- either atheism or theism is true
- if atheism is true then there is no objective standard by which to measure human value and no duty to protect innocent humans.
- If theism is true, then a foundation for the intrinsic and objective value of human individuals exists as well as a duty to protect humans.
- Individual humans are objectively and intrinsically valuable and it is our duty to protect individual humans.
- therefore atheism is false.
Read this 1 page article- http://www.apa.org/research/action/difference.aspx
This brief article has a lot to say, however, the following quote is extremely pertinent and therefore deserves attention:
…even where there are patterns of cognitive differences between males and females, “differences are not deficiencies.” She continues, “Even when differences are found, we cannot conclude that they are immutable because the continuous interplay of biological and environmental influences can change the size and direction of the effects some time in the future.”(emphasis mine)
I think too many people, men and women, get bogged down by the idea of differences implying some type of value statement when in fact differences do not need to be viewed this way. When we use the word “equal” we do not mean totally and utterly the same in every facet possible. If this is the standard of equality, then nothing is truly equal. However, equal has a much deeper meaning as it relates to dignity and intrinsic value as an individual human being. Humans are ends in themselves- not simply means to an end. Nor should our intrinsic value be measured by some external number or outcome. If we measure people’s value merely on what they can produce then we are on a slippery slope to a place that has historically been the cause of much pain and death. Men and women have differences but so does every individual within each group.
The question to me is not, whether or not our genes and the environment impact our views and behaviors. The question is- which views and behaviors ought we to have? This question presupposes that we have agency to act outside of the restraints of our sociobiological situation and that there is an objective (opinion independent) standard by which to measure good vs. bad (and what a “good” society or individual might look like). However, this this view immediately throws out naturalistic determinism (no free will) as well as the idea of complete moral relativism. I am under the impression that the vast majority of today’s leading social scientists and psychologists in gender research, take for granted the fact that they are aiming to create a “good” society in the objective sense. For on their worldview, “good” is simply a social construct and therefore they cannot complain when someone disagrees.
Offensive? It shouldn’t be. True? You tell me.
Expressing one’s opinion about life, politics, religion etc… is widely accepted in today’s culture. That is, unless your view is critical of or dissents against the dogma presented in the corporate world, media, and entertainment. I can speak from personal experience (as well as present statistical evidence HERE, HERE, and HERE) that there is an extreme bias towards […]
In a bit of a condescending fashion, TIME explains here that Oxford’s word of the year 2016, ‘post-truth’, “…describes a situation in which feelings trump facts” (emphasis added) The word ‘trump’ is a crucial addition as the article goes on to describe the results of Brexit and the U.S. 2016 election of Trump as epitomizing the meaning of […]