 |
He may or may not do what is right but he hasn't a
clue as to why either way; its all rules to obey for him!
|
In a post entitled "Be Kind to Humankind - Why?" fundamentalist theme park supremo, Ken Ham, comments on "Be Kind to humankind week". The result is that he reveals a concept of morality that to my mind is readily corruptible; in fact if pushed it can lead to the kind of cruelties we are familiar with in religions driven by an uncompromising almost algorithmic interpretation of God's Law; welcome to the world of the "Fundobot"!
Ham's article can be found here:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2018/08/25/be-kind-to-humankind-but-why/
I reproduce Ham's post in full below. I have highlighted the parts which reveal the rationale behind Ham's morality.
Today is part of what’s considered “Be Kind to Humankind Week.” Each day this week has a special theme of different ways people can show kindness to one another. Some of these include “Sacrifice Our Wants for Others Needs Sunday,” “Forgive Your Foe Friday,” and “Speak Kind Words Saturday.” Now all of these things are good—as is the idea of a week dedicated to consciously deciding to be kind (as we should be all the time)—but why should we be kind to others?
The idea of being “kind” is prevalent in our society with many proclaiming that if we were just more kind to each other, the world would be a much a better place. But why should we be kind in the first place? And who defines kind? Without the ultimate authority of God’s Word, there’s no ultimate reason to be kind. We can invent reasons, such as “because it feels good” or to bring others happiness. But that’s not an ultimate reason—and that kind of reasoning could be used to justify all kinds of actions, some of which are decidedly not kind.
Now, this doesn’t mean atheists, humanists, and others who preach “kindness” can’t be kind. They certainly can be, and often are. But they have no ultimate basis for their kindness or even for a definition of kindness. (oh yes they do! See below -Ed)
And not only that, they are being inconsistent with their “survival of the fittest” evolutionary worldview. In that worldview, kindness is only necessary if it had some sort of survival benefit for the organism. There’s no “kindness for kindness’ sake” (although some animals do seem to exhibit altruistic behaviors, which has stumped evolutionists).
We should be kind (as defined by Scripture) this week and the other fifty-one weeks of the year, because we’ve been commanded to “be kind, to one another” (Ephesians 4:32). And not only that, we should be kind because of the example of tremendous kindness we’ve been shown by our Creator. Despite our rebellion against him, he stepped into history in the person of Jesus Christ to die for our sins and save us. God’s kindness towards us is limitless and will be experienced for eternity by those who trust in him.
So be kind to humankind this week—and consider showing others the ultimate kindness by telling them about the free gift of salvation, generously available to all who will believe because of the kindness of our loving Creator.
From where I'm standing it looks as though Ken, although he asks "why", actually hasn't really grasped the deep reason why we should be kind: The only answer he has is that the moral mandate for kindness comes from what he thinks to be the final and authoritative instruction of God; that is, it's right because God says so. But what if these instructions are wrongly interpreted and the instructee believes that being kind entails things like executing people for gay-sex or stoning adulterous women to death or burning heretics at the stake? Blind robotic obedience to what we fancy to be authoritative instructions and rules has the potential to generate a cruel merciless "morality".
An authoritarian algorithmic morality is blind to the fundamental rationale behind "kindness". To guide our behaviour there must be something which goes deeper than "We do it or don't do it because (we think) God said we should do it!"; that is an argument from brute authoritarianism (As you might expect of a fundamentalist, authority looms large in Ken's thinking).There is something far more fundamental behind morality than ephemeral human interpretations of God's instructions, interpretations which are so often here today and gone tomorrow.
In this post on Quantum Non-Linearity I sketched out what I propose to be the core basis of all morality: This basis rests on the fact that humans are centres of conscious cognition: Conscious cognition is the core of reality - without it "existence" is an unintelligible concept. Human beings are not mere robotic facades where consciousness is just to be regarded as an illusory conceptual device for dealing with cognitive complexity. The first person perspective is logically fundamental to the cosmos and gives it reality (See the post I have linked to for more details).
From this basis it follows that we are kind to one another because we identify other humans as having a first person experience; that is, they are conscious beings who are capable of experiencing the qualia of joys and hurts. The mandate to be kind is not justified by bland authoritarian instructions but because people are feeling beings who know the first person perspective of pleasure and pain. Truly kind people are kind not because God commands such or even because God himself is kind, but rather because God has made human beings with conscious cognition and he has put it in our hearts to understand this fact, therefore challenging us to make empathetic and optimum moral decisions when serving others competes with serving self.
Atheists and non-Christians may not believe in a God and may know nothing about Biblical instruction, but nevertheless will understand that other human beings have feelings like themselves*. They therefore face the moral challenge of treating the feelings of others with consideration even though they may know nothing of the Bible. As it says in Romans 2:14-15
Atheists, contrary to Ham's claim, do have an ultimate basis for their kindness and a definition of kindness: namely, consideration for the feelings of others, feelings that they know in their hearts to exist. Although implementing one's consideration for others in complex communities where ramifications are often difficult to work out in full, one's moral starting point is a willingness to give deference to the consciousness of others. Moreover, the kernel of the Biblical law is not a set of instructions; rather it is a state of being, a condition of the heart:
The core value of the law is mercy and not merciless following of rules. The context of both of the foregoing passages of scripture is of societal and/or church living. That is, it is all about community and it is community life which tests the state of our hearts toward one another. Perceiving one another as conscious beings rather than robotic facades and acting accordingly is the foundation of morality; it's not about obedience to rules spoken by an omnipotent despot**. As we can see from the above Biblical quotes, all instructions and commands to do good trace back to the Royal Law; that is to love one's neighbour as one self and the reason why we must love our neighbour is because they too have the first person perspective of conscious cognition.
A purely instruction based morality, when allied to the epistemic arrogance of fundamentalism has the potential to proceed with utter certainty and mercilessness without regard to feeling. (Romans 3:10).
The Biblical message is that we have all fallen short of the Royal Law and stand condemned of the disease of sin (Appropriately, the word with the "I" in middle). But there is a way out:
An authoritarian algorithmic morality is blind to the fundamental rationale behind "kindness". To guide our behaviour there must be something which goes deeper than "We do it or don't do it because (we think) God said we should do it!"; that is an argument from brute authoritarianism (As you might expect of a fundamentalist, authority looms large in Ken's thinking).There is something far more fundamental behind morality than ephemeral human interpretations of God's instructions, interpretations which are so often here today and gone tomorrow.
In this post on Quantum Non-Linearity I sketched out what I propose to be the core basis of all morality: This basis rests on the fact that humans are centres of conscious cognition: Conscious cognition is the core of reality - without it "existence" is an unintelligible concept. Human beings are not mere robotic facades where consciousness is just to be regarded as an illusory conceptual device for dealing with cognitive complexity. The first person perspective is logically fundamental to the cosmos and gives it reality (See the post I have linked to for more details).
From this basis it follows that we are kind to one another because we identify other humans as having a first person experience; that is, they are conscious beings who are capable of experiencing the qualia of joys and hurts. The mandate to be kind is not justified by bland authoritarian instructions but because people are feeling beings who know the first person perspective of pleasure and pain. Truly kind people are kind not because God commands such or even because God himself is kind, but rather because God has made human beings with conscious cognition and he has put it in our hearts to understand this fact, therefore challenging us to make empathetic and optimum moral decisions when serving others competes with serving self.
Atheists and non-Christians may not believe in a God and may know nothing about Biblical instruction, but nevertheless will understand that other human beings have feelings like themselves*. They therefore face the moral challenge of treating the feelings of others with consideration even though they may know nothing of the Bible. As it says in Romans 2:14-15
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not
have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for
themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the
requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing
witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even
defending them.
8 Let no debt remain outstanding,
except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has
fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You
shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and
whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love
your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore
love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)
Rule breaking is a symptom, repeat, a symptom of a deeper moral malaise of the heart, a spiritually pathological state of being:
Rule breaking is a symptom, repeat, a symptom of a deeper moral malaise of the heart, a spiritually pathological state of being:
8 If you really keep the royal
law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing
right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as
lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one
point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not
commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder." If you do not commit
adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. 12 Speak and act as those who are
going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without
mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over
judgment. (James 2:8-13)
A purely instruction based morality, when allied to the epistemic arrogance of fundamentalism has the potential to proceed with utter certainty and mercilessness without regard to feeling. (Romans 3:10).
The Biblical message is that we have all fallen short of the Royal Law and stand condemned of the disease of sin (Appropriately, the word with the "I" in middle). But there is a way out:
20 Therefore no one will be declared
righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we
become conscious of our sin. 21 But now apart from the law the
righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets
testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all
who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have
sinned and fall short of the glory of God,... (Romans 3:20-23)
But....
24 ..... all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (Romans 3:24)
24 ..... all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (Romans 3:24)
...27 Where, then, is boasting? It
is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of
the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith
apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not
the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God,
who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that
same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather,
we uphold the law. (Romans 3:27-31)
Relevant Links:
http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2015/02/vengeance-fundamentalism-turn-or-burn.html
http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2015/07/submission-obedience-and-threat.html
http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2016/05/a-god-of-hell-and-hamnation.html
Footnotes:
* There is a question here about psychopaths: Do they see other humans as anything other than a robotic facade?
** God's instruction is needed when we are unsure as to the ramification of our actions in the complex environment of the community, actions that by diverse means could lead to bad community, even if intended for good.
No comments:
Post a Comment