Against Nature
I remember hearing on the radio, when I
was about 20, that the argument that "all is nature so
everything that happens is natural (including television and
the Mona Lisa)" was a very adolescent argument. The speaker was
a BBC Radio 4 cultural commentator who looked down with disdain on
the 17 year olds who made this sort of claim. I was irritated with
him because I agreed, and agree, with the 17 year olds.
Take homosexuality for example. I can
understand those who believe in a religion saying it is against the
teaching of this, that, or the other god, prophet, saint or holy
book. (And they can be very against it. I heard one Christian almost
foaming at the mouth and being about very biologically specific about
which orifices are supposed to be used for what purposes). Anyway,
this I can understand, coming from "believers".
But there are some atheists who also
maintain homosexuality is "against nature". Why? Because it
does not promote the continuation of the species. But they reveal
themselves, these particular atheists, to be theists in disguise.
They assign to nature a purpose (the continuation of the species)
and a mind which "wants" the continuation of the species.
Something as big as nature that has a mind, desires and objectives
sounds a lot like a god to me.
So I'm with the 17 year olds.
Everything is nature. If we all turned homosexual and the human race
died out, would "Nature" "care"?
Comments
Post a Comment