In the little bit of discussion I had with some people regarding the issues of evolution and beating your children, there was a common rhetorical tactic that got trotted out in both: argumentum ad homo. It was slightly different in both cases, but it's weird to have people think homosexuality is a reason for "dismissing" "science".
Here is how it was presented in the case of evolution, to the best of my ability: reinterpreting Scripture because it apparently defies scientific thought is a dangerous precedent, since it opens the debate to reinterpreting other parts of Scripture in accordance with "scientific thought", which apparently includes an endorsement of homosexual behavior. Further, evolution can apparently be used in itself to argue for acceptance of all sorts of sexual goings-on and other behavior contrary to Christian morality, but the most important on the list is homosexuality.
In the case of beating children, it seems the argument was that psychology researchers have their biases which cloud their thinking and foreordain the sorts of results they will look for and will accept if found. An example of this bias is removing homosexuality from their list of diseases and saying it is a normal lifestyle. Therefore, accepting what scientists have to say about beating children is suspect, since it both contradicts the scriptural command to beat your children (with a rod, perhaps) and puts trust in a suspect group which promotes the "homosexual agenda" (which I presume has a stylish black leather cover).
Whenever I see arguments like these, I have to wonder what kind of odd parallel universe they are living in, but then I remember that people like Sam Harris both exist and sell a lot of books, so something is going on in the world. But, seriously, they need to get over it. At least they are not as bad as libertarians, who make everything into a "rape" analogy (except actual rape - then they blame the victim).
In conclusion, we can't teach evolution because of homosexuality. We need to beat our children because of homosexuality. The end.
2 comments:
The real problem here is that such arguments are not sound. They are valid, but not sound. I can say that psychology is a "soft science" and that it is biased by ideology, therefore it's conclusions are not to be trusted. The problem is, no real evidence is given, nor is any criterion of evidence given by which we may judge whether or not it is "soft" and ideologically biased. There is also the problem of identifying the concept of "psychology" or "psychologists" which is far too diverse to be referred to by any such generalities. The same tactics are often used to speak of Roman Catholics or Protestants and, especially with your interlocutor regarding spanking, leads to conspiracy theories and such, the mindset of which is the mother of sectarianism.
Yes, the odd parallel universe bit is that their commentary, while it could be formally valid, has no relation to reality.
Post a Comment