http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1C6dHnpe30
I realize that I’m probably going to completely mangle the pronunciation of this name, but consider the words of the ancient Syrian poet, Abu al-‘Ala’ Ahmad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Ma-arri:
“The world holds two classes of men—intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence.”
Personally, I prefer to believe that, had he lived in more contemporary times, his consciousness would have been so raised as to incline him to say “men and women,” but this is tangential to the point I’m making.
In the previous century there have been, if I recall correctly, about 30 scientific experiments to examine the veracity of this observation, though not with this exact quote in mind. Four have found a positive correlation between religious inclination and intelligence. In the rest, the correlation has been negative. That is, the more intelligent one tends to be, the greater the difficulty one has accepting that God so loved humanity that He impregnated a woman with Himself so that He could be born into the world to grow up to be sacrificed to Himself because it was necessary for Him to punish Himself in order to appease Himself enough to persuade Himself to forgive the people He created Himself for violating the laws He created in the first place. These studies indicate that more intelligent people have greater difficulty accepting this.
Now do I personally have the documentation to back this up? Unfortunately, I don’t. So if you opt not to believe me, I understand. What I’m talking about here is a concept and it’s comprehension; not its acceptance. That is, I don’t ask that you accept this; only that you understand it.
Months ago, I came across a video covering these studies. I don’t remember the name of the video or the user who posted it, but I suspect I will never forget what I encountered in the comment section, though I will have to paraphrase.
Someone had, 500 characters at-a-time, posted this charming little anecdote about a Christian marine-reservist in a college class with an atheist professor. Right off the bat, note the subtle suggestion. (Non-belief may seem intelligent sometimes, but belief is patriotic).
One day, that reservist walked in, and that professor was standing on the desk, looking up, saying, “God, if you’re up there, knock me from this desk.” Apparently, atheists obsess over God as much as theists do. Ten minutes later, since apparently, atheists are unprofessional about our alleged obsession, he was still standing there, saying, “Well?”
Fed up with this, that reservist got up from his chair, stormed up to the front of the class, cold-clocked that professor, and sent him to the floor. Surprised and shaken, the professor propped himself up just enough to look at the reservist and ask, “Why did you do that?”
The reservist responded, “God’s a little busy right now, protecting our troops in the field in their constant struggle and sacrifice to protect your right to do and say dumb things. So HE SENT ME INSTEAD!”
Yeah. I responded, “God is protecting our troops in the field, and doing a bang-up job of it too, which is why so many of them are getting so banged up and coming home in boxes. So let me get this straight. You’re saying that religious belief rendered a man capable of violence against a harmless man making an admittedly-unprofessional, though essentially harmless gesture? What a surprise.”
Apparently, he lives in Australia, and apparently, pointing out obvious errors in someone’s logic is a lazy act, which is, of course, why he responded by calling me a lazy American. He then followed up by explaining to me that there are a lot of god-believing soldiers in the field, sacrificing for my right to do and say dumb things.
Hmm. So they are over there protecting my right to speak my mind, and the least I can do is have the decency, not to exercise this right, but to keep quiet and surrender it. Yes. I can see just how this would validate their sacrifices.
Curiously, in my response, I pulled my punches somewhat. I called him a name-caller. Then I explained that there are also plenty of god non-believing soldiers in the field making the same sacrifices and taking the same risks. The difference is that the god-believing soldiers are making this sacrifice in the hope of being compensated for it after they die (essentially, in the hope that it’s not really a sacrifice), while the god non-believing soldiers are making this sacrifice just for the hope that their efforts, and if it comes down to it, their deaths will count for something. For them, that’s enough.
He went on to make a few more, token efforts, but clearly, I had dealt the death-blow to his argument.
Now as with any real-life example, this “argument” is positively laced with overlapping logical fallacies, but let me draw your attention to one type in particular. The first three examples of it are tucked inside the unstated suggestions:
“Non-belief is unpatriotic.”
“People who say they don’t believe in God really do, and obsess over Him.”
“These so-called atheists are unprofessional about their obsession with the God they actively deny, even though they really do believe.”
The fourth example is actually stated. I pointed out the flaws in his “reasoning” and he responded by calling me a name. These are each personal attacks; the ad hominem fallacy, whereby one finds it easier to hurl insults at, or nitpick the imperfections of the arguer, then to find any actual problems with the argument. One does not go long in any debating arena without encountering this one in spades.
For another example, consider a popular creationist tack: “Charles Darwin was a racist!”
First of all, it was the 1850’s. Everyone was a racist. Second of all, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a chauvinist. Does this detract at all from his contribution to civil rights? No. Does this add any merit or validity to chauvinism? Of course not.
Is the statement “2+2=4” factual? Yes. What if a racist says it? What if a Nazi says it? What if a communist or a pagan says it? It’s still a fact. No one who has ever lived has had the power to make this a false statement under any circumstances. An argument, a line of reasoning, stands or falls on its own.
Imagine if you were to state this, and someone were to respond by calling you a cootie-faced poopie-head. That’s how childish and ridiculous the ad hominem fallacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment