Thursday, October 20, 2016

Q&A: What Do You Say to the "Keep Your Religion to Yourself!" Objection? (Jay Watts)

This past weekend I was speaking to a group at Northwestern University from Students for Life of Illinois as part of that organization’s annual summit. I made the case for life appealing to the three-step strategy that I generally outline:

1)   Simplify the issue by focusing on the single most important question concerning the right or wrong of abortion, what are the unborn?

2)   Argue our case using science and philosophy. The science of embryology tells us that from the moment of fertilization the unborn are a whole, distinct, and living human organism. Philosophy tells us that there is no essential difference from the embryo or fetus that we once were and the more mature human we are today. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependence do not do sufficient philosophical work to explain why it was ok to kill us then, indeed it was a Constitutionally protected right, but that if someone did the same thing to us at this stage in our life it would be the worst moral offense one human being could commit against another human being.

3)  Argue well, in a way that aims to win people with good arguments and not merely to beat people down with information.

During Q&A, a young woman asked the following question: What do you do when someone says this all just your religious view and shouldn’t be pushed onto others that do not share your religion?

My answer:

As I understand that objection, it claims that the belief that all human beings share a common intrinsic dignity by virtue of what we and are owed basic duties and obligations, not the least of which is to refrain from killing them, is by its nature a religious argument. My response has three parts.

First, it isn’t clear that this is true. None of the arguments that I provided are religious by nature. There are atheists that would reject the suggestion that objective moral values require a theistic worldview. Sam Harris appeals to objective morality when he condemns the practice of female genital mutilation in certain Muslim cultures. He isn’t arguing that those cultures violate a western cultural norm, but that the practice itself is objectively wrong for all cultures. Atheists like Sam Harris and Michael Martin have worked hard to ground objective moral values in a non-theistic worldview precisely because they acknowledge the existence of those values. Whether I believe that they can succeed in doing so is irrelevant to this point. It can be accepted that an appeal to objective morality is not religious by its nature.

This leads me to my second point; I never mentioned my faith or personal beliefs as part of my argument. It is true that I am passionately and unapologetically Christian and that my faith informs every area of my life. So what? I never said abortion is wrong because God said so. People objecting to our case need to address the science and philosophy, not my faith. This argument commits either the Genetic Fallacy (the pro-life argument was birthed out of religious communities) or amounts to a plain old Ad Hominem attack (Jay is religious therefore he is wrong). Objectors have a responsibility to interact with the arguments presented regardless of who is presenting them or what motivation I may have for putting forth the arguments.

Dr. Condic presented the case for the identification of early human life as a new independent organism from fertilization. (Maureen Condic was also at this event. See her article here). I presented the philosophical case that the best explanation of our experience of a shared universal human dignity that transcends cultures and subjective interests is that our dignity and value are grounded in our humanity. Replying with, “Yeah, but religion..” hardly addresses either of those arguments. Put them back on the hot seat and make them answer the question, “What are the unborn?”

Finally, why do they get to decide without argument what considerations are allowed into the marketplace of ideas? Who empowered them to declare that secular humanist reasons and materialistic naturalistic reasons can be publically advocated, but so-called religious reasons cannot? I have the right to advocate for my beliefs and try to convince others that my views offer the best explanations and solutions to the questions we experience in our world. If they want to argue that their worldview is superior then they need to make that case, but they don’t have the right to make it in a vacuum where other competing worldviews have been shut out of consideration. 

In truth, they are inconsistent in their objection to religious reasons informing advocacy. Where is the handwringing when Bono dedicates his considerable influence to acquiring help for people in Africa suffering from Aids and poverty? He clearly states that his desire to help is born out of his Christian faith, and yet he is applauded for those efforts. When HBO’s documentary program VICE ran a story about George W. Bush committing U.S. aid to help Bono establish programs that transformed the manner that some African countries fought Aids, no one cried foul when Bush stated his and Bono’s shared Christian values were his motivation for action. It is only when we stand up against one of the sacred pets of the progressive culture like abortion that they suddenly demand a litmus test for having a public voice on issues.

In a nutshell, I will talk about what I want, when I want, wherever I want, and they better come with more than “Shut up because you are religious!” if they wish to stop me. They had better be ready to make their case, because I won’t be deterred from making ours.


(Note: This is the answer as I gave it. It was heavily informed and influenced by the works of Hadley Arkes, Robert George, Greg Koukl, and Scott Klusendorf. All credit where credit is due.)

7 comments:

  1. Sadly some will be convinced by this. For example, I'm thinking of Katha Pollitt's remarks about "Embryo" in her own (terrible) book. She seems to be incredulous that they think that they can present a non-religious argument against abortion and seems to think this is a new line of argumentation. (Coincidentally, I'm not sure she read that book, based on how she handles or rather mishandles and hardly interacts their arguments.)

    But I think that your response is good.

    ReplyDelete
  2. P.S. She seems to think that the motive of prolifers is to control women, so I think that this might be why she has a hard time considering that we might have actual arguments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "She seems to think that the motive of prolifers is to control women"

      Is that a cause of considering that we don't have actual arguments, or an effect of considering that we don't have actual arguments? In particular, she thinks that we don't actually believe the unborn to be persons. Since she thinks like that, it seems to me it is understandable that she will cast about for far-fetched interpretations of our behavior -- such as that we want to control women.

      (As you know but other readers might possibly be interested to know, I have a blog post called " 'Pro-Lifers Don't Really Believe That Zygotes Are Persons' " that responds to said idea. Can be Googled.)

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't know. Her criterion for personhood seems to be primarily that you are actively concious or have some social place bestowed on you by others, but as she presents them neither are neccesary conditions to have personhood, so its not clear why she rejects the personhood of the unborn in at least their earlier stages of development. In all she is just a sophist who doesn't understand, maybe hasn't read, and surely doesn't engage with the better prolife arguments. She's in it to win quick rhetorical points.

      Delete
  3. "What do you do when someone says this all just your religious view and shouldn’t be pushed onto others that do not share your religion?"

    Your response argues well the idea that a religion-derived view may be correct, and thus would address any contention "A religion-derived view is necessarily incorrect." But is the questioner really contending that? When I have heard the question asked, it seemed to me that the questioner was not assuming "A religion-derived view is necessarily incorrect," but was assuming that a religion-derived view is SUSPECT, and was unconsciously assuming that ONLY a religion-derived view is suspect, failing to remember that a secularly-derived view of some philosophical idea such as personhood is also suspect. And it seemed to me that the question revolved more around "pushing" than around "necessarily incorrect," failing to remember that the institutionalization of a secularly-derived view is also pushing.

    Once their unconscious thinking becomes conscious, the issue comes down to "pushing views" or "imposing beliefs," and I think the best response is:

    "In order for any society with any diversity to hold together, the views of one group must prevail over the views of another. For instance, presently in the US, some pro-lifers believe they should stand in the doorways of clinics and block them, but pro-choicers push their views on those pro-lifers.

    "In Canada not long ago, an immigrant couple were convicted of the 'honor killing' of their daughter. The couple sincerely believed that it was their moral duty to kill their daughter. But the majority in Canada -- fortunately, in the case of that issue, unfortunately perhaps on other issues -- pushed their views on the minority. Sometimes it is good to push views."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Above I wrote:

      "In order for any society with any diversity to hold together, the views of one group must prevail over the views of another. For instance, presently in the US, some pro-lifers believe they should stand in the doorways of clinics and block them, but pro-choicers push their views on those pro-lifers."

      I'm adding one sentence at the end:

      "In order for any society with any diversity to hold together, the views of one group must prevail over the views of another. For instance, presently in the US, some pro-lifers believe they should stand in the doorways of clinics and block them, but pro-choicers push their views on those pro-lifers. This resolution is one way of holding the society together."

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

All comments are moderated. We reject all comments containing obscenity. We reserve the right to reject any and all comments that are considered inappropriate or off-topic without explanation.