How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics
Richard Dawkins, the proselytizer for atheistic materialism, apparently supports human breeding programs. This is what Dawkins wrote in "Eugenics May Not Be Bad" from the 11/19/06 edition of Scotland's Sunday Herald:
"IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous--though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.
"Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The specter of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from 'ought' to 'is' and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as 'these are not one-dimensional abilities' apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.
"I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"
Dawkins never fails to unimpress. Hitler was not the problem with eugenics--he was the product of it. Indeed, the fundamental premise of eugenics holds that some human beings have greater value and worth than other human beings, based on their capacities or innate characteristics. Once eugenics consciousness is accepted, who matters and who matters less becomes a matter of raw political power. Moreover, once this pernicious idea is accepted, it becomes easy to justify exploiting and oppressing those now deemed unter menchen.
The antidote to such thinking is human exceptionalism and its corollary that each and every human being has equal moral worth simply and merely because they are human. Without this profound understanding--which is the philosophy of the United States--we will never achieve universal human rights. Just ask Nat Hentoff, the great civil libertarian and proud atheist who stands forthrightly for equal human moral worth.
41 Comments:
The term "eugenics" has had a lot of emotional baggage attached to it since WWII. In many people's minds, the terms will be intertwined with Hitler.
However, if you break down the components, I think you'll find a lot of people don't mind the parts of "eugenics." America's sterilization program and Hitler's mass euthanasia programs should never be revisited, but that said, I don't think the ideal behind eugenics is itself wrong.
Question - do you consider either recombinant engineering or pre-marriage genetic screening as a form of eugenics?
I think that with the knowledge of DNA and genetics, comes some responsibility on our part to improve the human condition. Broadly speaking, "improving the human condition" could easily fall under the category of "eugenics."
I believe that the secular left and libertarians have more "intellectual baggage" due to Hitler though of course all of us have "emotional baggage" of the reaction to genocide. This is of course since the "human exceptionalists" whether their morality is explicitly theistic or not, have held the same view of human worth before and after, while those who would manipulate humanity "for our own good" whether by collectivist or corporatist means are taken aback at the "ends" some "extremists" will use the "means".
To Royale's question, I think what you're getting at, Royale, is the key difference between "screening" and "engineering"!
There can be little question that knowledge is a good thing, even to knowing that you may have genetic tendencies that will impact your future and your children. Now what do we do with that knowledge is the question whether personal choice or driven by economics, culture and government.
Aye, but if we perform genetic screens before people marry and condemn (either criminally or socially) those who are likely to have kids with genetic diseases, we are engineering our own race.
The alternative is to allow genetically-at-risk people to have kids, but then we are complicitous in something that is certainly harmful to children.
On a side note - and if this isn't too off-topic, please explain how the secular left and libertarians have intellectual baggage due to Hitler. In my reading of history, I don't see how Hitler exploited the intellectual rationale of either, nor do I see either holding Hitler up as an intellectual role model.
Royale:
It's not that recombinant engineering or genetic screening are eugenic, but that can be used for eugenic purposes. The latter most definitely is, as is amniocentesis. There is no law that people can't give birth to children with Down syndrome, but the pressure from the medical establishment and, perhaps, one's peers is that such children be aborted before term.
To say that one is "complicitous" in harming a child by allowing that child to exist is a weird warping of logic; you've already settled that a particular sort of suffering makes existence worthless. Who gave you that right?
Aye, but we are all "genetically at risk" for something, otherwise we wouldn't be subject to escalating systemic and cellular failures otherwise known as growing old.
Preventative knowledge and passive means are one thing but be careful when you ask for "some responsibility" to actively improve humanity by genetic means.
Who controls? Personal choice? Whims of the wealthy? That's not likely to lead to ultimate betterment - consider already the sex selected abortions bringing imbalance in India and China, and why should the idle wealthy get to live longer at the expense of the organs, wait a second, also coming from India and China. This is just the free market working with "primitive" not real "biotech" means. I think ultimately, the old master Huxley was right in conceiving of a society that would consider levels of humanity - alpha leaders, beta assistants, gamma regulars, and epsilon basic labor. And while we could derive gammas and epsilons from free-range unimproved humans that's a crap shoot since higher levels "bubbling up" from them, though they would provide natural genetic diversity would prove to be more trouble than they're worth.
As for "intellectual baggage", I was generally referring to how though we conceive of the Nazis as right wing from racial and warmongering industrialist worldview, they were truly National Socialist in using the state to achieve its goals in a directed collective manner explicitly to the elimination and exploitation of ideology and religion to achieve nationalist ends. Stalin was not that much different. So in that way I taint all the left, especially to the extent that they want to control religion and manipulate humanity on the macro scale.
Specifically, Wesley can instruct you, either by reply or by reading his books, on some of the underpinning of early eugenics which include the Planned Parenthood icon, Margaret Sanger.
How quickly these discussions lead to abortion, and that is somehow being used against me, but I never brought that up. I was focusing on pre-marriage screening to specifically avoid that issue. i.e., no child has been conceived yet.
There are lots of genetically harmful traits. Who decides "genetically harmful"? I'll incorporate the medical profession's standard - Down Syndrome is but one example.
Should we allow two people to marry when they are at a high-risk for having a child with Down Syndrome or some other genetic detriment?
But in my prior post, I never said that Down Syndrome was bad. You put those words in my mouth.
And yes, I think there are some examples where a child who will likely have a serious genetic disease should not even exist at all. I'm not saying abortion is the remedy - in fact, I tried to avoid that issue - just no conception.
So tell, what's wrong with not letting a child even be conceived?
Royale, I don't think I can or would disagree with you on reasonable policies that prevent or discourage genetic disease
I have a friendship with a man my same age, James. Developmentally disabled though I wouldn't know if you would diagnose him as Downs or something else. I value his life as any other and our relationship but I also don't think he or society would be well served if he married and had a large family.
If sterilization is not an option, how are "they" controlling reproduction in group homes? From what I can see, it's not a problem but exactly how it's not, I'm not sure.
More generally, society has traditionally condemned incest and supported testing to gain as much knowledge. What are your means to do more and what is your goal for society to accomplish from eugenics?
Royale: Taking action to protect the public health, e.g. blood tests before marriage, is not the same thing as eugenics. The heart and soul of eugenics is a discriminatory philosohpy that sees some humans as having greater moral worth than other humans. This is what leads to the evils you mention.
You are seriously distorting what Dawkins said. He does not "support eugenics", he is merely saying the topic should be opened for discussion, not dismissed with an reductio ad Hitlerum. Big difference.
I'm afraid I don't see the hard distinction between evil eugenics and actions that you approve of, like genetic screening before marriage. All such techniques are using biotechnology to improve the outcome of human reproduction (for some meaning of "improve"). All of them "discriminate" in some sense. How do you tell which are evil and which aren't?
mtraven: Please. Dawkins is for genetic engineering and enhancement. All of the typical weasel words that this should be debated, are just that. Weasel words. If he really believed that there were good reasons for believing that forcing someone to take music lessons and genetically compelling them to be musical, he wouldn't have brought it up.
I repeat: Eugenics is about creating hierarchies of human worth: Which is right up Dawkins' tree.
Pre-marriage genetic screening:
Allows the husband and wife to determine if any children they have will be prone to certain high-risk diseases, such as Cystic Fibrosis, Down Syndrome, etc. In some cases a couple may decide to adopt rather than take a high risk, whereas in other cases a couple may choose to have children anyway, knowing the inherent risks, and still be willing to care for a child that might be born with such diseases. Genetic Screeing - beneficial.
Eugenics:
Through genetic alteration a couple may give birth to a child with specific traits a la Gattaca. A child born in such a manner would be expected to live up to his breeding; any failure would be seen as a failure of the process. Children born of this process would be forced into various molds and expected to perform to standards. Those who are not bred in such a way would be looked down upon as inferior, since they are not tailored and thus may not be able to develop their own talents.
"Unfortunately, there is no gene for the human spirit." (From a Gattaca poster)
Thus, the actual personality behind the manufactured child would be ignored in favor of his or her breeding. A child who has been bred for artistic ability, for example, may discover science early on and pass on painting lessons in favor of a telescope. Genetics can only go so far, but those who are in favor of eugenics would find this science-minded child a failure, because he's not up to par. He's not living up to his genes.
Eugenics - nonbeneficial.
And that's a simplification of the problem, I know. There are hundreds of better reasons for thinking eugenics the work of some mad demon from the pits of hell, but I think this is a pretty good start.
Tabs
I was under the impression that pre-marital blood tests were for sexually transmitted diseases, not for purposes of genetic screening. Am I wrong about this? Has this changed in the last twenty years?
My own inclination would be to steer away from pre-marital genetic screening when there is no reason to think that there's any problem. I could perhaps see it when there's some _very serious_ genetically-based problem in one's family and when you're wondering if you're a carrier of the gene. But it should be very seroius.
I have an extremely minor genetic anomaly called Chotzen Syndrome myself and am very glad that I did not know about this before having my first child. (I'm adopted.) I just thought I was short--which of course is true! Having seen that both I and my first child are perfectly fine I was more able to be rational about the "no big deal" nature of my own anomaly when I did find out about it. I think routine genetic screening for people who have no other reason to think there's some serious problem encourages people to think they should not have children if their genes are not "perfect," and it encourages people to worry unreasonably about worst case scenarios.
I think, too, that for people who do not have any objection to abortion or embryo screening pre-marital genetic screening may well de facto lead to these practices. The couple may well be advised, in effect, "Hey, if you're concerned about this, just conceive all your children in vitro and throw out the ones that have the problem."
Lydia - I agree with your opinion concerning genetic screening for people who don't have anything to worry about. It's just that, unlike most people in the world, I'm perfectly okay with first-cousin marriages (it's a cultural thing). In cases like that, genetic screening might be important to ensure that they have the healthiest possible children. Same thing if a family has a history of genetic illnesses and there's potential for a bad combination. I'm not saying first cousins who marry shouldn't have kids; they should be informed ahead of time if there may be complications that could shorten the life of their kids first, though. Knowing about problems ahead of time can help parents find the best way to care for their babies.
All human beings have equal worth? What planet is Wesley J Smith living on?
"All human beings have equal worth" - This is a nice idea but doesn't exist on earth.
And Dawkins doesn't say he supports eugenics he just states that perhaps we should ask about it, discuss it even debate.
Shocking
lol
It is scandalous that he does so. Yes, human beings have equal moral worth. This is certainly the ideal to which we should aspire. Otherwise, there is no chance that we will ever achieve universal human rights.
Dawkins may be a great scientist, but he is a lousy moral philosoher.
Mr. Smith,
You state your case as such a simple absolute and leave no room for discussion. Is making such statements not an inherently "lousy" trait in a moral philosopher?
Forgive me if this seems stupid, but in the Dawkins quote he does not say he supports Eugenics, in fact he seems to say that he specifically opposes the idea of eugenics;
"why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me."
Yet the title of the piece directly contradicts the content. Also I am aware of Dawkins in the past saying that while this type of Eugenics is possible it is not desirable (I believe he says this in his latest book 'The God Delusion').
Unfortunately this article has been posted on the Dawkins website. Unless I am much mistaken (always a possibility) it seems to be a significant misreporting of the original article.
Apologies if I have gotten the wrong end of the stick or have misunderstood the point you are making.
Regards,
Chris
Dawkins merely said that it should not be taboo to talk about eugenics (which people have been doing here), not that it was a good idea. Was Smith unable to understand, or did he twist the meaning round out of malice? Draw your own conclusion. Unfortunately this sort of mis-representation is all too common among fundamentalist christians.
Smith says, “How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics” and “Richard Dawkins, the proselytizer for atheistic materialism, apparently supports human breeding programs”. Smith seems to miss the point or to be intentionally misrepresenting. As Smith quotes, Dawkins says that he “can think of some answers … good ones … why it is acceptable to train fast runners … and not to breed them”. Clearly, the Dawkins quote shows that he doesn’t necessarily support human breeding programs and in fact can think of reasons to no support them. It is apparent, rather, that Dawkins is raising the issue of whether it is unethical to even talk about the issue. It seems clear that he is simply proposing that there be a dialogue flushing out what the ethics indeed are on the issue.
A similar sentiment to the above comment from a reader by e-mail:"Regarding your blog entry at http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2006/11/how-predictable-richard-dawkins.html:
You actually quote Dawkins, on whether there are reasons to think that eugenics is unacceptable: "I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"
Given this quote, it seems intellectually dishonest of you to claim that "Dawkins Supports Eugenics". Ironically, by doing so, you undermine your own credibility and ethical standing."
Me: My response below:
First, if you read the blog entry, you would see I quoted Dawkins entire article verbatim, including that very sentence in the blog, as well as linking it. So, it is hard to be trying to create a false impression, isn't it? Second, that is what I call a weasel sentence. If he really thought that, he wouldn't have posted the blog supporting eugenics in the first place. This is typical in bioethics advocacy: One posits a radical position that is the point of the post, as with Dawkins, and then they write a weasel sentence as the one you quoted, stating that there may be reasons not to proceed as stated earlier, even good ones, but they don't actually argue them. And indeed, if he thought they were persuasive, he would have mentioned them or not posted the eugenics piece in the first place. Finally, look at the title of the piece that HE wrote: "Eugenics May Not Be Bad."
Nice try, but no cigar.
Alan C: "Was Smith unable to understand, or did he twist the meaning round out of malice? Draw your own conclusion. Unfortunately this sort of mis-representation is all too common among fundamentalist christians."
And your evidence that Wesley is a "fundamentalist christian" is...? I'm afraid you're doing a little "mis-representation" of your own here, Alan!
Bernhardt: I was going to ignore the fundamentalist Christian jibe, because it is so intellectually lazy and shallow, meaning that they don't ever have to grapple with ideas and facts, they can just throw what are, in their minds, insults.
The fact is, Dawkins put the idea out there because he thinks the only thing wrong with eugenics is that Hitler gave it a bad name. That is the primary thrust of his post. He doesn't mention any contrary arguments, and indeed, if they were persuasive he wouldn't have brought the whole thing up. And, he demonstrated a very weak grip on history.
Beyond that, even if ALL he is interested in is a debate about eugenics, which ia malarky, that debate would ipso facto make it respectable, which eugenics definitely is not.
As I said, Dawkins never fails to unimpress when he gets into moral philosophizing.
Wesley you said "Dawkins put the idea out there because he thinks the only thing wrong with eugenics is that Hitler gave it a bad name". That is not true. He thinks eugenics is dangerous because of the danger of unexpected side results, as he explains on this radio interview when he describes an experiment on foxes to make them behave like dogs, with unexpected results.
http://penn.freefm.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=155831
Alan, unanticipated problems are not the problem with eugenics. That's just utilitarian thinking. The problem with eugenics is profoundly moral, that is, eutenics thinking presumes that some people have greater value than other people based on attributes. It does completely away with univeral human moral equality, the essential principle to achieving universal human rights.
Another letter: "Regarding your article on eugenics and Dawkins... what a load of rubbish. You fail to recognize that Dawkins does not say he condones eugenics (he doesn't even use the word 'eugenics' but you obviously have pretended he did to make him seem like some sort of fascist), and even says: 'I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me'. He is just raising the point thast the fact that it is a taboo is ridiculous. One cannot even raise the question without being slated as you have so expertly demonstated... so well done you have just proved Dawkins' point. But that wasn't what you were aiming for, was it? How predicatble, another person trying to vilify Dawkins and failing miserably.
Unlikely I will get a reply but would like to hear your thoughts..."
Me: Comment to follow.
Thanks for writing.
My piece must have been posted on a blog, since I am now getting almost identical e-mails as yours, I mean literally, almost word for word. Nice to know that you guys think originally.
In my view, Dawkins put the idea out there because he does not believe it is intrinsically wrong to view some humans as having greater value than others, based on attributes. And, he does not think it is unprincipled to genetically engineer progeny to have certain attributes desired by the parents. He apparently thinks the only thing wrong with eugenics is that Hitler gave it a bad name. That is the primary thrust of his short article. He doesn't mention any contrary arguments that he claims to think are persuasive, and indeed, if they were persuasive in his mind, why would he bring the whole thing up at all? Indeed, that particular sentence is a typical weasel sentence in bioethics: One promotes a controversial point and puts in the weasel sentence to be able to say one is not REALLY proposing such a thing--when in fact, that is precisely what is being done.
HE used the word eugenics in his title, so that little criticism is ridiculous. And, his title asserts that eugenics may not be bad. Yes it is. It is very bad and if its precepts are accepted, they will lead once again to oppression and discrimination as occurred in its first iteration.
Not only that, but Dawkins demonstrated a very weak gasp of history. Eugenics was terribly destructive long before Hitler was dark cloud on the horizon.
Just replace the word eugenics with the word racism in his piece, "Racism May Not Be Bad,"
and you will see how ridiculous the argument, that he isn't really supporting eugenics is. Imagine someone writing about racism, "But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?" I mean, the person would be hooted down as a bigot. Eugenics is the same kind of discriminatory idea, just somewhat different victims.
Beyond that, even if ALL he is interested in is a debate about eugenics, that debate would ipso facto make eugenics once again respectable, which I believe is his purpose. And eugenics should not be deemed any more respectable than racism.
As I said, Dawkins never fails to unimpress when he writes as a moral philosopher.
Wesley J. Smith Said:
"If he really thought that, he wouldn't have posted the blog supporting eugenics in the first place."
That's an extremely weak argument, Wesley. Maybe Dawkins thinks that there would be interesting and important issues raised in such a debate, regardless of his stand. Maybe he thinks that the answers would be persuasive, but as a skeptic, wants to see them tested. Maybe you, like me, have very little idea what motivates Dawkins to write particular pieces and should instead focus on what is actually written.
The fact is, you posted evidence that directly contradicts the point you are trying to make. You claim that Dawkins is saying the opposite of what he is saying, and anyone can see this clearly by reading what Dawkins wrote.
Dawkins does not support Eugenics. It says so in the article you quote. Instead of making up stories about what you think Dawkins thinks, why not just admit that you made a mistake?
"In my view, Dawkins put the idea out there because he does not believe it is intrinsically wrong to view some humans as having greater value than others, based on attributes."
----------
Again, you are just making up motivations and beliefs. Dawkins doesn't say anything that supports this position even remotely. Why do you make stuff up like that? I don't get it.
Anyway your moral arguments are one dimensional. You aren't addressing the question: why should it be a bad thing to want particular traits in ones offspring?
Take away your assumptions that this all happens by force in some fascist state, and assume that everyday people are doing it. They are now, through mate selection, so just give them better tools. Perhaps they blend their traits "in a test tube" and create a healthy, strong, intelligent baby. WHY is this bad?
Don't talk about the social stratification that you believe will result. I understand that caste systems are immoral. I get that racism is stupid and wrong. But thats a different subject.
The question is: Is it bad to create that person? If so, why?
I know that you think its bad to value one person more than another based on traits. That isn't the question. The question is: why is it bad to select for traits? IF it is, should we be all be forced to breed by lot, to keep Andre Agassi from marrying Steffi Graf and creating the mutant blonde tennis pro from hell? How is their choosing to blend blonde tennis playing genes morally different than some other couple trying to eliminate cogenital heart defects from their offspring through DNA manipulation? Seriously, why?
"Eugenics" is not as clear cut or as simple as you seem to think. Your position, that "The heart and soul of eugenics is a discriminatory philosophy" is not implicit in the actual activity of manipulating DNA to lower the risk of Cancer. However, both activities can be considered Eugenics and are met with similar disgust and horror.
Perhaps raising and clarifying these issues is important, and since the technology is rapidly being developed to allow designer children, now would be an excellent time to discuss and debate them.
Wesley: "My piece must have been posted on a blog, since I am now getting almost identical e-mails as yours, I mean literally, almost word for word."
Yep, considering the number of "strangers" posting here and the tone of their comments, it seems you've been linked to by a cluster of skeptic/atheist blogs.
Seth: "You claim that Dawkins is saying the opposite of what he is saying, and anyone can see this clearly by reading what Dawkins wrote."
This highlights the whole problem here: Dawkins' essay is so brief and vague it's hard to tell what exactly he's really saying. It's no surprise that people *may* a misunderstanding him.
Take this passage for example: "I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?" Now if we parse that very carefully, he seems to be saying that he *probably* would oppose eugenics, but not necessarily. The problem, though, is that much of what comes before that seems a setup for a different answer. The essay proceeds like this: 1) In the past the idea of "designer babies" would have been unobjectionable, 2) It's Hitler's fault that changed, 3) there's no biological obstacle to doing it, 4) we need to ignore Hitler and start asking again whether eugenics is OK. Add that to the fact that Dawkins is well known for being a fierce materialist, and it's no surprise that readers are assuming he's verging on endorsing eugenics.
After all, it's not as if no one has ever ventured to ask "what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons" before Dawkins' essay. People have, and the case is largely considered closed. When Dawkins opens it again, and does so in this sloppy manner, is it any surprise that people jump to negative conclusions?
To be any kind of moral philosopher, one has to be willing to argue moral issues. Throwing up one's hands in horror is not an argument, or not a very good one at least.
Eugenics is not something that we can hide from either, since (taken broadly) it is widely practiced today. Forget Hitler-style eugenics, which nobody is really advocating. What about pre-natal screening for birth defects? That is a form of eugenics, it is commonly practiced, and my sense is that Wesley and his allies here would ban it. Let's talk about that rather than some imagined Master Race breeding program.
BTW, the original bit from Dawkins seems to have been printed without permission, and is missing its context. It was from a collection where John Brockman asked various scientists and thinkers to come up with "dangerous ideas". So Dawkins was being deliberately provocative, as part of this project.
See here for more.
Seth: "The question is: why is it bad to select for traits?"
Seth, you're oversimplifying greatly here. Eugenics as Wesley means it isn't simply "selecting for traits" of whatever sort and by whatever means. He's referring to an instrumentalist mindset that attempts to distinguish "fit" and "unfit" in broad terms and manipulate people as breeding stock accordingly. The problem is that this easily leads to envisioning people as objects or means to some end, and judging people's value and rights according to their "fitness".
Would Dawkins ever suggest debating racism as a "dangerous idea?" I think not. It is beyond the pale--not even fit for debate. So, too, should be eugenics because it explicitly creates moral hierarchies of human worth.
I don't know what Dawkins would say, but Steven Pinker was part of the same project and his dangerous idea was "Groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments". Some people would call this racism I'm sure.
"
...proponents of ethnic and racial differences in the past have been targets of censorship, violence, and comparisons to Nazis. Large swaths of the intellectual landscape have been reengineered to try to rule these hypotheses out a priori (race does not exist, intelligence does not exist, the mind is a blank slate inscribed by parents). The underlying fear, that reports of group differences will fuel bigotry, is not, of course, groundless.
The intellectual tools to defuse the danger are available. "Is" does not imply "ought. "
"
Pinker's point, and Dawkins' too, was that these issues have to be addressed openly and candidly, rather than hiding from them.
Nobody's hiding from them. But we shouldn't give some ideas respect. We are not hiding from racism, for example, but that does not mean we should respectfully debate the application of racist policies.
I am going to start another thread on this. Dawkins apparently did not write the headline "Eugenics may not be bad," and that changes my take on his comment to a certain degree.
" Seth, you're oversimplifying greatly here. Eugenics as Wesley means it isn't simply "selecting for traits" of whatever sort and by whatever means. He's referring to an instrumentalist mindset that attempts to distinguish "fit" and "unfit" in broad terms and manipulate people as breeding stock accordingly. The problem is that this easily leads to envisioning people as objects or means to some end, and judging people's value and rights according to their "fitness"."
--------------
Yes, but that may not be how Dawkins means it, and it isn't how I mean it, clearly, as I raised a point about something else.
I include designer babies, voluntarily created by loving parents. So do many others (pro and con) and technically I think that that IS eugenics. So, the question of why that might be evil stands and isn't even vaguely addressed by Mr. Smith.
WSJ: Since you decided to post part of my email correspondence with you, I thought I'd reproduce it here in its entirety:
ME:
Regarding your blog entry at http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2006/11/how-predictable-richard-dawkins.html:
You actually quote Dawkins, on whether there are reasons to think that eugenics is unacceptable: "I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"
Given this quote, it seems intellectually dishonest of you to claim that "Dawkins Supports Eugenics". Ironically, by doing so, you undermine your own credibility and ethical standing.
------------------------------------
WSJ:
First, if you read the blog entry, you would see I quoted Dawkins entire article verbatim, including that very sentence in the blog, as well as linking it. So, it is hard to be trying to create a false impression, isn't it? Second, that is what I call a weasel sentence. If he really thought that, he wouldn't have posted the blog supporting eugenics in the first place. This is typical in bioethics advocacy: One posits a radical position that is the point of the post, as with Dawkins, and then they write a weasel sentence as the one you quoted, stating that there may be reasons not to proceed as stated earlier, even good ones, but they don't actually argue them. And indeed, if he thought they were persuasive, he would have mentioned them or not posted the eugenics piece in the first place. Finally, look at the title of the piece that HE wrote: "Eugenics May Not Be Bad."
------------------------------------
ME:
You defend your post by quoting Dawkins as saying "Eugenics May Not Be Bad", but the title of your post was "How Predictable: Dawkins Supports Eugenics". Where is your evidence that Dawkins actually does support eugenics? I don't think you have anything but your own desire to believe that Dawkins supports eugenics merely so you can attack him for it.
Basically, You read "Eugenics May Not Be Bad" but understood "Dawkins support eugenics".
Bertrand Russell has some wisdom to offer here: "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
------------------------------------
WSJ:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Wesley J. Smith wrote:
Oh, Russell has me nailed, alright. I bleed.
But he could just as easily have written that a stupid man is one who accuses a writer of intellectual dishonesty for not mentioning a certain weasel sentence in a commentary, when that very sentence was quoted fully and in exact context.
------------------------------------
ME:
>>a stupid man is one who accuses a writer of intellectual dishonesty for not mentioning a certain weasel sentence in a commentary, when that very sentence was quoted fully and in exact context. <<
From my original email to you (see the beginning of this thread should you doubt the content):
'You actually quote Dawkins, on whether there are reasons to think that eugenics is unacceptable: "I can think of some answers, and they are good ones..."'
Had you read my original email with more attention to detail than you used when reading Dawkins himself, you'd realize that I did in fact acknowledge that you yourself provided the exact quote that undermines your main point.
In stating that you were being intellectually dishonest, I had assumed that you understood the Dawkins quote that you provided, yet choose to describe it in a way that you knew was false. I see now that this is incorrect. In fact, you apparently also don't realize that the statement "Eugenics May Not Be Bad" is not the same thing as "Dawkins Supports Eugenics". If you still don't see how this is faulty reasoning, consider that the statement "Eugenics May Not Be Bad" is perfectly compatible with it's opposite: "Eugenics May Be Bad", which is itself not at all compatible with the statement "Dawkins Supports Eugenics".
So, I apologize for assuming malice when ignorance apparently suffices as a perfectly adequate explanation.
------------------------------------
END-EMAIL TRANSCRIPT
EPILOGUE:
So, you misunderstood Dawkins, and then you misunderstood my email to you. Or, perhaps you "unconsciously translated what you read into something you could understand."
It would seem that Russell has you nailed after all.
"First, if you read the blog entry, you would see I quoted Dawkins entire article verbatim"
That's exactly what I said, if you read my comment ;)
"So, it is hard to be trying to create a false impression, isn't it? Second, that is what I call a weasel sentence. If he really thought that, he wouldn't have posted the blog supporting eugenics in the first place."
So, you are guessing. That's my point. You are claiming that Dawkins supports Eugenics a priori to investigating the ethical implications. Clearly he hopes that this investigation will turn up ways to help humanity. Clearly he is concerned about the unethical perspective "that some human beings have greater value and worth than other human beings, based on their capacities or innate characteristics". That's likely why he finds dialogue on the subject important. If you're not familiar, Dawkins is absolutely a humanist and also absolutely evidence-based. So I'd quite expect Dawkins to spotlight any ethical problems where they are uncovered. He has made it clear numerous times that any faith in ideology is bad, and has specifically discussed Social Darwinism as falible given that there is no intention in Darwinian evolution, and ultimately doesn't make sense to draw an ideology from it.
"Finally, look at the title of the piece that HE wrote: "Eugenics May Not Be Bad." Nice try, but no cigar."
That's what I'm saying, His title is "Eugenics _MAY_ Not Be Bad", while yours is: "How Predictable: Richard Dawkins _Supports_ Eugenics".
I'd guess that Dawkins thinks it's an interesting question in that perhaps there exists possible solutions, say, to the ease of various cases human suffering for which it is unethical to not investigate. I remember hearing him recently discuss ( I can't find the reference ) his concern about human cloning and that he was concerned that humanity wasn't ready for it because would be botched..
Finally, if you think that Dawkins doesn't dare about life / humanity, read this: http://richarddawkins.net/article,350,To-be-Read-at-my-Funeral,Richard-Dawkins and listen to the last 3 minutes of this: http://richarddawkins.net/article,444,Beneath-The-Surface,Terrence-McNally-KPFK-907-FM
THE ATHEIST MENTAL DISORDER
http://scientistcanotcalculateearth.blogspot.com/
We will look at the theories of evolution in their two main foundations: the expansion of the universe, and the quantum or microorganism. To understand it with reason, thee first subject we are confronted with is God. Let us read a few verses from the Bible. Psalm 14:1 of the Old Testament says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." This sentence may also be translated as "The fool does not want God in his heart." The result of saying this can be found in the second sentence of the same verse: "They are corrupt; they do abominable deeds."Let us also take a passage from the New Testament. Hebrews 11:6 says, "For he who comes forward to God must believe that He is.
"THREE KINDS OF PEOPLE “
Whether you claim too be a Christian, a non-believer, or a seeker after truth, we will start by examining the subject of God. In this respect the world is divided into three camps. The first is that of the atheists who do not believe in a God. The second consists of the agnostics. They have no sure knowledge about the deity. On the one hand, they dare not say there is no God, but on the other hand, they are not clear if God does exist. We belong to the third category of those who believe in God.
PROSECUTION
Is there a God? I will not try to say yes or no to this question. Rather, I will make this place a law court. I will ask you to be the judge, and I will be the prosecutor. The work of a judge is to make decisions, to approve or disapprove the truth of statements; the work of a prosecutor is to present all the evidence and arguments that he can possibly gather. Before we proceed, we have to be clear about one fact: all prosecutors are not eyewitnesses of crimes. They are not policemen. A policeman may personally witness an event, whereas a prosecutor obtains his information only indirectly. He places all the charges, evidence, and arguments collected before the judge. In the same way, I shall present before you everything that I can possibly find. If you ask whether I have seen God or not, I would say "no." I am reading or demonstrating what I have gathered. My job is to search for facts and to call for witnesses. You are to arrive at a conclusion yourself.
QUALIFICATIONS
Many people assert that there is no God. As a prosecutor I ask you first to check the qualification of these people. Are they qualified to make such claims? Are those who assert that there is no God moral or immoral? Do not just listen to their arguments. Even robbers and swindlers have their arguments. Of course, the arguments support them as robbers and swindlers. The subject of their arguments may be very noble; they may talk about the state of the nations and the welfare of society, but their opinions cannot be seriously considered. They are not worthy of passing such judgments. If a man is upright in his conduct and moral judgment, we can give credibility to his words, but if not, his words lose their credibility. This is especially true when it relates to the question of deity. It is interesting to note that the moral standards of men are directly related to their concept about God. Those who admit their own ignorance have a passable standard, while insistent atheists invariably have a low level of moral responsibility. I do not claim to know all atheists, but of the several thousand that I know, none of them possess a notably commendable morality. You may tell me that there was once a moral atheist, but if there was one, he is dead. Or you may tell me that there will be a moral atheist, but whoever he may be, he is not here yet. At least we can say that for now, we do not know a moral atheist.
NO ATHEIST IS MORAL
Recently in a College at Uk, the geologist, who is a defender of evolution therefore an atheist confess he is arrogant, the atheist said “there is nothing wrong in being arrogant, I’m right, so there is nothing wrong”. He was debating with a Christian professor who never change his good attitude even though he was being ridicule and mocked. Regarding the behavior of the Atheist it was sad to see a defender of science behaving as a child, he do not have moral standards, man who do not have a sense for Gods law, he will not respect anyone , regarding respecting other he is immoral. There were many students on the campus who did not believe in God. They were greatly offended by these words. This atheist offended the Christian professor again and again; the atheist said to him I like to interrupt you. He kept offending the Christian professor saying “you want to believe in God because you are insecure; the proof is that you have the psychological need of God, your God and you are false and have a mental disorder”. This is completely unethical using the right words immoral. Even the body language of this old man of Uk tells, something wrong with him, he cross his arms in a defensive way , he did look the audience , look to the floor and even when he smile was sad. He looks nervous and evasive; his body language showed that something was wrong with him. He made funny gestures and faces at the Christian professor. How can anyone with moral decency shuffle his speaking to do gestures and call to the other professor false in his believes and say that he has a mental disorder.
No atheist has helped you become better? Has he made your thoughts cleaner or your heart purer? Or did it make you just the opposite?"
"Regarding to what they speak”
This atheist use scientific methods of questioning, and this are endless, their speaking for sure is has not good intention. How come they will ask: Why Jews and Muslims who believe in God, hate each other and kill each other because their religion.
Muslims attacked Americans in 9/11 because they hate Americans and do not tolerated Americans way of living.
What are the intentions of these questions? Most of people know that Jews and Muslims have been fighting over their land for thousands of years; it is not for the God in which they believe it has been always the land. And that is their problem is up to then how they deal with it. The atheist confuse them as well others and said they kill each other because their God. Mr. Atheist can you put into your head that is because the land. Or what is what you are really after. Sure you have a bad tongue.
And why do you ask them about 9/11 actually you Atheist went to the Middle East and told them. You hate Americans because they allow prostitutes on the street. Of course they will say they do not like their respectfull woman to be in the street as prostitutes. But you Godless
Man understand, that their government is theocratic, meaning their believe in God is their Law and constitution, they live in a Theocratic society and as humans that is their right.
Why did you bring 9/11 up? USA is democracy. Do you want me to believe that my country USA attacks the Middle East because they want to establish Democracy in the theocratic Middle East? Even if that is truth, if I’m ask I will obey to my president and go to Middle East
And kill or get kill, soldiers obey orders and thousands of young people have died in this war, that is the way that my country is, do you know how many Middle East civilians have died there? Hundred of thousands, those who are dead are better off of those who are among the living ones, their suffering is not a joke and for USA soldiers is a pain in our soul, so who are you to bring up an issue that USA soldiers will never question.
China which is the domicile of more than half the world’s population is communist. Atheist should go there to recruit people. You atheist are in your line of question totally immoral.
I do whish that my president George W. Bush wont let you come to America and I will tell him about your videos The God of delusion and the atheist debate, because in those videos you make fun of my president. Do not think that because our presidents did not claim the rights to the back bone of the net years ago, they will never claim it back.
Now you ask: why believers hate, homosexuals? Isn’t good to see two male’s holdings hands on the streets, and to girls kissing on the train? Maybe, because evolution is not only about natural selection, but about sexual selection. Are evolutionists teaching the children of America about sexual selection, “Sexual selection is a special case of natural selection Sexual selection acts in an organisms’ ability to obtain by any means necessary to successfully copulate with their mate or in groups” Sexual selection simple means I can chose anyone male female is ok. Can you see that your teaching has contaminated humanity?
Do you Atheist hold at what you believe?
Of course not Richard Dawkins has called himself, a cultural Christian. If he is against Christians how he dares to call himself a Christian of any kind, I do believe in God I will always say that I do love God as my Father. But your stamen’s shows that you are not firm in your believe rather, you are liar therefore immoral.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm
Their line of question is groundless or they are carrying out and agenda. I think for old man as they are, it is normal to question everything as well senile to think they know everything. They think of themselves as modern scientist question everything even if they don’t know the subject. Because they live in the twenty first century they know better than those who live thousands of years ago. And why they are confused using the word religion as if it means the same as believer. According to the lexicon Webster dictionary “religion is a way to trying to reach or seek God” “a believer in God have already found Him and knows Him”. Why atheists don’t know the dictionary? Do they know Greek or at the least Hebrew languages what about Aramaic or Latin. In the bible there are tree different words in Greek to designated the word “life”
1. Bios referring to the biological life our body
2. Psycho referring to the soul logical means study. The word Psychology means the study of the soul, emotions, mind and will.
3. There is another word for life that is Zoe the highest life. Whenever the bible speaks of eternal life speak of Zoe. In a Greek dictionary you will find the distinction. I wonder what an atheist that only knows the bible superficially how will they explain that in the bible there is a word Zoe that was transliterated from Hebrew to Greek as Zoe.
They should not speak about the bible, because their knowledge is superficial, have they read the bible fifty times? have they read 4000 others books? What about the evolution of species how many times they read it.
For this reason, their whole argument is not worthy of consideration. The question is, "Are you qualified to claim that there is no God?" If your hope is merely hear something that isn’t knew, you have lost your ground already.
IS MAN THE GREATEST?
One day a young man came to me and said, "I do not believe in a so-called God. Man is the greatest. He is the noblest among all creatures. There is no God in this universe; man is everything." We were sitting opposite each other. After hearing what he said, I stood up, went to one side of the room, stooped down, and gazed at him intently. I said, "Do you know that in the past many Americans missionaries went abroad USA specially to China, they came with not support from their churches, during the boxer rebellion many of them died, but sow a seed of life “Zoe” that made of the idolaters Chinese genuine believers, when the communist took over China many were put on jail because of their believe in God, thousands of them died, the bible was taken away, a communist reform took place, everyone have to listen to Mao because communist in China as well Stalinism are base in the cult or worship of the personality of their leader. So believers were whipped out. Because they wont exult Mao over God , but today in china there are 200 millions of genuine believers, how this happen, God did it, can atheist recruit in America or in the world 200 million like them, of course not , so why you say that there is not God and you are greater than Him.
HOW VAST IS THE UNIVERSE?
I then said to the young man, "And here you are! You have not even walked through the whole earth, and yet you consider yourself greater than the whole universe. Let me ask you, do you know how vast the universe is? Take light for example. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. Try to calculate how far light travels in one minute, or one hour, or a day, or a year. There are some stars whose light takes three thousand years to reach us. Go and work out how far they are from us! And you think you are so great! I would therefore advise all atheists and young men alike to admit the incompetency of man not only morally, but intellectually and academically as well.
"CAN MAN EXTEND BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF TIME AND SPACE?
Another time when I was in Kaifeng, I met another one of those young, stout atheists. I walked up to him and patted him on the shoulder, saying, "I saw God today!" He stared at me in curiosity and demanded a further word. I replied, "You are God! If you know that there is no God, then you have to be God." He asked for an explanation. I said, "Since you are convinced that there is no God, you must have traveled over the whole earth. If God is not in Shanghai, He may still be in Nanking. You must have been to both places. That is not all. If God is not in Nanking, He may be in Tientsin. You must also have been to Tientsin. But you cannot draw this conclusion simply by being in China; God may be in another country. So you must have been to every country on this earth. If God is not in one place, He may be in another. Therefore, you must have traveled throughout the world. One never knows if God is hiding at the North Pole or the South Pole or in the woods or wilderness somewhere. So you must have combed through all those regions as well. If God is not found on earth, He may be found on the moon. You therefore must have been to the moon. God may also be on other planets or in outer space. This means that you have traveled through space and all the other galaxies as well. If you can say that there is no God, it must mean that you have traveled throughout the whole universe. If this is the case, you must be God yourself."This is not all. Even though you know that God does not exist in Shanghai today, how about yesterday? Perhaps God will come tomorrow. You say that you know there is no God today, but what about last year? And how do you know that God will not come next year? You say that there is no God this year, but what about a thousand years ago? Very well, you must be an everlasting one who knows everything about the past and future. You have to be a being beyond time and space. You must be in Tientsin and in another country at the same time; you must be omnipresent from the east to the west, from the North Pole to the South Pole. Who else but you can be the very God? If you are not God, you can never be qualified to say that there is no God.
"THE EVIDENCE”
Some will immediately step back and say, "I have never said that I know there is no God. One can never tell whether there is a God or not." Well, if you cannot give a conclusion, I will ask witnesses whom I consider trustworthy to present arguments to you and prove the existence of God. Again let me say this, you are the judge, and I am the prosecutor. I am presenting only the evidence before you. Decide for yourself if there is a God.
THE UNIVERSE
First, looks at nature, the world that is before our eyes and every phenomenon in it. We all know that scientific knowledge is the rational explanation of natural phenomena. For example, there is an observed drop in the temperature of a patient. The drop in temperature is a phenomenon, and the explanation for it is scientific knowledge. When an apple falls from the tree, it is a phenomenon. Why does an apple not fly into the air? The explanation for this phenomenon constitutes knowledge. A man with knowledge is a man who has the proper explanations.
ONLY TWO EXPLANATIONS
The universe displays countless phenomena of diverse forms, colors, shapes, and nature. We cannot fail to notice these phenomena before our eyes. The explanation for all these phenomena is known as knowledge. All thoughtful persons have only two explanations as far as the origin of the universe is concerned; there is no third explanation. You have to take one or the other of them. What are these two explanations? The first says that the universe came into being through natural evolution and self-interaction; the second attributes its origin to a personified being with intellect and purpose. These are the only two explanations presented by all philosophers of the world. There is not a third one. Where did the universe come from? Did it come into existence by itself or through chance? Or was it designed by the One from whom we derive the concept of God? You have to think and then make a decision about it. Everything that is by chance has certain characteristics. I would suggest you list all of these in a detailed way, the more the better, and then compare all the phenomena of the universe with your list. Alongside of this make another list of the characteristics which, in your opinion, would be prominent if the universe was created by an intelligent Being. Now by a simple comparison of nature with your two lists, it will be easy to draw a reasonable conclusion.
CHANCE EVENTS
What are the characteristics of things that come about by chance? First, we know that they are unorganized. At the most they can be partially integrated. They can never be totally organized. One can achieve a specified goal by chance once, but he can never achieve a specified goal by chance all the time. Anything that comes together by chance can only be integrated partially, never totally. For example, if I throw this chair to the other side of the room, by chance it may come to rest at a perfect angle. If I do the same with a second chair, it may also lie neatly beside the first one. But this will not keep on happening with the third and the fourth and so on. Chance can only provide partial organization. It does not guarantee total integration. Furthermore, all random interactions are aimless, disorganized, and purposeless. They are without order and structure; they are loose, formless, disorderly, and not directed toward any meaningful purpose. Briefly, we can say that the characteristics of chance events are disharmony, irregularity, inconsistency, purposelessness, and insignificance. We will write down these four characteristics on our list.
CONSISTENCY AND ORGANIZATION
Now let us compare the things in the universe with these characteristics. Take, for example, the human being. He is carried in his mother's womb for nine months and delivered; he grows up and eventually dies. This cycle is repeated for every single individual. Consistency can be observed. It is not a wild game of chance. Again, look at the sun above your head. It does not exist purposelessly. Rather, it has its purpose and significance. Look at the moon, the stars, and the myriads of galaxies through your telescope. Some stars have their own planets. They all follow definite tracks and patterns. They are all organized. Their manner of motion can be calculated and predicted. The calendar in your hand is derived from them. Even next year's calendar can be printed before this year is past. All these show that the universe is organized, consistent, and purposeful.
MICROORGANISMS
Let us turn to the micro-world. Take a thin slice of wood. Put it under a microscope and observe its grain and structure, all meticulously regular and rhythmic. Even a blade of grass and the petal of a flower are finely fashioned. Nothing is unorganized or confused. Everything is disciplined and functional. All these things witness one fact to you: the universe, with its macro and micro aspects, is purposeful and meaningful. Can you say that all these came into existence by chance? Surely you cannot.
IS IT OCCUPIED?
Once I was preaching the gospel with a co-worker of mine in a village. On the way back we were extremely thirsty. There was neither a teahouse nor stream for us to get water. In fact the whole area was uninhabited. After walking for a while we came across a thatched hut. We went to the door quickly and knocked. For a long time there was no answer. We thought that no one lived there. When we opened the door and went in, we found that the floor was swept clean. In one of the rooms was a bed with nicely folded sheets. There was a teapot on the table, and the tea in it was still warm. I said, "Surely someone must be living here. All the arrangements indicate beyond doubt that this place is occupied by someone. We should not drink this tea. We must get out quickly or else people will think we are thieves." We walked out and waited for the owner to return. By observing the arrangements of the house, we concluded that someone was living there, without having seen the occupant. In the same way, we know that God is there by the arrangement of everything in the universe, although we cannot see Him. Every single phenomenon of nature is so balanced, organized, meaningful, and functional. You may say that they come by chance, but it is impossible for me to believe that chance is its sole originator. The Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Only foolish people can say in their hearts that there is no God.
CHANCE OR DESIGN
The universe has to be created by someone with profound wisdom, vast knowledge, and intricate design. If you cannot accept the concept of random formation of the universe, you have to admit that it was created by such a God. There cannot be a third explanation. The choice is left to you. You have to decide if the universe came by chance or whether it was created by God.
A DEMAND AND ITS OBJECT
One witness may not be enough. I will call in another. This time we will consider man's heart. Before doing so, we should also observe one fact: wherever there is a desire, there must first be an object for that desire. For example, an orphan who has never seen his father naturally has a desire for a kind of paternal love. I have asked many people who were orphans, and they all have felt this irrepressible yearning. By this we can see that every desire of the heart arises out of an object in the world. As human beings we have a need for social belonging. We need companionship and mutuality. If you put a boy on a deserted island and he grows up alone, he still has the yearning for companions, for beings like himself, even though he has never seen a human being. This yearning or desire is the very proof that somewhere in the world there is something known as "man." At a certain age, man begins to think about posterity; he starts desiring children and grandchildren. This is not a mere fantasy. This desire stems out of the existence and possibility of offspring. Hence, where there is desire, there is an object for that desire.
THERE IS GOD IN THE HEART
Do we have any desires other than social identity and self-propagation? What other cravings do we have? Deep in everyone there is a craving for God. Whether they are highly civilized races, such as those among the Caucasians, or the ancient civilizations, such as the Chinese civilizations, or the African natives and uncultured aborigines, they all have a common craving --God. As long as they are men, they have a yearning for God, no matter what race or nationality. This is a fact. You cannot argue against it. Everyone is seeking after God. Everywhere man is craving for God. This is very clear. By applying the principle that we just mentioned, we can see that since our heart feels the need for a God, there must necessarily be a God in the universe. Since there is a need for God in the heart, there must be the existence of God in the universe. If no God exists, we would never have such a craving in our heart. We all have an appetite for food. In the same way, we all have an appetite for God. It would be impossible to live if there was only an appetite for food but no food. Likewise, it would be impossible to live if there was a capacity for God but no God.
NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT GOD?
Once an atheist rudely rebuked me in a loud voice: "You said that a man has the psychological need for a God. But there is no such thing, and I do not believe in it." I said, "Well, do you mean to say that you never think about God? In fact, even while you were talking, you were thinking about Him. This indicates that you do have a capacity for God. There is no one who has never thought about God. He may try not to think much about Him. Since this thought is in you, there must be such an object outside of you.
"THE WORDS AND THE HEART”
A young man once came to me to argue about God. He was vehemently against the existence of God. He gave me one reason after another for saying that there is no God. As he was enumerating the various reasons why God should not exist, I listened to him quietly without saying a word. Then I said, "Although you insist that there is no God and support yourself with so many arguments, you have lost your case already." He said, "What do you mean?" I went on to explain: "Your mouth can say as much as you want about there not being a God, but your heart is on my side." He had to agree with me. Although one can give all sorts of reasons in the head, there is a belief in the heart that no argument can defeat. A stubborn person may give a thousand and one reasons, but you can have the boldness to tell him, "You know better in your heart that there is a God. Why bother to look for evidence outside?"Now what would you say? After looking at nature and the universe, after checking with your inner feeling, it is up to you to decide whether or not there is a God. But you should not be irresponsible; your attitude must be sober because everyone has to meet God soon. One day you will all stand before Him. Everything concerning you will be laid bare. On that day you will know God. But now is the time for you to be prepared. We should all be prepared to meet our God
CONSIDER THIS
I shall begin by assuming that the issue of God's existence is settled. We all believe that there is a God. As those who desire to know the truth, we must go one step further to find out what kind of God He is. God is the greatest Unknown. We must spend some time to find out about this unknown One. The next step now is to know what kind of a God He is.
THE BIBLE
In the past few thousand years’ man has been inquiring about the nature of God. Is He kind or is He righteous? Is He indifferent towards us, or is He extremely interested in human affairs? These types of questions are the direct cause of all human religions. What is religion? Religion is man's inquiry about God and his explanation of Him. Through these explanations, different men have arrived at different concepts about God. What kind of God is He? This is a big question. It is also a very serious question. We have all given our thought to this subject at one time or another. The question might even have occurred to our little mind when we were five years old. All men, educated or ignorant, have been intrigued by this question. It comes naturally after some contemplation and observation.
But a person trying to speculate about God is like an ant attempting to understand a human being. It is extremely difficult for the little creature to try to realize our life, nature, and mind. In the same way it is impossible for us to try to comprehend God. For this reason, in the past few thousand years, all kinds of people, theologians and philosophers alike, have done much thinking about Him. What has God been doing all this time? Has He been indifferent to us or has He tried to reveal Himself to us? What is God's attitude? Do you think He would say, "I am God and have nothing to do with human beings. I do not care what you think about me. I shall stay in heaven as God. Let the mortals be ignorant!" Or do you think He has a desire to reveal Himself to man and visit him?
When I was in India, I saw some people lying naked on beds studded with nails. Some walked with bare feet on burning coals. These people devoted a great deal of energy to seeking after God. What has God done to them? Did He hide Himself and take no notice of them at all? Has He not kept Himself as a perpetual mystery? This is a great question. We have to consider it scientifically and objectively in order to find out what God is like.
A few years ago I spoke on a similar subject to some medical students in an auditorium in Cheloo University. I said that man is an organism with a life. God also is a life. Man's life is higher than that of the lower animals, and God's life is even higher than that of man. I asked the students, "Since we realize that all living organisms have some common laws and express some common traits, can you name them?" Different ones then started to bring up different points. At the end we summed up the discussion in this way: all living organisms contain two common characteristics. You can call these characteristics their common expressions or their common laws. First, every life wants to preserve itself. It tends to reproduce itself. There is the ability to produce posterity, to continue its own life. Second, every life wants to have fellowship with other lives. It cannot stand being by itself. When a man cannot find fellowship with another human being, he goes to dogs, cats, fish, or birds and makes friends with animals. All living creatures desire fellowship.
Based on these two characteristics of life, namely, the preservation of itself and fellowship with others, laws of human government are instituted. For example, the death penalty reflects a convict's desire to preserve his own life; punishment comes in the form of taking away and terminating such a life. This is the way to inflict suffering on a life. Imprisonment, as a less serious punishment, cuts him off from having fellowship with others. This reversal of the life principle becomes then a suffering for him. From this we see that punishment is applied according to the principles of life.
With these two chief characteristics in mind, let us turn to the life of God. God is an organism of a higher order than human beings. He is naturally governed by this law of life. We can know God by the characteristics and distinctive features of His life. From this we can deduce whether or not God wants to have fellowship with man.
There are two kinds of religion: religion based on natural concepts and religion based on revelation. Natural religion starts with man as the center. He is the one that is seeking after God and studying about Him. What then is revelation religion? Revelation religion comes directly from God. He is the One who comes to reveal things to us. Man's thoughts are often useless fancies. God's revelation alone is trustworthy. Christianity is different from all other natural religions in that it is a religion that comes from revelation. Christianity begins from God. It is God who comes to seek out man, rather than man who seeks after God.
I will not try to persuade you to believe in Christianity or to read the Bible. I will only make a few suppositions. We will treat the subject in the same way as if we were solving a problem in geometry. We will start from the suppositions and then deduce our arguments step by step. We will examine our reasoning’s to see if they are sound and if our conclusions are logical. As in mathematics, with some problems we work forwards, while with others we work backwards. At any rate, in the end we should be able to tell whether or not a supposition is justified.
We have to make a few suppositions. The first one is that God exists. This in fact has been covered by us already. We have agreed that there is a God. He is a Being who has a purpose.
Second, we assume that God has a desire to reveal Himself to man. If God wants to reveal Himself to man and if He wants us to know Him, how does He do it? In what manner can He be made known to us? If He speaks to us through thunder or writes to us through lightning, we will not be able to comprehend His message. How then does God make Himself known to us?
If He is to reveal Himself and if He wants us to know Him, He necessarily must do it through human means. What then are the common ways that men communicate with one another? First, they do it through speaking and second through writing. All means of communication, whether telegraph, telephone, sign, or symbols, are all included in these two categories. If God is to manifest Himself, these are the only two means for Him to do so. For the present we set aside the aspect of speaking; we will see how God communicates with us through writing.
If God reveals Himself through writing, of all the volumes written by different people throughout the centuries, there must be one book which is divinely inspired. This is a very crucial test. If such a book exists, it proves not only the existence of God, but it contains His written revelation to us as well. Is there then such a divinely written book?
In the search for such a book, let us first mention a few basic principles. Suppose I want to order a book from a publisher. If I can tell him the name and author of the book, there will be no trouble getting it. If, however, I forget the name and author of the book, I can describe the characteristics of it to the publisher, such as the contents, size, color, binding, etc. The publisher will then search through all his books and locates the volume I want. God has one book in this universe. How do we find it? We have to know its characteristics first. If there is any book that has been written by God, it must meet certain conditions or have certain qualifications before one can say that it is from God.
Let me put forth a few propositions. If there is a book written by God, it must first of all mention God. It must tell you that it is from God and that its author is God. This is the first qualification. Second, it must carry a moral tone that is higher than what we commonly know. If it is a fabrication, it can at the most be on the same level as man. Third, if there is such a divine book, it must tell us about the past and the future of this world. Only God knows clearly what occurred in the past and what will happen in the future. Only by telling us these matters will we know Him as God. Fourth, this book must be simple and available so that all may be able to secure and understand it. If there were only one such book in the world, then only a very few people would be able to see it. It would not pass the test unless it is a book accessible to everyone. In the United States there is a group of people who claim to have a book from God. It is engraved in gold and contains only twelve pages. Such a book then would not be accessible to the Chinese. God would never write to us a book at which we could not look.
Now the matter is simplified. Let us repeat these four conditions once more. (1) If such a book exists, it must tell us explicitly that its author is God. (2) It must carry a high tone of morality. (3) It must give a detailed description of the past and the future of the universe. (4) It must be available. Let us pick out some of the more important writings throughout human civilization and check them against these qualifications to see if any meets our requirements.
We will start from books that are generally considered to be good. Let us take the Chinese classics of Confucius. They are immediately disqualified under the first requirement, for none of them claims to be written by God. They do have a high tone of morality, but they fail to give the origin and destiny of the world, the universe, and man. This does not mean that they are worthless books; it means that they do not contain the qualifications we want. They are not what we are looking for.
Let us go to the classics of other cultures. There are numerous volumes of famous writings, but none of them passes the first test. They are all clearly written by man. They may be masterpieces in philosophy or morality, but they are not written by God, nor are they divinely inspired. We have to set them aside.
There is a book in India called the Rig-Veda. It once dominated Hinduism. However, it does not claim to be written by God.
Another book called the Avesta, written by a Persian named Zoroaster, is also extremely influential in the Middle East. It does not claim to be from God either. Moreover, its moral tone is not especially commendable.
Let us come to the Koran of Mohammedanism. This is the closest one we can find. It tells us that it comes from God; it meets the first requirement. However, it does not fulfill the second requirement, for its moral tone is too low. The heaven it describes is full of lusts and flesh. God could never write a book with such licentiousness and immorality. Hence, this book does not pass the test of morality.
After searching through all the books, you have to come finally to the Bible. If God desires to communicate with man, and if He does so through writing, then this is the only book that can pass the four tests. Hence, this must be the book God has for man.
What does this book say? In the books of the law in the Old Testament, it says, "Thus said the Lord," at least five hundred times. Other books in the Old Testament repeat the phrase about seven hundred times. In addition to the references in the New Testament to the speaking of God, the Bible has more than two thousand claims of divine origin. If God has no intention of communicating with man, we can forget about this book. But if He does communicate with man through writing, then this book has to be of immense value. Can you find another book where God is claimed as its author that many times?
We have to see if the Bible meets the second qualification. Let us take a look at its moral tone. Everyone who has studied this book confesses that it carries the highest moral standard. Even the sins of the noblest persons are recorded and condemned without mercy. Once a strong opposer of the Bible was asked by his son, "Why are you so strong against the Bible?" He answered, "If I do not condemn it, it will condemn me." This book does not let us get by easily. The human concept is that all sexual acts outside marriage are considered as fornication. The Bible, however, says that even an evil thought is fornication. Human morality condemns an act of killing as murder, but the Bible condemns a slight hatred in the heart as murder.
We consider a man who lets his enemy get by without paying vengeance as forgiving. But the Bible charges man to love his enemy. How high is its moral tone and how low we are before its standards! You cannot help but admit that it presents the best ethical code for humanity.
Furthermore, this book describes in detail the past and future of the universe. Once a friend told me that he could believe in everything the Bible says except the parts in Genesis and Revelation where it talks about the origin and destiny of the heavens and earth. I told him that if this is indeed a book from God, it must, of necessity, contain these matters. If the Bible did not contain Genesis and Revelation, it would be the same as any other book, and we would have to look for another book; it would not be the one we want. But the past condition of the world and its future destiny are recorded here. Hence, the third qualification is also met.
What is the circulation of such a book? Last year (1935), more than two hundred million copies were sold. Can you name another book that has such a high circulation rate? This statistic, moreover, is not limited to just last year; every year the number has remained approximately the same. In one sense this book is very popular. In another sense it is like a thorn in your hand; it pierces you. This book gives you a headache. It creates an unspeakable uneasiness within man. It even causes man to oppose it. In spite of this, its annual sales are still over two hundred million.
Furthermore, this book is translated into more than seven hundred twenty languages. In every country and among every race, there is a translation of this unique book. It is extremely easy for anyone to obtain a Bible anywhere in the world. If the Rig-Veda were God's book, then more than half of the world would perish due to a failure in obtaining it. Even if you put the Rig-Veda in my hand, I would still be unable to understand it. If only the educated ones can contact God, then I am destined to go to hell. If only the Indians have the opportuni