An Interesting Flight (Part 2)

The conversation shifted towards morality, which he believed did not exist. He "reasoned" from what we observe in nature there is no difference between animals and humans. Since the theory of evolution points to gradual evolution (which assumes a probable link between animals and humans) then there is no morality. Is there morality when the lion eats the gazelle? No. The lion eats the gazelle to survive, because that is the lion's nature. Since humans are animals (according to him) and survival of the fittest is real—then morality is only an illusion. He talked about all the killing done by mankind in order to rise to power, which comes from only the strong survive mentality. Unfortunately for him he cannot account for ethical epistemology, and it is something he even denied (he said morality was an illusion). Yet we find the notion of ethics in the likes of Richard Dawkins as he writes:

Firstly, it is the most important element in the explanation for our own existence and that of all life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). [1]

What? So we are to "construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it." Based on what? We are to care for the poor and so forth, but all this is based on what? To my mind these people have nothing to ground their ethical propositions other than illusions, which they themselves have set up by their own conclusions. Yet, my new found acquaintance supposes he can tell me that we are to be regarded the same as animals. What? If we (humans) are at the top of the food chain according to his own worldview, how can we be or should be compared as equals? He implied that we should have some regard for animals. Huh? Why should we have any regard for anything other than ourselves under his worldview? I am not sure how he can ground his premises on epistemological grounds that are non-fallacious.

Nevertheless, the conversation continued, though, I really did not want to continue, since no progression was happening. The topic reaches its peak when he tells me, "There are no absolutes!" I told him that such a statement is an oxymoron, because such a statement is an absolute statement. There is a difference in humans being limited and producing theories that are incomplete with claiming there are no absolute truths. Even if absoluteness eludes us it makes practical sense to me that we seek truth because it is there to be found, and not because there is none to be had. The latter supports an infinite loop which leads to truth never being found. It very well could be that there are no absolutes and we are children of the absurd. I told him to read Richard Swinburne as he could do a better job than I could in the realm of philosophy for proofs for the existence of God. And so, we went our marry way onto our lives...

__________________________
[1] Richard Dawkins

An Interesting Flight (Part 1)

On 03/05/09 I embarked on a journey to visit one of my best friends. I do not have a lot of people I tend to call best friends, but he is indeed one of the few. Anyways, I had to take a plane in order to see my friend. On the last flight I would have to take I met a stranger that would come to challenge my thinking and my worldview. Out of all the people I could have met, this individual was the one I was destined to encounter on that day. He politely started the conversation on how his fishing trip to Florida had been ruined due to the storm that most likely killed two NFL players. He continued to tell me about how he loved to travel and see the world. We both came to the agreement that seeing the world enables you appreciate other cultures and different people. At that time I thought the conversation was over since we both became quiet, and so I pulled out one of my books.

He glanced over and saw that I was reading a book about philosophy. He proceeded to talk about existentialism and the works of Soren Kirkengaard. I acknowledged his statements and told him that I knew about Kirkengaard who in fact was a Christian. He showed skepticism towards Kirkengaard really being a Christian. He went on to tell me about the abuses of the Church and how powerful they were and still are. I pointed him towards any philosophical encyclopedia and/or philosophical resource(s) can verify to the fact that Soren Kirkengaard was a Christian philosopher. Yet, he still refused to accept the reality of Kirkengaard being a Christian. He went on to assert that Bacon, Newton, Galileo, etc. were really not Christians but were in fact victims of the Church.

I did not deny or cannot dismiss that the Church did actually hamper the scientific revolution that was brewing and taking place. However, some (in fact a lot) of these individuals were in fact documented as being Christians. If one wants to make assumptions on things that have no validity, then one can surely propose that position but it is something without substance (I explained). I also stated that I cannot deny that the Church did not have any abuses and/or that abuses do not happen; rather, I understand human nature will tend to show brokenness in things that it touches, which of course includes the Church. Do I then take the position in concluding that God does not exit, because the Church committed acts of evil? That would seem to be an emotional deduction, which at the very least puts burdens that we cannot fathom. We would have to prove that God has no business in allowing evil in the world and/or that freewill does not exist. Moreover, the assumption of evil actually existing means just that—evil exists. He on the other hand took the position that evil does not exist. Even more damaging to mankind is that postulation that morality is also not real which he actually accepted willingly. (The moral discussion continues later as the conversation shifted to faith.)

The conversation moved to the topic of faith. I told him that he had exercised some sort of faith when he got on the plane. He however did not agree that he had. He proposed to actually having confidence in the reliability of the plane being able to fly. My new found acquaintance postulated the ever fallacious position that gravity's testability is as solid as a plane flying. Now, I do not have a problem in accepting that planes have demonstrated to fly every time they go up, but this is assuming no malfunction or other possible contingencies will not affect the plane's flight. I can accept that humans have proven they can make planes that are able to fly; however, it has also come to pass that planes have crashed. Therefore, it can be said that I accept the reliability of planes being able to fly, but I refuse to accept notions which claim getting on planes does not require faith since at any given time the plane can crash given the right circumstances. So, his refusal to accept my proposition about him having faith does not hold water, I don't think.

cont.