Sunday, March 06, 2005
What Disgusts You?
Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost has a great three-part series on the concept of "The Wisdom of Disgust." The piece is quite well done and because of the depth of its examination, difficult to summarize. I think Joe's concluding paragraph summarizes best:
I think the whole concept is extremely valuable. In a very real sense, "The Wisdom of Disgust," is a limited rephrasing of the idea of "natural law." That rephrasing and limiting of the concept has occurred precisely so the idea can be subjected to scientific and not just philosophical consideration.
I don't think it is an accident that the Apostle Paul tied this idea and a revulsion towards homosexuality together in the first chapter of Romans:
Those facts notwithstanding, I must confess that I find it astonishing that people keep being surprised when we discover on our own things that Scripture has told us for millennia. Sometimes we are masters at reinventing the wheel. What would we be capable of if we quit arguing about things that were settled centuries ago and starting working on things that were not?
As Kass said, revulsion is not an argument. But in the face of such deep rooted disgust the onus should be on the advocates of change to make their argument for ignoring our gut instinct. Those who reject the concept of the wisdom of repugnance had also better be prepared with solid arguments against incest, bestiality, necrophilia, and the other moral horrors that lie within this Pandora's Box. If all ethical arguments must withstand the rigors of analytical reasoning then we will have to reject almost all of our moral presupposition in order to meet this standard. Are we prepared to do that in order that science may advance unimpeded?Joe, is arguing primarily about biological science, stem cells, cloning, etc. It is only in this last paragraph that he brings up other important and vital, related social issues.
I think the whole concept is extremely valuable. In a very real sense, "The Wisdom of Disgust," is a limited rephrasing of the idea of "natural law." That rephrasing and limiting of the concept has occurred precisely so the idea can be subjected to scientific and not just philosophical consideration.
I don't think it is an accident that the Apostle Paul tied this idea and a revulsion towards homosexuality together in the first chapter of Romans:
Rom 1:20-28 - 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.I realize Joe's entire goal here is to cast this argument in entirely non-Biblical terms, because calling on the Bible in common civil discourse is an invitation to be rejected. Likewise, I am certain that he left homosexuality out of his final list of repulsions because that is such a hot button in comparison to others that it might get his entire argument thrown out without consideration.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper...
Those facts notwithstanding, I must confess that I find it astonishing that people keep being surprised when we discover on our own things that Scripture has told us for millennia. Sometimes we are masters at reinventing the wheel. What would we be capable of if we quit arguing about things that were settled centuries ago and starting working on things that were not?
