A gentleman by the name of Karl gave me another theological puzzle and asked for my response. I love to do this kind of stuff, so I gladly obliged. Here is it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A debate
over biblical creation is a lot like a debate over the existence of air. Can
you imagine two people debating whether or not air exists? What would the
critic of air say?
Whatever his
arguments, he would have to use air in order to make them. Not only is air
crucial to the survival of the critic, but air would have to exist in order for
his arguments to be heard and understood . . . . In order for the critic of air
to be able to make an argument, it would have to be wrong.
Likewise, the
evolutionist must use biblical creation principles in order to argue against
biblical creation. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be
wrong. Ironically, the fact that evolutionists are able to argue against
creation proves that creation is true!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl, thanks for another fun puzzle!
I read and thought about this just this evening as I was making my way
to the Student Organization Leadership Meeting for club funding.
Obviously I whole heartedly disagree with the premise, heh. And actually, yes, I can imagine two people
debating about the existence of air. Are
we really required to use air to debate about air? No. First
of all, why is air considered to be used to be heard? Speech doesn’t magically appear from our
person for others to hear, so there must be something more specific
happening. Our vocal cords vibrate, and
those vibrations generate sound waves that are carried up our throats, over our
tongues, past our lips and out of our mouths.
The vibrations, in sequence throughout that entire process, form the
specific sound waves that are associated with different kinds of sounds
(augmented by our vocal cords, throat, tongue posture, and lip position) our
ears are able to detect. These
particular waves require a specific kind of conductive medium in order to
propagate outwards from the focal point of our mouths.
Now, when it comes to “air” in this case, it is the gaseous form of
oxygen, which implies a certain temperature and pressure range, and may or may
not include trace elements. Sure, an
environment permeated in gaseous oxygen of this kind is well suited for
propagating the sound waves that we as land mammals use to communicate. But what if this environment was rich in
other gaseous elements, like helium, for instance, or nitrogen? Those would influence our speech patterns, as
easily demonstrated with inhaling a balloon full of helium and then attempting
to speak. We are organisms that have
evolved to deal with the specific environment that we have. If we had a planet with an atmosphere a
little bit richer in other elements, like nitrogen, our “blue” planet would be
a different color altogether. This,
however, is only partially related to the point.
Do all carbon based oxygen dependant creatures on this planet communicate
by using vibrations carried through a gaseous form of oxygen rich “air”? No.
Without getting too crazy on all the amazing living things on this
planet, let’s talk about dolphins. Or
rather, fish in general even. They have
nothing to do with “air”, yet they too depend on the element we have named
oxygen for life; siphoned from the liquid state of "water" which is
really oxygen bonded with two hydrogen atoms, it is processed and then treated
much like our bodies treat oxygen.
Dolphins do, in fact, make vocalizations as well. However, there is no “air” to propagate those
vibration waves. So what is going on
here? Creatures who are, for all intents
and purposes, the same kind of living creature using the same kind of vocal communication
systems as we do… but through a completely different environment. Interesting to consider! (Yes, this is bending the frame of the
context in the initial argument, sure, but it is required to make a point and
expand certain thoughts)
Alright, so we have established that vocal communication doesn’t
require “air” to carry vibrations, but it does require oxygen molecules. Or does it?
Yes, oxygen is required by our bodies at a constant rate in order to
spread that particular element through the rest of our body which is then
consumed as one kind of fuel. As a side
note, this "air" is partially toxic to us... which is why we exhale
the waste product our body produces while consuming the gases from our
environment that we need (just as are bodies remove waste from all three types
of fuel consumption from this particular environment: liquid, solid, gas). But it is not required to carry sound for
communication. How so? Sound travels in "air" and water,
sure, but will not travel in outer space as space clearly lacks "air"
or water. Well sure… but sound isn’t
speech, it is vibration. Vibrations come
in a large variety of forms… like earthquakes, explosions, glass shattering, wind,
and anything on this planet that has a possibility of generating
vibrations. The fact that we use “air”
to communicate our particular kind of vibrations created by our bodies is mere
happenstance. Vibrations can be
transmitted through various solids, liquids, and gases, and have several degree
programs at universities across the world devoted to expanding on vibration
waves and their quirks.
This, however, is still assuming that the author meant to include only
vocal communication. What if the two
people arguing about “air” were deaf?
They certainly wouldn’t be using vocal communication; they would be
using hand signs. Yes, they still need
“air” to breath and keep functioning for longer than thirty seconds or so
before their brain sends the system into a shutdown mode (blackout) and leaving
it on automatic, at which point it will draw in anything near the lung access
points in a last ditch attempt to keep itself alive. Human to human communication methods have
improved in complexity and variety over the years, too. We do not even need to be in the same room in
order to communicate with each other. We
can use photons, light signals you might see on boats during a storm flickering
on and off in a predetermined series (no, that doesn’t require vocalization
either-they could sign that all out as well hehe). We can use electricity in a number of ways
now too: music CDs, computers, any digital medium, etc. And there are more examples, but I'll stop
there.
All of that is the glorious cake of details regarding this “air”
thing, so now… for the icing. When the
author talks about “air” in the context of being the foundation of
communication for humans and a life giver, the thing that he or she neglects to
realize is this; it isn’t “air”, and it isn’t even this particular gaseous form
that we need, it is atomic element number 8, weighing in with an atomic weight
of 15.9994. I say that a gaseous form of
breathing isn’t even required because we have developed liquid breathing
ventilation systems for deep sea diving.
Bringing this all in to the final point that aligns with all the other
points on Creationism vs anything else: every time the theist tries to frame
the argument in their favor, they fail to consider the foundation upon which
they are resting that argument.
This argument can be taken much further than a simple deconstruction
of the proposed argument and premise itself, too. When the author mentions “biblical creation”,
they are invoking a specific set of beliefs from a very specific
interpretation: literalistic Christian bible verses found in Genesis. Asserting that this one particular flavor of
human religion is the one and only answer for the formation of the universe,
and everything it contains, is fallacious at best. This is the problem I have with Creationists
asserting their religion. I've even
heard Christian apologists like Greg Bahnsen* in an old debate actually say
that he calls all other religions "internally incoherent" and not
"philosophically defensible", and I have since heard most Christians
simply automatically assume their religion is the only one worth talking about
and it is to be assumed to exist as a foundation of and where all arguments
could possibly arise. This is why a lot
of debate with Christians fails to even begin well, because as non-Christians,
we require a neutral field that is by definition at odds with any religious
viewpoint.
So, rounding this all up into a point.
Here is the "moral" of my entire position:
Theistic apologists will almost always initiate their points from a
specific location and assume that position is the irrefutable foundation for
their premise. In reality, just like the
argument with "air", this fake foundation is mired in a lack of
understanding and over generalizations that cripple its intellectual stability,
thereby offering innumerable weaknesses any astute observer can use to cripple
it.
Anyone arguing the point that "evolutionists" or
"darwinians" (as laughably childish and telling for how ignorant a
title they are) require a specific sect of a religion's creation story in order
to even begin to talk about the question of origins will simply be met with
amused pity, rolling eyes, and gentle pats on the head. Why is this?
It is because we know that the theists view the world through the
perception that it all started with their religion. We, however, know that their religion
consisted of just a few people in the distant past which eventually grew into a
cultural tradition which has drawn upon older cultural traditions that made the
exact same boasts of being the "true" beginning. Just as the Mormon and Scientologist cults
have grown into "religions", they, just as every single religion in human
history, began with an individual, all of them influenced by the cultures and
religions that preceded them.
This isn't about saying "nuh uh" to a theist's assertions
that their religion is the core foundation to everything, its about realizing
that every single one of the religious sects in the world, through all the
monotheistic and polytheistic, currently practiced or not, all make the very
same claims. We, as non-theists, are
forced to treat all of the tens of thousands of assertions of the "one true
version of origins" as equals especially when they have nothing but their
assertions to validate themselves: a good story.
I could go on, but I think thats good heh. I hope this continues to help frame my
perception of religious arguments, Karl!
Thanks again!
*side note... wow! I hadn't thought about Bahnsen's embarrassing
debate performance for over five years, but was very glad I could find it for
use here! Yes, I stopped listening to
the guy after identifying a great number of fallacious arguments.
You can listen to it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1hSx2evTGM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1hSx2evTGM
No comments:
Post a Comment