Touchstone Magazine - Mere Comments

The Dance of the Straw Men

If you're a social conservative, chances are you’ve had a conversation something like this:

Conservative: “But if we accept homosexual behavior as normal, how do we retain other traditional taboos, like the one against incest?”

Liberal: “That’s just a straw man. Nobody’s going to advocate incest.”

Now, read this, from Tauriq Moosa, tutor in ethics, bioethics and critical thinking at the University of Cape Town, South Africa (courtesy of my friend Dale Nelson):

Thirdly, and oddly, people exclaim [incest is] “just” repugnant. We will examine this more closer later. Nonetheless, why should the sexual activities of two consenting adults concern us? This is the same question we can ask those who are ‘against’ homosexuality (which is like being against having blue eyes). It is none of our business what two consenting adults wish to do (as long as no one else is harmed/involved without consent).

Repugnance helped many things we now consider wrong to continue in the past, such racial and sexual inequality. We can’t rely on repugnance to justify our social policies, since our repugnance is simply that: our own. Besides which, people are repulsed by different things – and we cannot leave it up to the whims of our emotions to implement policies and laws which could, unnecessarily, cause suffering to other people, as is the case with gay people, women, and indeed the current brother-and-sister couple.

Pretty lively for a straw man, isn’t it?

Liberals—I want to share a serious word with you, in honesty and without malice. If you have any principles—any at all—I promise you that, if you continue on the Left, you will eventually either have to give them up or move to the Right. Because liberalism is not a position. It is a process. That process evolves continually. Nothing is out of bounds for it, given enough time. That’s why so many ‘60s radicals are Reagan Republicans now.

For years, people have been telling me (to take another example) that there’s nothing wrong with homosexual behavior because homosexuals are born that way (I’m still not convinced of that, but it’s beside the point for this discussion). The argument is, “If it’s inborn, it’s natural and right.” Christian liberals say it must be God’s will.

“Why would anyone choose to be gay?” the liberal says. “It’s penalized in our culture. So it must be inborn, and the gays have no choice in the matter.”

Bear that argument in mind when you read this, from Italy’s La Stampa.

A study conducted by neuroscientists at Turin University and researchers at the department of neurological science of the University of Milan asserts that pedophilia is caused by a defective growth factor called pleiotropic protein Progranulin (PGRN). The results were published in the journal Biological Psychiatry and presented during a recent convention of the Neurological Italian Society in Turin.

Now, if this theory is true, explain to me how the previously stated arguments for homosexuality don’t apply just as well to pedophilia.

And no, “You’re a Nazi,” does not count as a valid counter-argument.

 

Lars Walker is the author of several fantasy novels, the latest of which is West Overesea.

To Serve Man and Enjoy Him Forever

No doubt many of you have seen the story circulating about a NASA report, "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis," warning that unless we humans take better care of our planet, particularly by addressing the problem of climate change, extraterrestrials "could attack and kill us, enslave us, or potentially even eat us."

I think the NASA researchers have been watching the Twilight Zone a bit too regularly, particularly the famous episode, "To Serve Man." Here's the full episode:

But you can also skip ahead to the kicker.

Maybe this is a report from the Onion that got picked up accidentally. I checked and it's not April 1, anyway, but I can't see how such a report would push public opinion in favor of increasing funding for a struggling government agency.

Worshiping the goddess of environmentalism does precisely what Rod Serling warns, devolving human beings from "dust to dessert" and from steward of the planet to "an ingredient in someone's soup."

Ronald Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" But maybe we should fear instead the word, "I'm from another planet, and I'm here to help."

It's a cookbook!

Who Understands the Human Body, cont'd

Having read Jim Kushiner's post from two days ago, I couldn't help but get a little more mileage out of his title.  Actually, a more accurate title for this one would be "who understands what it means to be human," period.  If you saw the cover story of this past February's Time magazine entitled "2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal" you know what I'm talking about.  The issue at its core--the mind/body problem--isn't a new one.  What is new is the exponential rate at which technology will bring (supposedly) superintelligent immortal cyborgs into existence. 

To quote a portion of the article:  "We will successfully reverse-engineer the human brain by the mid-2020s. By the end of that decade, computers will be capable of human-level intelligence....In [2045], given the vast increases in computing power and the vast reductions in the cost of same, the quantity of artificial intelligence created will be about a billion times the sum of all the human intelligence that exists today."

Although Time predictably gave the philosophical issues the short shrift, at least it raised some of the basic questions:  "Suppose we did create a computer that talked and acted in a way that was indistinguishable from a human being — in other words, a computer that could pass the Turing test. (Very loosely speaking, such a computer would be able to pass as human in a blind test.) Would that mean that the computer was sentient, the way a human being is? Or would it just be an extremely sophisticated but essentially mechanical automaton without the mysterious spark of consciousness — a machine with no ghost in it? And how would we know?"  

The Time article will jolt anyone who thought that Schwarzeneggar’s Cyberdine/Terminator brand was a mere fiction relegated to our DVD libraries.  If this isn’t a case for young, clear-minded Christian thinkers to go and get Ph.D.’s in neuroscience and philosophy of mind from the best universities in the world, I don’t know what is.

No Faith, No Free Will

A self-professed "agnostic and scientific materialist" applauds the role of science in the decline of belief in the existence of God and yet opposes a corresponding movement among scientists to reject belief in the existence of free will.

John Horgan rejects the conclusions of many scientists and methodological materialism, instead asserting, "Science has discovered nothing that contradicts free will."

He goes on to claim, "We also need the concept of free will, much more than we need the concept of God. Our faith in free will has social value. It provides us with the metaphysical justification for ethics and morality. It forces us to take responsibility for ourselves rather than consign our fate to our genes or God. Free will works better than any other single criterion for gauging the vitality of a life, or a society. Choices, freely made, are what make life meaningful."

As a theologian, I contend however that the observation attributed to Dostoevsky applies to free will as well as other things: Without God, everything is permitted. Another way of putting it is that without God, nothing is sacred, nothing is protected, nothing is immune to the corrosive effects of scientific materialism.

But how can belief in God protect free will? Those of us who are part of the Reformed tradition in particular have a burden of proof on this score, given the common perception that a view of divine predestination subverts rather than supports creaturely freedom, contingency, and secondary causality. Briefly I'll say that the Reformed tradition has in my view gotten an undeserved reputation on that score, although I will also admit that there are many who have today and previously self-identified as "Reformed" or "Calvinist" who do not actually hold to the traditional Reformed position on these matters.

But in a broader Augustinian vein we might answer the question of how faith and freedom relate, in this case faith in the existence of the all-knowing, all-powerful God and the existence of free will: We are free because God has created us, willed us, and declared us to be so.

Even if such an answer is more rhetorically than philosophically satisfying, it is, ultimately, why we have free will. And that's also why without God we don't have any basis for defending the existence of free will, sentimental attachments to free will's social utility or necessity notwithstanding.

We Saw This Coming, Didn't We?

I finally watched “Gladiator” the other day. This news may surprise you. A guy who loves swords as much as I do, you would think, would have leaped for “Gladiator” like a trout after a fly, the moment it was released.

But in fact I found myself putting it off. I'm pretty sure I know why I delayed, too. I'd read a review that told me what happens to Maximus' wife and son. I knew that in order to enjoy the good parts, I'd have to go through that scene, and whether it happened off screen or on, it would poison the whole thing for me. I hope you won't think less of me if I admit that I'm basically a pretty tenderhearted guy, with a low tolerance for the suffering of innocents.

As a writer, I understand why they added that scene (and, according to Wikipedia, it was added. It wasn't in the original script. They put it in to increase Maximus' incentive for vengeance). You have to raise the stakes, if you want to engage an audience and motivate a character to dire and terrible deeds. People don't wake up one morning and say, “I think I'll assassinate a dictator today.” They need (or so we imagine) a personal reason, a mighty, visceral wrong to right.

Green Sin

My impression (of course I only move in limited circles, usually three times before I lie down) is that this past Earth Day was a relatively muted celebration. The Greenies were observing in private, while we Spoilers of the Earth were having a big old time whooping it up over tired Al Gore jokes.

So I think I’ll pile on a little more. But in a serious vein.

One of the most common responses I’ve met when talking religion with non-Christians (and liberal Christians) is, “I can’t believe in your angry God. Your doctrine of Original Sin offends me. My God is a God of love. My God would never condemn a baby for something Adam and Eve did.”

And it occurred to me, “Well, what do environmentalists believe about sin and guilt?”

Norman Borlaug, R.I.P.

Norman Borlaug is dead. He is of particular interest to me because he was a Norwegian-American boy, and he came to Luther College, Decorah, Iowa (which claimed him, as I recall, for some reason. Maybe because he came from nearby Cresco. Apparently he didn't go to Luther) to speak during the year I attended the school. I think I heard him speak. I'm not exactly sure (and no, I wasn't on drugs. I just have a bad memory). Through the use of high-yield crops, he saved the lives of billions of human beings. Yet he's almost unknown.

I remember that for years after I'd seen him at Luther (I think I saw him) I heard critics complain that his "Green Revolution" was a fraud. "It's unsustainable," the critics said. "It depends too much on chemical fertilizers and technology."

For leftists, saving billions of lives isn't enough. You've got to do it the right way.

And, preferably, kill some capitalists in the process.

Tree of Life & the World's Greatest Biologist

In case you missed it, here is the BBC's Tree of Life video, out in time for Darwin's 200th birthday just ten days hence.

The editorial in the current issue of Science News (Jan. 31) asks  who is the greatest biologist of all time? "There's only one answer. Any other vote invalidates the voter as unqualified. It's Darwin." [So much for dissent!] I've thought of Darwin as an amazingly good naturalist. But did he know much about biology? He knew next to nothing about the cell. Is the mass of information we have today about the physics of life due to Darwin's work? Genes? DNA? What do the biologists say? Of course any dissenter is unqualified.