Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Last week, I blogged about Christian Post writer Matt Moore, a self-described "redeemed
sinner" who posted an open letter to gay youth proclaiming that Jesus would save them from
a life of drinking, drugs and meaningless sex. As I'm sure you would expect, I found
his goals misguided and his metaphysics incoherent. In response, one of my readers left a comment
saying: "Why are people so threatened by Matt Moore's experience? Because it takes away
their excuse to continue to sin? If Matt can be set free from sin and God is real and homosexuality
is sin, then it makes them wrong and no one wants have to admit that they are wrong and
sinful. Is it easier to mock than face the possibility that Matt may be right? Could
it be possible that you are wrong?" This may be the falsest false dichotomy I've ever witnessed.
It seems this person believes the chance of that entire bundle of claims being true is
high enough to warrant serious consideration, and they present it as though this is the
only other option, rather than a conglomeration that becomes increasingly unlikely as a whole
with every new claim that's added on. But even if Matt Moore's experiences contain some
element of truth, this still doesn't demonstrate that any of these other things are real. While
Moore might just be a religious huckster or opportunist, it's also entirely possible that
he genuinely believes being gay means a life devoid of true happiness, and he feels that
God personally called him to stop having relationships with men. It could be that his life was indeed
terrible, and that his religious beliefs have helped him to become happier and more fulfilled
as an individual - unlikely as it may seem. All of this might be the case, but none of
it tells us anything about the validity of various supernatural and theological concepts.
Moore's religious feelings and life experiences do not mean that the idea of "sin" is actually
a real thing, or something that ever had any bearing on him. It does not mean that this
"sin" is something he was "set free" from, or that it is something that anyone can be
set free from. It doesn't mean that "sin", whatever it is, has these particular dynamics
at all. And it doesn't mean that being gay constitutes one of these "sins". It doesn't
show how the designation of "sin" would relate to any structure of morality. It doesn't tell
us what the consequences are of this "sin". It doesn't say why this is something for us
to avoid. It also doesn't mean that any deities really do exist. It doesn't mean the specific,
Judeo-Christian deity named "God" exists. And it doesn't mean this God is actually capable
of "freeing" us from our supposed "sin". That's a whole lot of completely unsupported assumptions
packed into just a few sentences. And the idea that we would find this the least bit
"threatening" further assumes that we're just as ignorant as they are. Would they accept
the testimony of a supposedly "ex-gay" Muslim as evidence in favor of a specific interpretation
of Islamic doctrine and theology? It seems highly doubtful. So why would they think there's
any reason to treat one Christian's feelings as credible evidence of claims like "God is
real" and "homosexuality is sin"? And atop this logical house of cards, they rest the
accusation that we must be seeking an "excuse to continue to sin", which Moore's experiences
allegedly deprive us of. But for it to be the case that our criticism of his writings
is only a cover for our pursuit of a justification to "sin", we would first have to accept all
of the underlying assumptions that are required for the concept of an "excuse to continue
to sin" to be meaningful. I certainly don't. So why would I think I needed any sort of
excuse to keep doing something I don't believe is wrong? As Megan McArdle said, "It is a
vast, and pervasive, cognitive mistake to assume that people who agree with you (or
disagree) do so on the same criteria that you care about." And our Human Conjunction
Fallacy here seems to believe the rest of us also suspect that the "God exists, gays
are sinning" scenario could actually be true. In their estimation, we consider this probable
enough to be scared by the possibility, but instead of accepting its ramifications, we've
just chosen to stick our heads in the sand. What they've failed to recognize is that we're
not just on the other side of the fence here. We're actually worlds apart in our beliefs.
They think we're talking on the same level as they are, but they've made the mistake
of assuming that the entirety of their personal theology is accepted by everyone. It's rather
like believing that those who don't follow your god must be worshipping the devil. They
really don't understand just how much of this we truly don't believe. That's why they expected
that out of all the possible sequences of supernatural claims, we would somehow be especially
worried about this one. If anyone is feeling "threatened" here, it's probably the one who
refuses to face the fact that their favorite god is neither loved nor feared by us, but
completely absent from the equation. We see their god as no more of a cosmic danger to
us than the gods of any other faith, and thus not a relevant factor in our lives. And because
of us, they have to contend with the reality that there are people out there who aren't
just selfishly denying a god they know in their hearts to be real, but who honestly
see no reason to believe this. Is that so threatening? It shouldn't be, but I guess
it's easier to ignore the possibility that you might be wrong.