3:40am
Monday, Jan 21
Postscript
for Those Who Still Cling to Their Objections
Suppose two good friends come to you to resolve an argument. Friend A is a fanatic about soccer, Friend B about basketball, and they have been having a long, fierce argument about which game is the one true game and which one should become the official sport of the community. Friend A argues that soccer must be the one true game because in soccer no one other than the goalie is allowed to pick up the ball during play (except to throw it in if it goes out of bounds) and because one has to propel the ball with one's head or feet. Friend B argues that basketball must be the one true game because in it players have to propel the ball with their hands and are not allowed to kick or head the ball. Both appeal repeatedly to the rule books in their hands to insist upon the rightness of their cases and to point out the imperfections in their opponent's argument.
What would you tell them? Well, if you're still objecting to the argument for evolution, I have no idea what you would say. But in the sprit of reason I would tell them that their argument is stupid. The better game is a matter of choice, and appealing to the rule book of one game to discredit another game is irrelevant. Moreover, there is no super rule book in the sky which adjudicates between these games. So they can play soccer or basketball and abide by the rules of the game they choose, or they can play both if they're prepared to switch from one rule book to another. But to demand that one game is inherently "right" or "better" and the other one "false" or "worse" in any absolute sense is, as I say, silly. And it's equally silly (and probably more dangerous) to show up on the soccer pitch demanding the right to play by the rules of basketball, or vice versa.
In what way is this example any different from the interminable arguments between evolutionists and creationists (arguments which, incidentally, are not particularly interesting or challenging philosophically, scientifically, or theologically)?
[This text, which has been created by Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, BC, in in the public domain and may be used by anyone, in whole or in part, without permission and without charge, provided the source is acknowledged--released January 2005]
Suppose two good friends come to you to resolve an argument. Friend A is a fanatic about soccer, Friend B about basketball, and they have been having a long, fierce argument about which game is the one true game and which one should become the official sport of the community. Friend A argues that soccer must be the one true game because in soccer no one other than the goalie is allowed to pick up the ball during play (except to throw it in if it goes out of bounds) and because one has to propel the ball with one's head or feet. Friend B argues that basketball must be the one true game because in it players have to propel the ball with their hands and are not allowed to kick or head the ball. Both appeal repeatedly to the rule books in their hands to insist upon the rightness of their cases and to point out the imperfections in their opponent's argument.
What would you tell them? Well, if you're still objecting to the argument for evolution, I have no idea what you would say. But in the sprit of reason I would tell them that their argument is stupid. The better game is a matter of choice, and appealing to the rule book of one game to discredit another game is irrelevant. Moreover, there is no super rule book in the sky which adjudicates between these games. So they can play soccer or basketball and abide by the rules of the game they choose, or they can play both if they're prepared to switch from one rule book to another. But to demand that one game is inherently "right" or "better" and the other one "false" or "worse" in any absolute sense is, as I say, silly. And it's equally silly (and probably more dangerous) to show up on the soccer pitch demanding the right to play by the rules of basketball, or vice versa.
In what way is this example any different from the interminable arguments between evolutionists and creationists (arguments which, incidentally, are not particularly interesting or challenging philosophically, scientifically, or theologically)?
[This text, which has been created by Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, BC, in in the public domain and may be used by anyone, in whole or in part, without permission and without charge, provided the source is acknowledged--released January 2005]
