We all have faith (according to the Onion)

Link to the Onion on Darwinism

It's easy to talk within Christian circles about there always being faith behind doubt... How you have to believe one thing to doubt something else.  Smarter men than me have spent time showing that the process by which we arrive at so-called "values" and so-called "facts" are essentially the same (Newbiggin does it well in "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society").  That the supposed divide between public indisputable "facts" and private whatever-works-for-you-as-long-as-you-don't-push-them-on-the-public-square "values" is a false one.

The trouble is, these kinds of arguments are tough to distill into soundbites, or to write on the back of a beer mat down the pub!  Most casual conversations don't provide the opportunity to lay out the framework and assumptions, and then start to highlight the inconsistencies or over-reaching often done in the name of science. 

Speaking for myself, I'm not as good as I'd like to be at chipping away at this particular "defeater belief".  So it's nice that the Onion are gently poking fun... 

Downplay the failing & remove the need for forgiveness...

I was doing the PA on Sunday afternoon as a congregation we are part of gathered together. It’s not a tricky job – basically hitting the down arrow when you want the powerpoint slide to change. 

With one particular song, the first verse and chorus (i.e. first two slides) repeated twice before the final verse (i.e. the third slide). So the order went 1-2-1-2-3. But being a bit slow, I just kept hitting the down arrow. 

The problem is clear: When we got the repeated bit, the congregation saw slide 3 when the musicians were playing a tune that coincided with slide 1. Everyone knew this. And everyone knew that I was responsible for the slides - hence the looked at me instead of the screen waiting for the problem to be fixed. 

OK.  It's not the biggest mistake of my week, but my response was revealing...

My response in the instant of the mistake? To shrug my shoulders and smile as if to downplay the mistake. My instinctive response to my mistake was to imply to the congregation “it’s not a big deal and doesn’t really matter”. 

My priority in that instant? That the folks in the room not think any less of me. ("Mark isn't such a bad guy.  It's not much of a mistake.  It could have happened to anyone. It didn't really matter.  I don't have to revise my assessment of Mark's competency...")

It struck me afterwards how revealing that is of the state of my heart.   The effect of my lack of diligence was to break the focus of the congregation upon the Biblical truths that they were singing to encourage each other and to praise God. If I really thought that was important (which it surely is) I'd have taken 60 seconds to check the slides beforehand.

The right response once the gaff was made would surely have been first to recognise that we were engaged in something significant which I had in a sense spoiled, and second to signal my apology to them, and to ask God’s forgiveness for having too small a concern for His reputation. 

Instead - without pausing to think - I acted to protect my own reputation.

How often to I downplay my failures in order to remove the need to seek forgiveness?  How often is my primary concern my reputation before others rather than the reputation of God?

For the response to be instinctive, the answer is probably not one I like...

Human equality (1) - It isn't rooted in what we can do...

I was chatting with a colleague the other day about the intrinsic value we have as human beings. That we do have dignity as people... Most people would agree that we have value. That their being human carries a certain (possibly inherent) dignity, but where does it come from? 

Here's a survey of possible explanations that don't work... 

a) Is human equality about our physical value?

The raw materials that make us up are mainly water, carbon, nitrogen, calcium, some iron, some phosphorous... But even though commodity prices have shot up recently, our raw materials probably aren't worth more than a few quid. But we understand that value is not determined by raw materials. A BMW 7-series is worth more as an arrangement of molecules than the raw materials it comprises - value is more than that. It has to do with benefit that can be enjoyed - the utility that can be gained! 

How does that apply to individuals? (because surely we are a pretty impressive and complicated arrangement of molecules!).  Is it about what can be done with us as an arrangement of molecules?  (That's the reason why a BMW is more valuable than it's component parts, which in turn are more valuable than the same BMW written off and crushed.) 

b) Human equality isn't about our economic potential

Is value linked to potential to do work?... To produce things?... Entertain people?... Serve others?... What does it mean to say that? 

To make it concrete, how would we rank the following individuals?: 

• John is 30 years old at the height of his physical power. He has a wealth of accumulated skills, knowledge and experience. He has plenty of energy to work and thrives on pressure. Economically, he has begun to be highly successful, and the future augers well. 
  
• Gene is 70 years old. She has raised a family, and worked part and full-time for decades. However, she is getting frail, and is starting to forget things. Under pressure she tends to get flustered and confused. 
  
• Grace is 4. She is full of life, very inquisitive, and chatty for her age. However, she's only 2'6" tall. She's no good for physical work, and - if her drawings at nursery is anything to go by - can't yet do much productive work! When put under pressure, she tends to hide behind her mother's legs. Realistically, Grace will require at least another 10 if not 20 years before she is able to produce more than she consumes (i.e. provide a net economic gain to her community). It will take decades of investment for her to acquire the wealth of skills and knowledge John already has, and that will help her to be more economically productive. 
  

These thumbnails suggest that - based on economic potential - Gene and Grace are less valuable than John. We might argue between Gene and Grace (based on economic potential), but with a bit of upfront investment you would probably reap a good return from Grace. So perhaps she is more valuable...? 

In which case, would we be happy to say "John is more valuable than Grace, who in turn is more valuable than Gene"? 

John > Grace > Gene ? 

To even speak in those terms is pretty unsavoury. 

And where does this kind of rampant age-ism leave you? An EU official was quoted a while back as saying that long term, (with an aging unproductive population consuming increasing amounts of resources), euthanasia would be an important tool in maintaining the economic competitiveness of the EU compared to other parts of the globe. If that's the logical conclusion of deriving value from economic potential, can we stomach it? (And if we can now, will we stomach it as easily in 30 years when we are no longer economically productive?!) 

And what if I introduce fictional Gordon who empties John's bins at work, (and who conveniently shares John's birthday)?  

Gordon doesn't have John's skills, knowledge or experience. The confluence of his genetic material, family upbringing, nature, nurture etc... mean that Gordon will almost certainly never be as economically productive as John. Does that mean Gordon is less valuable as a human being than John? And how would we reflect that in the running of society? 

And how would Gordon compare to four year old Grace - with her promising IQ tests and pushy middle-class "nurturing" parents. Arguably Gordon is less valuable then Grace. 

Ought we to think seriously about giving Gordon less of a vote than John? in fact, should we confine the vote to people like John and Grace's parents? 

Historically, people who talk in this way have oppressed minority groups, denied the vote to non-landowners, worn jackboots... 

Our value as human beings can't be based on economic potential... 

That's good news if you lose your job and your economic potential is diminished. It's good news if you are old like Gene, or dependent like Grace or not gifted in the way the world economically recognises like Gordon). It "feels" right to rule that out as the measure. But it doesn't offer an alternative answer where our value comes from. 

Here's something else that it isn't: 

c) Human equality can't be based on what the market is willing to pay... 

That is usually the golden rule for valuing things. If you are lucky enough to be a homeowner, then your house isn't worth the price-tag you (or your commission hungry estate agent) put on it. A house is worth what people are willing to pay for it. (Which might mean your having to reassess the economic value of your home at the moment with mortgage acceptances at record lows...). 

But we obviously can't apply that to people! I don't know anyone who would countenance the buying and selling of human beings. Whatever people think of Wilberforce's evangelical convictions, we look back and celebrate the abolition of human slavery in the British Empire. (We want to see the enslaved and exploited around the world freed - even if we can't yet explain why). We accept that slavery is demeaning, and that for one human being to own another doesn't sit well with the human dignity we want to uphold. 

You can't put a value on human life using the slave market... 

Economic potential can't be the measure. It's too unsavoury and the logical outworkings are sufficiently unpleasant that I'm willing to rule out the assumptions that point to them. (Besides there is more to life than money!).

What if we change tack slightly and make it about a different kind of potential. Say, the ability to participate generally in society, to enjoy life to the full and generally to experience life...

Where does that lead?

d) Human equality isn't based on our potential to experience life... 

 Based on potential to experience life, we would have to re-order our fictional trio: 

• 4-year old Grace has her whole life ahead of her. 
  
• John is in his prime, but has been round the block a few times already. 
  
• Gene has so many miles on the clock that it's started back at the beginning. 
  

So by this alternative measure - potential to experience life - Grace is more valuable than John who is more valuable than Gene. 

Grace > John > Gene ? 

Gene is still not coming out of this very well! And with each Birthday that passes, I feel less comfortable with sidelining Gene! 

But even if we can live with that statement. What about Grace's fictional identical twin - Hope? 

Hope, through an accident early in life, is blind. She has less "potential to experience life" as she can't see. Is she less valuable than her sister for being blind? Were back in jackboot territory again! 

Or what about Grace's fictional unborn brother Joshua? He is 20 weeks old. He would probably survive outside of the womb (in a Western hospital), so he has the "potential to experience life". And he is younger than Grace... Is Joshua more valuable than his older sister? Would that have been different 4 weeks ago when, at 16 weeks gestation, he would have been much less likely to survive outside of the womb? Was he less valuable then, but has suddenly stepped up a notch now that he could survive in an ICU incubator? (It was this argument about the potential for life that raged in the House of Commons a while back. Should the abortion limit be reduced to allow for advances in medical science? Should we ratchet it down with every medical innovation?) 

But here's the thing: Does the value of human life change with medical science? If that is the case, then it is not something intrinsic to ourselves. It must be linked to our ability or potential to do things once medicine has fixed us up to do them (whether that be "do" economic work, or "do" life experience or whatever). To assert that abortion limits should change based upon the ability of the (medically supported) foetus to survive outside of the womb, then we are asserting value based on potential. 

If my value as a human can't be linked to what I do, then that rules out my ability or potential as the measure (whatever measure I might choose).   The basis for human equality must be something to do with what I am... Something intrinsic to my humanity, and therefore common to all.  Otherwise, we can cannot claim universal equality. 

But what could that inate quality of our humanity be?