Reflection of our arguments is necessary, especially if they are published

For the past two Wednesdays, Scott Stinson wrote coupled columns titled “Secular self-reflection is necessary” in which he replied to an editorial written by the Alligator’s editorial board titled “Religious self-reflection is necessary.” Stinson remarks that Mr. Editorial’s article bases its argument on multiple empty assumptions. While Stinson is right to critique Mr. Editorial’s assumptions, Stinson’s arguments need critique as well.

The first assumption Stinson addresses that Mr. Editorial does inherently make is regarding the existence of God or any gods. Stinson shows why Mr. Editorial’s assumption “God(s) do not exist” is wrong by arguing fallaciously. Stinson cites Mr. Editorial’s argument “that we have created 3,000+ gods throughout history,” not as proof against the existence of God or gods, but as proof for them. Stinson continues to cite this quantitative data as a proper argument for the existence of gods by asking rather foolish and fallacious rhetorical questions: “Why would an overwhelming majority of human beings throughout time and in most cultures form these perceptions if they were not true? Would we have hunger if food did not exist, or sexual desire if sex did not exist?” Before I begin my critique, Mr. Stinson, please take a philosophy of religion course. You must accept and learn there are no proofs for the existence of or against God or gods.

Anyway, Stinson’s argument rests in the ad populum fallacy — the bandwagon fallacy that claims a proposition is true simply because many people believe it to be so. Let me remind you that bloodletting — the surgical removal of a patient’s blood — was the panacea until the 1800s, the Ptolemaic system of the universe in which Earth is the center of the universe was our understanding of astronomy and even recently Americans used to believe smoking was safe and healthy. As we can see, many things we believed were correct weren’t so. Also, Mr. Stinson, sexual desire is not present in some people, whom I believe would identify as asexual, even though sex does exist.

Stinson explains the reasons behind his views in the second part of his column. He notes that Mr. Editorial’s innate sense of equality must come from somewhere: a somewhere he claims to be from “the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the Christian tradition.”

Yes, I agree that if the “rapid growth of Christianity and its cultural influence” had not occurred, the West may be radically different, and it is important to note this. However, we would need only to look before Christianity to see that other cultures and people were sharing similar, if not the same, messages. Confucius, Laozi and Siddhartha Gautama all preached messages of egalitarianism, showing equality doesn’t originate solely from Christianity.

The larger issue with referencing Christianity for egalitarianism is when Stinson writes, “I believe God created all of mankind in His image.” For a religion so egalitarian, many times the diction seems a bit masculine, doesn’t it? Here, Stinson is referencing Genesis 1:27: “God created mankind in His own image.” This gets problematic as God — who is typically seen as male — is creating mankind, not humankind, in His image. It’s a bit male-centric, and the Old Testament is known for oppressive messages. For example, there’s the ubiquitously cited message against homosexuality in Leviticus 20:13: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death.”

I understand citing the Old Testament, especially Leviticus, is improper because in the New Testament, Paul says Christians are free from the cursed book of the law and Christ redeemed humankind from the law by becoming a curse for humankind. However, it is important to note that the Old Testament is the foundation of Christianity, and the New Testament isn’t so perfectly egalitarian either. Corinthians 11 should be enough to prove my point. There’s Corinthians 11:3: “The head of every man is Christ, and the head of a woman is man,” and Corinthians 11:7: “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.”

I am not stating that because of these minor instances the Bible is evil. That would be foolish, as the rest of the Bible shares moral messages I align myself with and live my life by. I also want it to be known I am not writing to attack Mr. Stinson for his beliefs.

I’m writing this because, as both Mr. Editorial and Mr. Stinson have noted, I think a bit of reflection is due: not of the religious self, not of the secular self, but of our own reasons for believing what we believe. If you, Mr. Stinson, believe Christianity to be an egalitarian way of life, then you cannot cherry-pick what you like and disregard what you don’t like. If we as Americans wish to claim this country as the best there is, we must acknowledge our foolish faults of the past — Japanese internment camps, slavery, segregation — and move forward from them. Change is possible, and we shouldn’t be judged by who we were in the past, but by who we are now. Yet if we cannot acknowledge our own past mistakes, it’s impossible to say we’ve changed.

James Hardison is a UF English sophomore.