin simply a man of his times as his advocates declare? I am not following Darwin, but his reasoning would make sense if you accept his conjecture of human evolution.
I am not "following Darwin" either- nor am I following Isaac Newton,. I accept the things Newton figured out as true (calculus, gravity, etc), but he was a nutzoid Christian. Would it be remotely possible for the author to understand this distinction?

Yes, the reasoning does make sense if you accept the conjecture one of the most well supported theories in the scientific arsenal, to the point that we have a better understanding of evolution than we do gravity.

Here we are, once again, at the is/ought crossroads. This is essentially the theme for this entire article.

Is/Ought. Is/Ought. Is/Ought. Is/Ought. Is/Ought. Is/Ought. Is/Ought.

I can recognize why it is that different races exist, but that tells me nothing about how I ought to treat them. That conceptual connection between the "is" and the "ought" comes from an individual person's mind.

Evolution is responsible for the differences between men and women (well, with some cultural influences mixed in). That doesn't mean, however, that I ought to treat women like shit. I ought to strive for equality between the sexes (feminism).

It's not great. It's not awesome. It's true... multiple-cross-confirming-lines-of-evidence true.

Author then proceeds to defend against the accusation of the Bible's oppression of women, and compares Darwin's "promotion" of the oppression of women with the Bible.

... article continues - blah blah blah ... I'm not terribly interested in a "sexism-off" between Darwin and the Scriptures... so moving on.

Our abilities come from God as He blesses us. Our value is embedded in God, and not in climbing the tree of evolution to be the alpha ape.
I don't get my values/morals from God. I'm a freaking atheist. You can't even demonstrate that God/Jesus exists for us get our values.

The fact we evolved as a social species, however, does set a groundwork for human morality. We've evolved behavioral traits that allow us to cooperate and work together - things like language and empathy. Empathy has even been demonstrated in other animals. It's hardly unique to humanity.

Between God/Jesus and evolution, and it's effect on traits/behaviors, guess which one has actual supporting evidence? That's right, evolution.
Darwin or Jesus? Darwin’s morals are baseless and shameful.
Outside of the fact he was progressive for his time - so what? Round and round we go. Airplanes aren't going to suddenly drop out of the sky because we find out the Wright brothers were ass-hats.

So Darwin was a jerk. Shame on him.

... and author continues babbling about morals. 

How can evolution define love? According to evolution, love is either a survival instinct excluding free will
Think you can do a little research? Love is not exactly an obscure topic.

You could argue that love is a survival instinct. Chipmunks, when they "go through the motions", will tolerate each other, and cuddle for awhile, and then resume being territorial butt-faces. As humanity has evolved to be a social species, it's not exactly a stretch of the imagination that a biochemical process triggers us to have more social cohesion, especially when defending the young is involved - which boosts our capacity to survive as a group. Hormones trigger us to do many things - like seek out food, have sex, etc.

Don't get me started on "free will". Biochemistry would violate our free will about as much as gravity violates our free will to float up into the sky only using our minds. Does getting hungry violate our free will? When I'm having cravings for something, it's difficult to think of anything else.

, or love is a human invention not embedded in man? 
We can do things to cultivate/maintain the feeling... otherwise, I'm not sure what he's suggesting here.

You can wrangle with the Bible all day, and yet find no greater moral system. 
Sure, if you exclude the God part, it's... okay. The whole God-hell-salvation setup is one of the single most evil things I've ever encountered. I've torn the concept apart. I find it detestable and vile.

Mind you, I don't buy his arguments. What I see is a person using his secular morality to weed out and rationalize away all the bad bits of the Bible, as well as Jesus's, ignoring the bad advice (which I would argue is immoral to give bad advice) - all to the make a case that religious morality is best. It's ironic.

The Christian faith is the only religion based on sacrificial love.
And that matters because....? Uniqueness doesn't make it true or moral.

The supposed "sacrificial love" of the Christian faith, as I detailed in the linked post above, is a horrid deranged fix for a horrid deranged context that an apparently infinitely-incompetent god created, that could be improved upon by a 5-year old in 5 seconds.

Sure, go ahead and spin that as "sacrificial love."

Rather we find Darwinists hatefully mocking the Christian symbol presenting Jesus to be God, the Son, and the Savior by adding legs to the ichthus fish 
Yep, I have one of those on my car and truck. It's more about promoting science than hate, and antagonizing those people who don't accept the theory of evolution, who are promoting the destruction of the U.S. science educational system.

Author, do you get why we mock you?

It's because you've got a set of stupid insane beliefs, that are being used as a basis for meddling in everyone else's lives, passing legislation to destroy science education, dumbing down everyone else with your dogma, enacting your bigotry against homosexuality even to the point where you're supporting legislation to put homosexuals to death in Uganda, continually pestering us on the streets and at our front doorsteps with your idiocy, continually trying to turn America into a theocracy, using the U.S. armed forces to convert/proselytize its members, and any country we're currently at war with, doing everything you can to restrict contraceptive and abortion access to women, and then turning around and defeating lawsuits by arguing that fetuses aren't people, etc.

We mock you because we're exercising our first amendment rights to chastise you for the damage you're doing to society.

We couldn't care less if you had the most vapid insane deranged delusional beliefs in existence. As long as you aren't negatively effecting people around you.

You know... freedom and morality - a harm versus benefit based morality - the one that actually makes sense.

I'm sorry it makes you feel bad that you are mocked. Cry me a river. Get some better, more accurate beliefs. The beliefs you have are idiotic - ditch them.

I am not hateful. I'm frustrated. I'm frustrated by the promotion of dogma over science, the promotion of anti-intellectualism over evidence-based investigation, your efforts to continue society's steady march into the Dark Ages II. I'm irritated that you, within this article, are currently trying to regress humanity's understanding of reality in order to support your fear-based dogmatic security blanket against mortality, retarding anyone who "chooses Jesus" because they've been convinced to abandon reason and logic for dogma and willful ignorance.

For instance, I am continually frustrated at the religious obstruction of doing anything about anthropogenic global warming. We have a very real evidence-based problem that we need to be solving right now, that will result in a seriously screwed up planet, and a collapse of civilization and an outbreak of wars over water, minimally - and potentially could result in a runaway greenhouse effect, turning us into another Venus, extinguishing all life on this planet.

But no, since the concept doesn't jive with their idiotic unevidenced religious beliefs, we have people who believe an invisible sky pixie literally spoke the universe into existence, who believe in talking snakes and donkeys, who are generally opposed to even our basic capacity to actually know things about the world, are blocking us from taking action... because their book says the Pixie agreed not to flood us again.

This is the level of devastation that is faith - the act of self-retardation to make yourself feel better. Don't bother with facts - just believe! Faith is well on its way to the downfall of humanity.

So yes. Irritation. Frustration. Of course I feel these things. 

We're on a river in a raft that's heading over a waterfall, and the religions idiots in the back of the boat decided to throw the paddles/ropes overboard because their book said God wouldn't let us drown.

Who wouldn't be frustrated?

The choice is yours. Darwin or Jesus? Darwin’s Evolution or Jesus’ Creation (Mark 10:6)? The likeness of an ape or the likeness of God’s image? Racism or faith in Christ? Sexism and God’s instructions?
There we go! This final blurb from the article underscores my point I was making from my last post.

It's nothing but a bait-and-switch. He spent the entirety of the article addressing the morality of Darwin versus Jesus, and now we're being asked to pick which is factually true - creation or evolution (not that they are mutually exclusive).

But wait - the author spent exactly zero time refuting evolution, and exactly zero time positively supporting creationism. There's nothing in this article that provides any basis for deciding which is factually correct.

 The likeness of an ape or the likeness of God’s image?
Why does God have a head, arms or legs? Is there gravity in heaven? Why did he decide that gravity is needed? Why does God have eyebrows and hair? Why does God have hair? What does God need with a starship?

The idea that we were created in the likeness of God is nonsensical if you stop and think about it.

 Racism or faith in Christ? Sexism and God’s instructions?
Thank you for making my point. I'm given a false dichotomy between racism and "faith in Christ".

I find this argument to be wholly irrational.

Let's say Darwin was an absolutely evil genocidal dictator. Let's say that the theory of evolution has been used to rationalized a dozen genocides. What's the point - that we should pretend that the theory of evolution isn't real?

Slavery is a sucky concept. So is war. So are dictatorships. Should we pretend those aren't real too, because they're bad?

Well, since you asked, I'll tell you what I choose.

  • I choose to believe that evolution is irrefutably supported by fact.
  • I choose to believe that Darwin was a racist sexist asshat at times, and that it has no bearing on anything relevant - that irrespective of whether Darwin was a jerk or not, he discovered something true about reality, and my decision to work towards equality has nothing to do with Darwin, or Jesus.
  • I choose to believe that this "Jesus Christ" character in your old dusty book is unsupported by sufficient evidence, and that most likely, was an overblown fictional caricature of some guy, one of many, who were self-proclaimed saviors at the time.
  • I choose to believe that secular morality is far superior to religious morality, and is much better supported by fact.
  • I choose to believe that your belief system is delusional and dumb, since it's unsupported by sufficient evidence.

Fuck you and your manipulative false dichotomies.

No comments:

Post a Comment