Tuesday, 3 June 2008

Joe Boot on the Michael Coren Show

Unfortunately, I can't link to the show I want to. The other day on the Michael Coren Show on CTS TV he had a panel discussion involving a Roman Catholic, a Jewish rabbi, a "humanist" and Christian apologist Joe Boot

Joe boot, I have come to believe, is a very accomplished and persuasive defender and explainer of the Christian faith. There was one point in the show when the subject turned to polygamy and whether it can now be condemned in light of the acceptance of gay marriage. The humanist representative voiced the opinion that polygamist marriage should inded be accepted, as long as it didn't result in harm to the women or children involved in such a marriage.

Joe Boot asked a question that I wish the humanist would have been pressed to answer. Unfortunately, Mr Coren cut him off and pressed his own point. I have forgotten what Coren's point was, but Mr Boot's was a killer to the humanist position.

His question was this, "Define harm."

This is where the humanist or atheist does not think through to the logical extension of his worldview. Because, what indeed is, "harm?" And why indeed is ,"harm" by anyone's definition wrong? In other words, without an objective basis, a basis outside of ourselves, to define what is right and what is wrong, it merely comes down to opinion. A humanist, for example, may be disgusted by the pictures I linked to a few posts below of Warren Jeffs kissing a 12-year-old child passionately on the mouth, and think it wrong. But obviously Mr Jeffs would have a different opinion. What makes one opinion any more valid than the other? Even if the humanist argues that the child is harmed, it is only his opinion that harming a child is wrong. Even if many other people share his opinion that it is wrong, is it then merely majority opinion that defines right and wrong?

If so, I would ask whether, in other times and other cultures, would things like slavery and human sacrifice have not been wrong, because the majority of people in those times and those places thought that there was nothing wrong with them? Would the naturalist accept that female genital mutilation is acceptable in some Muslim countries, even today, because it is part of the culture? If he argues that it is against women's rights, still I ask, on what basis is it wrong, other than merely his opinion?

Without God, it's all just a matter of somebody's opinion, even if it is the majority.

Take Care

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Wow, Dad great post!! What an excellent question by Joe Boot ... "Define harm." It is too bad that the humanist wasn't forced to answer, because I wonder what he would have said. Miriam-webster defines harm as physical or mental damage, which would describe, for those young girls, what living in those polygamous relationships would be like. What a JOKE!!