Once upon a debate, I came to the realization that debating certain popular topics was often a pointless endeavor. I have known this for some time but it was not until recently that I finally developed an effective way of explaining why debating these topics is just a waste of everyone’s time.
I had just gotten in touch with an atheist to address a question he had asked broadly to theists. We had a pleasant conversation which lead to him asking for my thoughts on another post of his.
The post merely asked if humans are moral by nature or if our morality is to be attributed to religion. He made the claim that if it is natural, then that would mean religions are falsely atributting natural moral progress to their religious influence.
The trouble with asking, “which is correct” with regards to this question of ethical development, is that both positions are completely valid with respect to their fundamental worldview.
If God does not exist then all moral development can be attributed to human development.
Furthermore, if God does exist then, speaking specifically from the Christian worldview, perfect ethics has its roots in the ethics defined by God in the time before humanity's rebellion.
So what we have is a debate between two positions where the validity of each position is based upon what position you take on a related topic; namely whether or not you take the position of God existing. Even worse, the validity of which position you take regarding the related topic is rooted in the position you take in yet another related topic; namely is God’s existence possible.
The resulting debate is an unproductive tennis match between two people who think they are winning over their opponent when in reality neither agrees upon how the game is supposed to be played in the first place.
Therefore, if someone takes a different position than you on a topic, do not debate them on the matter unless you can first both agree on all of the same determining points. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time, or worse, deafening the ears of your opponent to any sensible thing you may have to say in the future.
This same principle applies to just about every hot topic issue.
If God does not exist, then evolution is a given with regards to explaining how life began.
If God does exist, then evolution is not necessary to explain how life began, though it may or may not still be an active part of the how biological life works.
If God does not exist then the ethics of abortion are a matter of personal opinion or some manner of evolutionary ethical progress.
If God does exist, and if He dictates that unborn life is of equal value to that of the mother’s life, then abortion may be considered on par with murder.
If God does not exist, then the ethics of LGBTQ topics are a matter of personal opinion or some manner of evolutionary ethical progress.
If God does exist, and if He dictates that the LGBTQ movement is harmful to humanity, then the LGBTQ moevment should probably be opposed.
If God does not exist, then the Holy Bible is full of crazy impossible myths, and should never be taken seriously.
If God does exist, then the Holy Bible is full of very possible events that could be a part of our history and essential to how we prepare for the future.
If God does not exist, whether global warming is a hoax or not depends on how you interpret the evidence and scientific findings.
If God does exist, whether global warming is a hoax or not still depends on how you interpret the evidence and scientific findings. Please reserve church pulpits for topics pertaining to God and salvation so as not to drive people away from God with unrelated opinions. Also, God’s promise not to flood the whole earth again does not protect us from human caused flooding, nor would global warming result in the “whole” earth being flooded.
If the evidence for global warming is true, then global warming is a serious issue that we should take action to prevent.
If the evidence for global warming has been manipulated, then the consequences of abusing the environment may not be as dire as claims suggest. Regardless, taking care of our environment improves the quality of life for people present and people in the future. So we ought to take care of the environment as a way to love our neighbors. The fact that the world is going to end someday does not mean we shouldn’t bother doing good by others.
Both sides of each above topic is completely valid with respect to the position taken on the determining topics (the determining topic in this case being the existence of God). Unless you first agree with someone on all root points preceding a topic, do not waste your time and hurt your rapport by debating it.
No comments:
Post a Comment