new

In the Western world, today’s “conservatives” are increasingly libertarian when it comes to matters of sexual morality. Whatever good might come out of a Trump Presidency (full disclosure: I voted for the man), it seems unlikely that the nation’s appreciation for the importance of sexual morality will deepen.

Increasingly in our society, the expectation for any romantic relationship is that it must be sexual or get sexual without much delay – married or not. Going hand in hand with this, political progressives and libertarians both seem basically united on the idea that the choice of each individual is the controlling principle. As some on the Supreme Court told us in 1992, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

This kind of thinking really does not seem all that alien from what the Trump-supporting “free speech fundamentalist” Milo Yiannopoulos has said:

Read what you want.
Watch what you want.
Play what you want.
Think what you want.
Say what you want.

That might not work in a marriage, but otherwise why the hell not? (marriage couldn’t be that important anyways, could it?) Political correctness can die the death it so richly deserves! The sky is the limit!

Yiannopoulos may say that some – by virtue of biological and psychological limitations – can’t be whatever they want to be, but with his emphasis on the individual’s rights, one is hard-pressed to argue why some, at least, shouldn’t give it a shot (please note I say all of this wanting to defend free speech to, while being concerned that not all of our speech is helpful).

And, tying this back to matters of sexual morality, why suppress human nature? Yiannopoulos regularly encourages college students to not hold back in exploring their sexuality with others. And, when asked here about Harvard’s men’s soccer team this past week – namely, about their recently revealed shared Google form treating their female counterparts as sexual objects – Yiannopoulos defended them to the hilt. One might think he could have said, at the very least, that the men’s behavior was to be strongly discouraged – even if the Harvard President had overreacted (read this and this for a balanced perspective). He didn’t say this though – he simply talked about our inability to overcome human nature: basically “men will be men”.

After all, as popular You Tuber Gavin McInnes says (language alert) all men act like this. And likewise, all men must surely know that they are incapable of waiting for sex – and they must be lying if they say they do! Guys like Tim Tebow (what has he accomplished lately?) are surely hypocrites, and evidently, most of the time, just aren’t manly enough to obtain the good things that come their way, grabbing them by the—.

But even if we perhaps should respect the real power of human nature here, we also cannot overcome the consequences of human nature. Even if you, by virtue of your social capital and financial resources, appear able to rise above some of the most socially deleterious effects of sexual licentiousness, many – particularly the most vulnerable – can’t. And all of this contributes to the fracturing and weakening of the family, which one would hope any conservative would understand. This glorification of our choices when it comes to matters sexual, of course, makes the goal of marriage – and the commitment involved therein – less and less of a possibility for many (listen to Jennifer Roback Morse here).

Yiannopoulos may have once written about the dangers of pornography in the past (see here and here), but these days, he seems to have left that concern behind (a necessary casualty of his message and newfound fame?). Now, ironically, it is some on the left (some!) who are bringing up the critical importance of this issue (see here and here for example). Speaking merely from a tactical standpoint, perhaps persons like Yiannopoulos should find a creative way to address this, before being outflanked by progressives concerned about the truth of these matters?

So, what does any of this have to do with the theory of evolution – and sophisty?! Hang on— we getting there right now—.

First of all, a popular meaning of the word sophistry is “the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”. It is a simply a matter of fact that men are capable of controlling themselves (though, if I may say, we seem to live in an age that likes to play with the fire of temptation).

Second, in the theory of evolution, all is about sex (and death): everything comes down to being able to pass on one’s genes to the next generation. Supposedly, evolution “designed” us for this.

Third, and here is the meat of my point, in a recent edition of the Atlantic, an article called “The Case Against Reality” lays out the implications of the theory of evolution (spurred on by what I call the MSTM, the modern scientific and technological mindset) in a very helpful manner. An interview with cognitive science Donald D. Hoffman is featured, where he argues that “the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses— the world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality” (as the Atlantic sums him up).

In short, Hoffman believes that “evolution itself [is] to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction” (italics mine). It is not accurate perceptions which helps us to effectively pass on our genes but “fitness functions,” i.e. “mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction.” “Suppose,” he says, “there’s a blue rectangular icon on the lower right corner of your computer’s desktop — does that mean that the file itself is blue and rectangular and lives in the lower right corner of your computer? Of course not— And yet the desktop is useful.”[ii] Hoffman says that this is “conscious realism,” meaning that “Objective reality is just conscious agents, just points of view.”

And hence, evolution’s connection with classical understandings of sophistry is complete. Perhaps Christians taken with evolution should take evolutionists like Daniel Dennet more seriously when they assert that it is a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways” (see here).

The Sophists of the ancient world said that our base assumption should be that certain truth and goodness is unattainable. With change being the only constant and knowledge an illusion, everything is about building consensus through persuasion. The ethical sophist – assuming positing such a person is reasonable! – would persuade on the basis of arguing for things that are not true, but possible and perhaps probable—

How does this not sync perfectly with what Hoffman is saying, a “match made in heaven,” or hell, as the case may be? Can’t he – or anyone else – see the implications of this thinking for human reason itself?

Let’s break it down:

In brief, Hoffman, assuming temporal survival is what life is all about, says that it is our “fitness functions,” and not accurate perceptions, which help us to pass on our genes.
Therefore, it follows that being able to create grand, plausible sounding theories – whether they are true or not – also can be reduced to being about the survival value they have (in that they attract partners who know brains are valuable – and who can pass on genes).
Therefore, as long as one can avoid the impression one is totally disconnected from matters of concrete fact, disqualifying one’s self in other’s eyes, the sky is the limit!
As Hoffman says, our perceptions are “tuned to fitness, but not to truth”. Why would our capacity to construct narratives, our story-telling imaginations, not be as well? Why would this also not figure into the all controlling “fitness function”?
So, if this is the case, why believe the theory of evolution is true at all? It might be useful for passing on genes, but true?

And yet, of course, what Hoffman is doing in his interview – what he cannot avoid doing even if he might protest he is doing it – is putting forth a truth claim. Truth, in one sense, is “driven to extinction,” where, in another, it rises from the ashes reborn. “Believe me,” he is saying— “I am speaking with some real authority on these matters.” The ancient sophists played the same game— the truth is that we cannot not really know truth— what is important is that you listen to me, noticing how smart I am—

And so, as evolution and truth evolves, so does “our” (Not mine! Not yours I hope!) understanding of individuality, sex, and gender.

To state the obvious, given his assumptions, is that not just his “fitness function” speaking? And if he opposes me socially and politically and I fight back, evidently with my own fitness function that still falsely believes there is truth, just what hope for common ground do we now have?

I’m calling B.S. I’m calling out these new sophists for the danger to society and culture that they are. Absolute. Total. Nonsense.

I’d first love to correct several blatant misreadings of Scripture, not for the sake of the Wannabe Gay Marriage Debate, but for the sake of Scripture, which deserves better.

1. “Jesus never uttered a word about same-sex relationships.”

True. Nor did he utter a word about rape. Or genocide. Or running a crystal meth lab. Or suicide. Or pedophilia. To assume a man’s approval of everything he doesn’t mention is silliness to the highest degree.

2. “The original language of the N.T. actually refers to male prostitution, molestation, or promiscuity, not committed same-sex relationships.”

Well, I guess we can just look at the New Testament for this one:

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

Now it’s true that Paul wasn’t speaking of the committed homosexual relationships we speak of today, primarily because the idea of a homosexual relationship would have made no sense to the Apostle. That a man is defined as a homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual is a modern concept. For the Ancient World, homosexuality was an act performed, not a life lived, and certainly not the summative feature of your being. The idea of two men proclaiming “We are homosexuals, and we are in a committed relationship,” would have been utterly foreign to Paul.

Unfortunately, Paul’s claims cannot be dismissed on that basis, as the Apostle makes abundantly clear that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. Not homosexuality, but homosexual acts: “Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

To explain what he’s talking about, we must understand his premise: Humans are meant to be happy. Good actions will ultimately make human beings happy, bad actions won’t. If an action is seen to be detrimental to the human person — that is, if it ultimately leads to unhappiness — then that action can be defined as contrary to our nature, and thus sinful.

This is what Paul refers to when he speaks of an act being “unnatural.” He does not use the modern sense of the word, which seems to define the “natural” as “that which has been observed to take place in the Jungle.” He uses the word “natural” in the philosophical sense, that which is aligned with human nature — that which makes humans happy.

(And to be clear, this idea takes for granted that many of the acts we spend our lives pretending make us happy do not. We might say that binge eating makes us happy, but ultimately it won’t — it brings pleasure, but it is detrimental to the human person. A man who sleeps around and must satisfy his every urge might say that he is “happy” with his life, but in reality he has made his “happiness” dependent upon having his urges satisfied. He is not happy in and of himself. So to the claim that drugs make us happy. They do not. They bring us pleasure, and they make our happiness dependent on them — again, we are not happy in and of ourselves.)

So when Paul says that men and women committed “unnatural” homosexual acts and “received in their own persons the due penalty for their error,” his claim is quite simple. The punishment for a wrong act is not God all up and smiting you from the sky. The punishment is naturally received within the human person. The homosexual act works against a human being’s natural end of happiness, and thus the human suffers for it. It’d be interesting to know if Paul was aware of what we are aware of today, that those performing homosexual acts are at greater risk for unhappiness, a risk that has not been directly associated with intolerance or hatred.

If what I say is true, that Paul is claiming that the homosexual act itself is contrary to the natural law, it does not seem reasonable claim to make, that he would have spoken differently were that act contained in a committed relationship.

But our graphic-maker covers his tracks on this one, by saying:

3. “Paul may have spoken against homosexuality, but he also said that women should be silent and never assume authority over a man.”

I would simply note the difference in quality with which these different words of Paul were made. In the former, which we have just discussed, Paul appears to be pointing out an act that is inherently detrimental to the human person. This is not something subject to change-over-time or an evolution of understanding or modern reinterpretation. In the latter, the author is referencing two different passages. The first is from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:

“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

What Paul is saying is clear: Wives submit to your husbands, husbands offer up your life and die for your wives, as Christ did for the Church. I understand that this rings harsh and alien in the secular ear — that authority within a marriage is not a 50/50 split, but the meeting of two distinct, gender-specific, and equally difficult duties — but I cannot apologize for it, other than to say that the secular world is wrong about marriage.

As to women remaining silent:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

This passage is subject to change over time, as it is contained within Paul’s instruction on public worship which similarly — though not in substance — changed over time. This might be a problem to the Literalist Christian, but not to the Catholic, who with Pope Benedict can assert that the Paul’s passage must “be relativized.” Again, this is not the case with Paul’s assertion that homosexual acts are inherently detrimental to the human person.

4. “The Bible defines marriage as One Man Many Women, One Man Many Wives and Concubines, A Rapist and His Victim, and a Conquering Solider and a Female Prisoner of War.”

This is a prime example of the secular mind putting way more faith and trust in the Bible than the Christian is ever called to. The Bible is a library of history, storytelling, poetry, letters, and biographies: Something appearing in the Bible does not indicate that God endorses that practice. The only practices endorsed by God are — wait for it — those which we are told are endorsed by God.

More importantly, we need to look at the context. The Old Testament is fulfilled by the New. From Matthew 19:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”

Jesus says that it is for the very reason of maleness and femaleness that “the two will become one flesh.” He then says that the marriage rites established by Moses — which include divorce, polygamy, concubinage, etc. — were not condoned by God, but allowed for a time because of the hardness of their hearts, a time that Christ announces is over. Welcome to now. To ignore this and imply that because all sorts of immoral craziness happens in the Old Testament gay marriage should be considered a-ok, well, it’s a stretch.

Alright, those are the main ones. Now allow me to mention the real problem.

No one is claiming that because homosexuality is sinful, homosexual marriage shouldn’t exist. If marriage was an institution designated for the sinless there wouldn’t be marriages at all, for we have all sinned and fallen short. This graphic exemplifies a terrifying insistence within this “debate” — to argue on the most idiotic level possible. Ignoring the question of whether marriage is a definite Thing with a raison d’etre or a blank for us to fill, we waste our time with Scripture we don’t bother to understand, brushing the world and our intellects with varying shades of stupid.