WHICH GAME Are We PLAYING? My REPLY to JOHN CORVINO’S (and too many Christians’) PHILOSOPHYPosted: August 31, 2012
Woe to those who make a Mother Nature play Checkers Who knows only of Chess. Philosophy—or logic—is often little more than a ‘studied’ crashing through the china shop of one’s mind and buying only what one happens not to break.
A certain John Corvino is a homosexual man who is well-respected by secular people for his attempts at rational defense of homosexual behavior. He recently put out a DVD called What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality? defending homosexual copulation as a perfectly justified alternative to heterosexual copulation.
Corvino points out that homosexual sex does not cause AIDS any more inherently than heterosexual sex causes AIDS. Additionally, Corvino says that, contrary to some homophobe’s point that ‘the parts don’t fit’, homosexual sex is, in fact, mechanically effective to its intentions.
But, here, Corvino could be construed as allowing that “the pleasure of nicotine addiction does not cause lung cancer, and that, further, there is nothing inherently wrong with any pleasurable act no matter how contrary it may be to the complex microbiological ecology within which we live and by which we have our own physical being.”
I suppose Corvino thinks that the Apostle Paul’s condemnation of homosexual behavior was nothing but a homophobically ignorant assertion on Paul’s part. But, I believe Apostle Paul was implying that there must be many things which are unnatural and bad despite that people can become attracted to these unnatural things, and that, in fact, for every realm of human life, there are many bad things possible which humans nevertheless can become changed into enjoying—and even changed into seeming to themselves to have a perfect right to do.
I recently watched the Extended trailer for What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality? as linked to on Wikipedia’s John Corvino page. From what that trailer contains, it seems Corvino’s logic in defense of homosexual behavior is on the level of a stand-up comic: any rebuttle one can come up with which at all seems to deflate any point made adversely to one’s own favored position on a matter is automatically accounted to be the superior logic over that adverse point.
But, my serious reply to Corvino’s rebuttle that ‘the parts do fit’ is that literally everything, according to some intention, fits together effectively. And, many of these things which ‘fit together’ no reasonable human would ever attempt (and every reasonable person would resist doing): throwing one’s own baby in a trash compactor, snorting cocaine, having sex with an animal, or just plain being stupid.
But the worst part about the logic of John Corvino’s defense of homosexual behavior is that he has had to form it in face of the emptily inbred form of Christian doctrine. That Christian doctrinal inbreeding goes like this: “You ask us why we believe that this or that is wrong? We believe that this or that is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong.”
The absurdity of this inbred ‘Biblicist’ logic is seen by imagining someone today asking Apostle Paul so many of the questions that Christians today get asked, and then imagining Paul replying that his own words addressing those questions in the New Testament are really there in the authoritative Bible. Paul would not have been so thick. He would have endeavored to answer the questions at least as sincerely and insightfully as the person asking the questions. This is just like what Jesus himself always did, though Jesus is recorded as having had to answer mainly doctrinally inbred Jews.
So, if you, as a ‘Biblical’ Christian, think you can answer a question with any wisdom worth the name, then at least first try to understand not only who it is you are answering, but the actual subject about which they ask. Because you can’t play chess with someone by insisting that they accept that you are going to be playing by the rules of checkers.
But, to return to my criticism of Corvino’s own logic. We can’t just keep thinking we can play checkers with Mother Nature if she knows only of Chess.
I believe that humans are the prime cause of disease among both humans and non-humans, including viruses that are non-transmissible between humans.
They say that leprosy is non-infectious. But the problem is how anyone ever gets it. It must be transmitted somehow from some place. And if leprosy is not yet globally eradicated, then it is possible that it is being transmitted from those who have it by way of intermediating species.
Then there is the mutation factor now effecting the transmission of facial cancer among Tasmanian Devils. ‘Bleep’ happens’. But, to paraphrase a character in one of the Jurassic Park movies, Bleep finds a way so long as humans themselves keep doing bleep. Corvino himself asserted that humans shouldn’t look to animals as the standard for how humans ought to live. So, Corvino admits, in so many words, that animals don’t have the sense not to do so many things that compromise their or their fellows’ microbiological integrity. I think Corvino would admit that humans are just animals that can choose not to abide their own better sense—to the abominably severe detriment of some humans generations later. I’m sure Corvino doesn’t actually believe that diseases and disabilities are caused by little monsters that breed-and-strike randomly.