“The Pious Man is Humble before God” - but nowhere else.

Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with the “humility” touted by monotheism? I’ve seen this sort of stuff all over the internet; about how all the problems of the world boil down to humanity’s “arrogance” and how everything would be just peachy if we all simply admitted our “lowly” status and submitted to the will of the almighty (fill in name here).

The contention is that humanity is “arrogant” because we have failed to acknowledge (fill in name here) as our creator and He (why is it always “He”?) is so pissed off about this that he is making our lives miserable – or allowing us to make our own lives miserable, which amounts to the same thing for an omnipotent, omniscient being, a factor which the God Squad never seem to grasp (thank you Epicurus).

My point is, why is it “arrogant” for people to refuse to believe in an all-powerful deity that has remained steadfastly invisible in any meaningful or verifiable way for all of human history, but not arrogant to assume that such a deity would focus its entire attention upon us?

I mean, don’t the God Squad get it? They believe that there exists an immortal, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing being which has existed forever (if that term has any meaning), that yet bends all its attention and will upon us – humanity. They believe that this inconceivably powerful being created the entire Universe and everything in it expressly and solely for the purpose of giving the human species a place to live. They believe that this being focusses its attention so completely on our species and ours alone that it actually cares what we do, what we think, and who we have sex with.

Some of them even think that this being is so enraptured with humanity that He manifested Himself on Earth as His own son in order to offer Himself as a blood sacrifice to Himself so that He could forgive humanity for the sins He allowed us to commit in the first place – they consider this to make perfect sense.

As if that is not enough, the God Squad further believe that they are members of a select group – actually, a range of groups, all of which disagree with each other – with whom (fill in name here) has a special and personal relationship; that this group is so special to (fill in name here) that they and they alone will be taken into His presence on Judgement Day or its equivalent, while everyone else is consigned to (check one):

• burn for all eternity in a Lake of Fire
• suffer the Second Death
• be cast into the Eternal Darkness
• all of the above.

They also think that they and they alone are the ones who know “The Truth”, are the “Keepers of the Flame”, are the “Soldiers of The Lord” and so forth, and that (fill in name here) takes the time to speak directly to them on a daily basis. Somehow, they consider that this truly astonishing level of self-aggrandisement is, in fact, a sign of their self-effacement.

Can these people honestly not see how perverse and distorted their world-view is? What degree of twisted logic must it take to perceive what is clearly the highest level of egotism as abject humility? What is worse, they have the infernal (and I use the term advisedly) gall to claim that those who do not so believe are the ones who are “arrogant”. These people must have egos the size of Jupiter to think that any such deity, even if such existed, would give a small, brown rodent’s rectum about them, their thoughts, or their peccadillos. It would be funny, if the consequences of this distorted and self-centred belief system were not so devastatingly serious.  They have managed, by a combination of good luck and clever politicking, to spread this psychological distortion of reality all over the planet, and even though the power of their institutions is finally waning, the effects on humanity have been and still are deadly serious.

Personally, I can’t wait until the last of them has gone to “meet their maker”; if He actually exists, I wonder what He will make of them?

Trashing an opponent of same-sex marriage

It was surprisingly easy; there's a link to the original article.

Redefining Marriage

The case for caution

by Julian Rivers

http://www.jubilee-centre.org/document.php?id=432

Professor Rivers states that “challenges” to the exclusivity of marriage would risk it becoming a “formalised domestic arrangement between any number of people for any length of time”; yet in the same article, he acknowledges that marriage defined as between “one man and one woman” has only existed since the 11^th century (note [6]), and that only within Europe (Interestingly, it was Cnut the Great who made this rule, who nevertheless is recorded to have had two wives and a concubine). One can assume, therefore, that for all of human history prior to that (or outside the European region), at least 5,000 years according to archaeological records, humanity not only survived but thrived with a far broader description of marriage. This blows a hole in his argument so wide that I’m astonished he can’t see it; it must be due to his theological blinkers.

The common law has always defined marriage as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others….

English Common Law (and as a result, the common law of all her colonies) was begun in the reign of Henry II in the 12^th Century, well after the Romans had imposed Christianity on the country in 200 AD. Therefore, Common Law, like Professor Rivers, carries the baggage of Christian doctrine against homosexuality; a doctrine which has no place in a secular, 21^st Century society.

The debate about same-sex marriage is a debate about using law to change the meaning of the social institution of marriage. And that affects everyone.

 

He’s right about that; I would just like to see him defend the unstated assumption inherent in his argument that Gay and Lesbian citizens should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as the other members of the society in which they live.

The Government's arguments

The argument from equality

… It follows that for marriage to be 'equal' on grounds of sexual orientation, the law should not be restricted to just one type of sexually-intimate companionship. Why can't a man marry two wives? Why isn't prostitution treated as a form of short-term marriage? Why, for that matter, should single people be deprived of the chance to pass on their pension rights to a best friend? There may or may not be reasons for drawing the legal boundaries in any particular place, but until those reasons are stated, the argument from equality is incomplete.

 

This is just the “slippery slope” argument revisited; it has absolutely no basis in observed history and is an emotive and irrational appeal to fears of societal disintegration. In the numerous states and nations in which same-sex marriage has been legitimised and legalised, there have been no negative consequences whatsoever; none of them have enacted further legislation resulting in the redefinition of marriage to include every conceivable sexual union. It is dishonest and disingenuous to use such a tactic and it is neither rational nor logical to conclude that such events will result from the granting of equal marriage rights to all New Zealanders.

The argument from stability

…It is fair to assume that, practically speaking, no same-sex couple would be willing to marry who are not already willing to enter into a civil partnership. So the argument depends on the relative stability of marriage as opposed to civil partnership. … the truth is that we simply do not know the relative stability of marriage and civil partnership. Civil partnership has only been available since 2005. The data so far might even imply that civil partnerships are more stable than marriages. …. the argument from stability is speculative.

 

This is a complete furphy; the issue is not about whether or not civil partnerships are more or less stable than civil or religious marriages, but about whether or not homosexual unions are more or less stable than heterosexual ones. The evidence for this is overwhelmingly that same-sex unions are just as stable as opposite-sex unions when given the same legal rights and obligations; much like same-sex parenting has been shown to be just as advantageous (in fact slightly more so) than opposite-sex parenting. Professor Rivers does himself and his argument no favours by resorting to this clear straw-man fallacy. Again, this is an unproven and fallacious argument which has no basis in logic or rationality.

The argument from convenience

…The difficulties of a small group of people are emphasised at some length by the Government…. The argument from convenience is negligible.

 

This one is so shallow that even Professor Rivers himself spends very little time on it; it almost seems as if he would prefer people to skip right over it without noticing. It is simply absurd to claim that, because this issue affects only a small minority of people, it can be conveniently ignored. Civil rights, one of which is the right to legally marry, affect everyone, as Professor Rivers is at pains to point out at the beginning of the article. Here, however, he seems to be suggesting that this minority can be safely relegated to second-class status because they lack the numbers to be considered worthy of attention. This is an appalling attitude, and it does not surprise me that Rivers does his best to skate over it as rapidly as possible. Just how big a number of members does a minority need to fulfil Professor Rivers’ requirements for recognition? Again, there is NO logical or rational basis for this argument, which moreover flies in the face of many of the moral arguments in favour of democracy.

Two arguments against same-sex marriage

Marriage secures the equal value of men and women

… we live in an age and society which has done more than most to ensure that gender roles are fluid, that men and women are equally able to access jobs, careers and other social opportunities, as well as taking up domestic responsibilities. Yet we still recognise that men and women are in various ways different….

It is only marriage which harnesses gender difference to the purposes of social cooperation….

Redefining marriage to be indifferent to sexual identity reinforces this individualistic tendency because it turns human society - from marriage outwards - into a matter of individual inclination and choice. Marriage will cease to be an institution which reflects the necessary and natural interdependence of men and women.

 

In this one, Professor Rivers shoots himself squarely in the foot. No doubt he was hoping that the average reader would not notice that he uses two completely different definitions as if they are the same thing; gender identity and sexual identity. They are not. By attempting to conflate these two essentially distinct elements of human personality, he shows that he actually has no rational basis for this argument at all. The idea that opposite-sex marriage is the basis from which all societal inter-gender cooperation flows is so absurd that I’m surprise he had the effrontery to postulate it, as is the concept that allowing same-sex couples to marry would in some way permanently damage this societal cooperation. Again; an illogical and irrational argument poorly dressed up to look as if it is not so.

Marriage promotes the welfare of children

…In spite of these developments, there are still connections between marriage as currently defined and the bearing and rearing of children. Most married couples of childbearing age will be able to have children and will have to take steps to avoid having children. By contrast, individuals and same-sex couples have to take active steps to acquire a child, at some point involving another party. Far fewer do.[24] So there is a social and practical presumption connecting marriage with children….

Only a man and a woman can form the biological unit capable of pro-creating another being 'free and equal in dignity and rights'. No new human being can exist as a living expression of the intimacy of a same-sex couple….

The prevailing view is that there is no significant deficit in same-sex parenting, although a recent major study has called this into question.[28]…

Redefining marriage breaks the necessary connection with childbearing, in the sense that marriage will no longer mean 'the relationship which is normally and naturally productive of children and thus a nexus of kinship.' Its intrinsic purpose will be reduced to sexually-intimate companionship.

 

Here we have the ultimate emotive argument that all those opposed to same-sex marriage inevitably resort to; what about the children? Every study ever conducted into same-sex parenting (apart from the now totally discredited Regnerus study Professor Rivers cites in note [28] above) shows emphatically that there are no negative consequences at all for children raised by same-sex couples; however, this fact rarely if ever succeeds in preventing those opposed to same-sex marriage rights from raising this issue. Furthermore, this argument runs counter to his earlier argument about the rights and needs of minorities, in that he claims that very few same-sex couples have or want children. Thus, by the logic of his own argument earlier (if that argument were credible), we could conclude that the effect on society from the children of same-sex couples would be negligible.

He also seems to be under the mistaken impression that same-sex couples can only have children by adoption or through in-vitro fertilisation. This is increasingly not the case. Many same-sex couples – including the highly stable (27 years) Lesbian couple with whom I have fathered two children – elect to have children via a known donor who continues to have contact with the children after their birth. As I find it difficult to believe that a person of Professor Rivers’ education would be ignorant of this fact, I can only assume that he has neglected to mention it because it so effectively undermines his argument.

The fact is that legalising and recognising same-sex marriage, far from putting the children of such unions at risk, will legitimate the relationships that brought those children into being and raised them, thereby providing them with a greater psychological and emotional stability than they would otherwise enjoy. Same-sex couples can and do successfully raise children in ever increasing numbers; individuals like Professor Rivers and organisations like “Protect Marriage New Zealand”, far from ensuring the future happiness of children, are in fact seeking to undermine the happiness and psychological well-being of the ever increasing number of children being raised by same-sex parents.

The permanence of marriage will be undermined

…The fragility of marriage is a major cause of harm in twenty-first-century British society….

Again, Professor Rivers shoots down his own argument here; the study he cites in note [38] (Counting the Cost of Family Failure (2010)) relates to the increasing number of failures in heterosexual marriage. How, I wonder, can he contend that allowing more people to marry will make this situation worse? Furthermore, the article he cites points out that the most serious threat to marriage per-se is not same-sex marriage, but poverty. It seems even someone like Professor Rivers can’t actually manage to find any evidence to support his arguments; probably because there aren’t any.

The sexual dimension of marriage will be undermined

In law, marriage is a sexual relationship. Incapacity and wilful refusal to consummate a marriage are grounds for annulment, and adultery is one of the five facts which demonstrate irretrievable breakdown….

 A close same-sex companionship need not be sexually active, so marriage and sex will be similarly disconnected….

If marriage includes relationships which are not necessarily sexual, the companionship of any adults who aspire to formal recognition and its other advantages could be called a marriage.

 

I honestly have no idea where Rivers is going with this one; the argument is so illogical and the reasoning so Byzantine in its confusion that it’s hard to see what he’s trying to say. Quite apart from the well-know and documented fact that many heterosexual marriages become less sexual in nature as the years progress, how on Earth does he manage to conflate allowing same-sex couples to marry with the idea that marriage and sex will become somehow disconnected thereby? The telling point is in the second line quoted; he uses the words “…need not be sexually active…” in the first part, but then goes on to say “…marriage and sex will be similarly disconnected (my italics).” Again, Professor Rivers is conflating two disconnected ideas here in a deliberate attempt to create a false association. In short, he’s attempting (and failing) to fabricate an argument from nothing.

The moral weight of marriage will be undermined

…. marriage as currently defined derives at least part of its social significance from its historic location in Christian theology….

The insufficiency of the individual points also to human dependency on God, just as the joint capacity to 'procreate' children is testimony to our creation in his image. Furthermore, marriage is a symbol of the mutually loving and dependent relationships between the different persons of the Trinity. It also pictures the relationship between Jesus Christ and his bride, the church. The exclusivity and permanence of marriage represent the faithfulness of the one true God, and our commitment to him. The pleasure of sexual union points to the greater joy of spiritual union with God.

He just couldn’t help himself, I guess; despite his earnest attempts to keep his theological bias out of the argument, he just naturally gravitated to the “my God doesn’t like it” position, even though he expressly stated that this article would not do so:

The purpose of this paper is to set out a non-religious case for retaining the current legal definition of marriage. It does not seek to question the morality of same-sex relationships, the provision of civil partnerships, or the current law prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation….

What this final section does is to reduce Professor Rivers’ argument to what he actually thinks; that his religious beliefs should dominate and rule the lives of everyone, even those who do not follow them. Essentially, he’s a Christian apologist posing as a rational intellectual and failing to succeed in maintaining that posture.

Conclusion

… Marriage risks becoming any formalised domestic arrangement between any number of people for any length of time. On such a trajectory, marriage will eventually unravel altogether.

Even here, Professor Rivers’ argument fails in the final analysis; prior to the 11^th century, marriage was defined in many ways that modern liberal democracies would find problematic, if not downright illegal. However, marriage did not “unravel”; the fact that we are here now to discuss this very issue is clear evidence of this. Furthermore, marriage was not even the sole province of the Christian church until the middle of the 15^th century, and then only in Europe. Marriage existed in numerous forms long before the advent of the Christian religion and it will continue to exist long after that religion has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Professor Rivers and Protect Marriage New Zealand would do well to remember that.

To The Cosmic Archer

He won't respond; I've been sending posts to his blog, FB page, and Youtube page for over a year, but apart from one very brief response to my presentation of a viable third option to his "Golden Question" (after which I was immediately banned from his FB page) he made it so that all comments to his blog and Youtube pages required approval. He even banned me from one of his "live debates" as soon as my name appeared on the screen.

I have been sending him "lessons" in logical argumentation and formal logic based on his blog arguments (including one on TSA which is very similar to yours - great minds clearly think alike); he has never acknowledged them, but he has modified several arguments after I posted them, so clearly he reads them.

Chad is really a rather pathetic figure; he had a promising carreer in NFL, but it was stymied through his lack of academic ability (bad, even for a sports scholarship) and some poor decisions. All this "never-been-defeated" crapola is his last attempt to regain some relevance, even if only in his own mind, in a world that has long since passed him over. Thus, he will never admit defeat; it would (I think) quite literally destroy him psychologically.

Addendum: Chad's (failed) attempt to re-work the Suicide Argument.

Elliott had a go at re-working the Suicide Argument in order to make it ‘airtight’; I just hope he doesn’t try to float it anywhere! I had to offer one last lesson before I withdraw into Academia. Here’s the argument itself and my very brief breakdown of its primary flaws.

The Suicide Argument 

P1: Atheists have to accept that all moral values are subjective

P2: If all moral values are subjective, then no action is objectively wrong

P3: If no action is objectively wrong, then abolishing atheism all together (sic) is not objectively wrong

C: Atheism is self-defeating

Well, Elliott; this will be my last foray into your strange, sad little world for a while; my formal study period begins today, so I will be far too busy earning my PhD to be bothered shooting one silly little fish in his tiny barrel. I do hope you've gained something from these lessons; it appears so, as you have been modifying your arguments somewhat. 

I'm sorry I never got around to a proper breakdown of the Suicide Argument, as I said I would; I just had lots of better things to do and it slipped my mind. I see you've been tweaking at it; unfortunately, it's not particularly successful. Your re-working of the Suicide Argument is a valiant attempt to clean up a pretty messy trash-pile, and to a small extent it succeeds; the error you noticed (or maybe you should just ‘fess up to having it pointed out to you) has been dealt with.

Unfortunately, you are still left with P1’s attempt to force a false dichotomy on Atheists.

P1: Atheists have to accept that all moral values are subjective.

 It is simply NOT TRUE that Atheists “have to accept that all moral values are subjective”. Atheists could use a range of potential origins for an objective morality that are logically sound but that do not require a god:

1. Programming by aliens (one of your favorites there)
2. Imprinting from an alternate reality (multiple universe theory there – I know you don’t like that one, but it IS logically possible)
3. The non-deistic, impersonal, natural force that spontaneously caused this Universe (the third option you refuse to acknowledge, even though it does not violate either of the “illogical” alternatives you offer to the deistic theory in the Elliott Argument) imprinted a survival modality on the fabric of space-time which we perceive as an objective moral code.

I could go on, but the list is pretty much endless.

As I have just shown that P1 is NOT TRUE – and if you know logical argumentation as well as you claim – you will realise that this makes P1 unsound.

P2 and P3 are both logically sound as far as they go, but as they rely entirely on the soundness of P1, they fail because it fails.

The conclusion is also something of an aberration; it doesn't actually follow from the premises. It’s unfortunately typical of your form of argument structure that you seem to dream up a ‘conclusion’ and then write premises that you think support it. MAJOR FAIL there, Elliott.

Once again, you have presented an ‘argument’ which is actually not one; in order to reach the conclusion as written, you would have to introduce at least one and probably more branches to the argument, which would probably make it far too complex and convoluted to hold up. You will have to do a lot more work on this one to get it even close to being a sound argument, I’m afraid, but keep up the effort. If nothing else, you are giving a lot of people on the internet some great laughs.

So long, ‘champ’; I’ll pop in and see how you’re doing from time to time.