So, I had a thought.
People are outraged at Dr. Walter Palmer for killing Cecil the Lion (pictured left) and other precious animals. The internet is abuzz as people are lining up to protest this man. I have seen his business ransacked with hate speech, picket signs and even death threats. Furthermore, his family is being berated online as people are calling for "justice." I'm reading the articles with hashtags like #CatLivesMatter, #JusticeForCecil, and other such tags that all cry out for this man to be accountable for his actions. But in all honesty, if I'm really looking at everything objectively, I can't help but wonder why people are so upset. Yes, you read that correctly, why are people so upset at this? I mean, it's not like he did anything wrong, right?
Hear me out.
Everybody knows that the Bible is just a made up book. God didn't create us in His image. From Genesis to Revelation, it is pure fantasy. It's a glorified fairy tale. Truth be told, every science book and smart guy out there will tell you that we originated from Darwinian evolution. Our entire earth is a product of the Big Bang Theory and are a result of billions of years of micro to macro evolution. We owe our existence to phenomena like natural selection, genetic mutation, cosmological happenstance, and borderline blind luck. Right? I mean, this is what we are taught to believe, isn't it? For me at least, it seems that everyone knows we evolved from a common ancestor, that there is no Creator, and more importantly there is no God!
Well, since everyone knows this "truth" then why is everyone up in arms about some guy killing Cecil? If we are taking an honest look at things, why does it matter? As I said, there is no higher power, so that means there is no higher law as we are all products of naturalism. Right and wrong are societal constructs rather than objective ideas.
"nature is not cruel, only pitiless indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose."
- Richard Dawkins
River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
pg. 95-96
Richard Dawkins says that whatever nature does, it is not evil, nor cruel, nor malice intent. This is because in nature, there is no right and wrong. Only calloused actions. Does a lion feel guilt for killing a zebra? Not at all. Does a bird feel wrong when it kills a fish? Nope. Does a goat feel bad for killing a snake that is threatening to attack? I highly doubt it. You see, in the animal kingdom there is only one rule: kill or be killed. It is survival of the fittest.
Now, I can hear some of you saying that all of these instances are for food or for protection so they are not solid arguments. Fair enough. But what about rape? I think we can all agree that rape is wrong. However, the animal kingdom is littered with examples of rape. What about incest? Tons of examples as well. What about child abuse, incest, neglect, murder, violence? Yup, yup, and yes. I can quote examples of all of these several times over. But these 'wrongs' are not perceived as such within nature. What's my point? My point is that nature has no good or evil, no right and wrong. It lacks all purpose.
Realistically, we do have objective morality. For instance, everyone can agree that the Holocaust was a horrible thing. We know it was wrong and will always know it is wrong. Even if the Germans had won WWII and changed the history books to say that they did humanity a favor, we would still know that it was wrong. Same thing with sexual abuse towards children. Nobody needs to be told that doing such heinous acts with a child is wrong. However, within the views of Naturalism (the idea or belief that only natural - as opposed to supernatural or spiritual - laws and forces operate in the world) and Darwinian evolution these "evils" are non-existent. To date, these theories have yet to properly explain why there does exist an objective morality (absolute good and evil).
"On the face of it, the Darwinian idea that evolution is driven by natural selection seems ill-suited to explain such goodness as we possess, or our feelings of morality, decency, empathy, and pity. Natural selection can easily explain hunger, fear, and sexual lust, all of which straightforwardly contribute to our survival or the preservation of our genes."
- Richard Dawkins
The God Delusion
pg. 245-46
So, what am I saying? I'm saying that if the 'popular' view of life's origins are correct, and we are all here just because of a perfect storm of gravity, thermodynamics, genetics, cosmology, astrology, geology, etc. then why does it matter if one creature kills another? Dawkins states there is no clear rhyme or reason for us to even distinguish right and wrong. Therefore, Dr. Palmer was just asserting his dominance as the dominant species. Humans are on top and he was just expressing this fact by killing the King of the Jungle. Logically, there is absolutely no reason to make a big deal out of this. It should be as innocent as killing a fly. Killing a lion, regardless of where it was and how he did it, is meaningless. It's just survival of the fittest.
To further illustrate my point, lets just assume that Dr. Walter Palmer missed the shot and instead the lion killed him. Do you think the outcry would be the same? Or do you think the internet would say, "Poacher was a bad shot and got what was coming to him." I doubt this story would have made such an uproar then. Why? Because a lion killing someone out in the Safari is just an example of a lion doing what lions do best. We would not expect a lion to think and rationalize that this man has kids, a wife, a job, and/or responsibilities. Do you see where I'm getting at?
The simple fact that we have such an amazing outcry for justice in a way is a powerful argument towards Intelligent Design and the authority of God. I am a God fearing Christian, and I believe we are held to a higher standard. We are created in His image and are purposely, wonderfully, and fearfully made by Him. It is because of His imprint on all our lives that we have objective moralities. It is because of His son, who died on the cross for our sins that we have the opportunity to repent of our rebellion to Him, be forgiven, and walk with Him in paradise.
So, if you are a Naturalist (like Richard Dawkins) or one of those people that do not believe in God, do not believe the Bible, and/or do not think that we were Intelligently designed by a higher power then I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Stop harassing a man who did absolutely nothing wrong...because in all honesty, what is wrong anyways?
Notes:
For further insight, please read Dr. McDowell and Jonathan Morrow's book Is God Just a Human Invention, Chapter 15 Can People Be Good without God.
No comments:
Post a Comment