1) 19:25 - "To be is to be good. Whatever is, is good." This is clearly mistaken. Imagine being a Boltzmann Brain popping into existence, experiencing constant agony, and being unable to die, forever. In that case, clearly being is not good, as being enables the bad of unending suffering. Being is not even pro tanto (to an extent) good in that case. How could it be? It's wholly bad. The idea that good and being are convertible is just a confusion of what goodness is (i.e. something phenomenally defined, like color experience).
2) 19:45 - Pain is certainly intrinsically bad (even if extrinsically good for survival), but ontologically positive. So evils (bad things) are not always privations.
To lack money is to not have money. To lack a lack of money is to have money. To lack pain is to not have pain. To lack a lack of pain is to have pain. So pain is positive, just like money.
3) Evolution provides problems for religious belief for at least four reasons:
A) It's strange that a good God would use such horrific means to create life—the constant cycle of pain, death, and killing required of evolution.
B) I'm not sure how connected the Catholic church was to creationism, but certainly there was (and still is) a connection between Protestantism and creationism. But if creationism is mistaken, then it's embarrassing that Christians would be led by the Bible to false scientific beliefs. If Christians can be so wrong about something they're so confident in, despite being supposedly led by the Holy Spirit, then what other things might they be wrong about?
C) If Genesis 1-11 is basically myth, then what other parts of the Bible are myth or metaphor despite being traditionally taken as literal? The Eucharist, perhaps?
D) If evolution explains life, then we face the concern of debunking arguments. The Bible says be fruitful and multiply. Catholics reject contraception and abortion. Isn't it convenient to have exactly the pro-reproductive values we'd expect you to have were those values selected for not by truth, but by survival pressures? Why believe that those pro-reproductive beliefs / practices are true and not merely selected?
1:14:19 – "Religion keeps reasserting itself." But there are religions other than Christianity. How is Islam possible from a Christian perspective? A unified explanation of religion appeals to evolution. Of course religion reasserts itself; it's a pro-social system, and evolution selects for pro-social systems. Christians have to appeal to ad hoc spiritual explanations for competing religions — it's demonic activity or Satanic influence that causes other religions to arrive. But if Christians take advantage of common sense psychological, sociological, and anthropological explanations for competing religions, then how do they make Christianity an exception to these explanations? It's special pleading.
4) 35:20 - It's controversial to say that our being is conditional. See: "Metaphysical Rationalism" by Shamik Dasgupta, or The Case for Necessitarianism by Amy Karofsky. Klaas Kraay shows a way the theist can accept modal collapse without giving up common sense modal intuitions in "Theism and Modal Collapse", though whether an imaginable world is actually possible will depend on whether it is part of a best possible theistic multiverse.
5) 1:25:41 – I'm personally certain that euthanasia can be justified. You'd think that someone like Bishop Barron who emphasizes the relinquishing of the self and the refusal of "caving in" on oneself would understand how profoundly wrong it is to try to squeeze every last drop of life at all costs, as if the preservation of the self is the most important thing when it is not. The medical cases become absurd, with us spending $100,000 in medical costs to stay alive for one last week in agony or in a half-lucid state only to die in a lonely, cold, sterile hospital room. (Nevermind the exorbitant costs for longer care, money that could seriously set up the lives of the grandchildren for success. I'm not saying money is more important than life. I'm saying paying for torture is a bad deal.)
Common sense end of life care options are nearly non-existent in the US. It would be infinitely more humane and meaningful for us to die surrounded by loved ones, at home, awake and able to say goodbye, when we are ready. (There's the rub – who is ever ready to die? That takes a level of maturity that few people have.) Is it really God's will for us to die slow, agonizing deaths alone in hospitals? Really?
You'd also think that religious people who believe that death is not the end and that staying alive in this world is not all that important would be all the more accepting of an "early" death. (I put 'early' in scare quotes because 'early death' implies there was more life to live, but you can't call it living when additional "life" brings nothing but pain, incapacity, and indignity to the patient).
Catholics would have us believe that Brittany Maynard was evil, corrupt, mistaken, irrational—even guilty of a mortal sin—for her choice to end her life "early" to avoid the horrors of dying from brain cancer. Nothing could be more obviously false. It takes a staggering bravery and emotional intelligence to face death head on and accept it rather than die kicking and screaming like most do. How darkly hilarious is it that the God who prohibits death with dignity is the same God who allows brain cancer, ALS, dementia, Alzheimer's, and all manner of degenerative disease that make death with dignity morally essential?
No comments:
Post a Comment