[Buddha-l] Fighting creationism

[Richard Hayes]

On Thursday 05 April 2007 17:13, SJZiobro at cs.com wrote:

> >In other words, it is morally incumbent on people to use condoms, despite
> >their use being discouraged by many Christian communities. I quite agree
> > with you on this.
>
> I don't think abstaining from sex is a particularly Christian phenomenon.
> In fact, it isn't.  For instance, some Buddhists do so.

Sorry, but I don't see the connection, unless you are suggesting that 
abstinence is the only responsible way to prevent AIDS. Abstinence didn't 
work out so well for Jesus's mother. Who knows how many other virgins have 
become pregnant or contracted AIDS. So I guess we should perhaps endorse 
abstinence of breathing as the only surefire way to prevent pregnancy, AIDS 
and other annoyances.

> W If you don't like the term "natural evil" then "non-moral evil"
> would just as easily suffice. 

You weren't paying attention, were you? I said that the only kind of evil is 
moral evil. Non-moral evil still strikes me as a category mistake. 

> So, it is a
> non-moral evil when a rock loosens from a cliff face and falls onto a tree,
> sheering off a branch.

That's not evil at all. It's just a rock breaking the limb of a tree.

> I was wondering when you'd bring up the claim of irrelevance.  The one who
> mentioned God in the first place was one of the other denizens of Buddha-L.

I think the original question was whether Buddhists should help in the fight 
to keep dogmas about creation out of science class rooms. That question has 
now been answered to my satisfaction.   

> By the way, what is lost by referring to mediaeval Buddhist
> arguments against Brahmanical theological claims?

Nothing but time. It's just a waste of human energy to argue about things that 
have no practical consequences whatsoever.

> I don't think malice is ever trivial

You misinterpreted what I was saying. I was saying that even if there have 
been instances of people maliciously spreading AIDS, that malice is 
negligible when compared to lust. For every case of AIDS being spread through 
malice, there are probably several million instances of it being spread 
through simple carelessness and ignorance accompanying the pursuit of lust.

> As far I can discern the matter, we actually agree that nobody
> acts for an evil end inasmuch as it is evil.

Yes, and so we also agree that nobody spreads AIDS in an evil manner.

> Well, I'd say all of these issues are of great concern.  They all do great
> harm to the human family.

If only we human beings confined ourselves to doing harm within the human 
family. Sadly, we collectively damage just about every order of being through 
our greed and folly. If God really did create human beings, then I fear that 
is one act I shall never learn to forgive. 

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico