View
all articles
A Last Stab at an Argument from Really Bad Behavior
We've talked about Christianity, evolutionary theory and fundamentalist Islam. Can we blame any of them for the bad behavior committed in the names of these theories? Blake takes one last look.
Are Christianity and Evolutionary Theory off the Hook?
In my last post I argued for two claims. First, I argued that, if Christianity is true, then murder is immoral, in which case we cannot legitimately blame Christianity for Matthew Shepard's murder. Second, I argued that evolutionary theory has no bearing at all on the moral status of murder, and, for that reason, we cannot legitimately blame evolutionary theory for the Columbine massacre.1
But an objection to these claims needs to be answered.
Suppose that we're roommates and I accidentally delete a paper you're working on, forcing you to re-write it. Because you wouldn't have had to re-write the paper if I hadn't deleted it, I'm clearly to blame for your having to re-write it. Or suppose that I park my Nissan on your Honda. As a result, you're late to class the next morning. Because you wouldn't have been late to class if I had not parked my car on top of yours, I'm definitely to blame for your being late. But now consider the following arguments:
Argument 1
Henderson and McKinney only cared that Matthew Shepard was gay because they had fallen under the influence of Christianity. So, if Henderson and McKinney had never been exposed to Christianity, they wouldn't have had a problem with Shepard in the first place, in which case they wouldn't have killed him. So, Christianity is to blame for Shepard's murder.
Argument 2
Evolutionary theory undermines the credibility of the Bible, and thereby undermines the moral view presented in the Bible. So, if Harris and Klebold had never been exposed to evolutionary theory, they would have had a better moral foundation, in which case they never would have murdered their classmates. So, evolutionary theory is to blame for Columbine.
According to Arguments 1 and 2, everything I said in my last three posts is irrelevant. Instead, all that matters is the truth of the following counterfactuals:2
(1) If Henderson and McKinney had not grown up in a culture influenced by Christianity, they would not have murdered Matthew Shepard.
(2) If Harris and Klebold had not been taught evolutionary theory, they would not have murdered their classmates at Columbine.
If (1) and (2) are true (the objection goes), then Christianity and evolutionary theory are to blame for Shepard's murder and Columbine, respectively.
Are the Counterfactuals True?
Arguments 1 and 2 both fail, I think. For starters, Arguments 1 and 2 depend (respectively) on counterfactuals (1) and (2), but it isn't obvious that either of these counterfactuals is true.
The idea behind (1) is that Henderson and McKinney killed Shepard because they hated homosexuality, and — one way or another — they hated homosexuality because it's condemned in the Bible. (The argument would probably be that their hatred was a result of cultural intolerance, which was itself a result of the Bible's influence on our culture.) But when Henderson and McKinney went to trial, it came out that the murder was motivated by drugs and money; Henderson and McKinney weren't particularly concerned about Shepard's homosexuality.3 But in this case, (1) looks false, since it's unlikely that Christianity motivated Henderson and McKinney's interest in drugs and money.4
A similar problem affects (2). Lots of things contributed to Harris and Klebold's decision to kill their classmates at Columbine, and many of these things had nothing to do with evolutionary theory. If any of these things (or any combination of these things) were sufficient to motivate Harris and Klebold's actions, then (2) is false, and Columbine would have happened even if Harris and Klebold had never been exposed to evolutionary theory. This doesn't mean that (2) is false. It does, however, give us reason to doubt (2).
But even if (1) and (2) are true, Arguments 1 and 2 suffer a much bigger problem.
Acceptance, Rejection and the Truth
If I accept a theory, religion or worldview, then I think that theory, religion or worldview is true. If I reject a theory, religion or worldview, then I think that theory, religion or worldview is false. Accepting a view is thinking that it is true, and rejecting a view is thinking that it's false. A reason to reject evolutionary theory, then, is a reason to think that it's false, and a reason to reject Christianity is a reason to think that it's false.
Suppose that Arguments 1 and 2 are good arguments. Do we then have reason to think Christianity and evolutionary theory are false? If not, then even if Christianity and evolutionary theory are to blame for Shepard's murder and Columbine, these facts give us no reason to reject Christianity or evolutionary theory, and the argument from really bad behavior fails.
How Arguments 1 and 2 Fail
The first three posts in this series recognized that the following are both valid arguments:5
Argument 3
If Christianity is true, then Henderson and McKinney were morally justified when they killed Matthew Shepard. Henderson and McKinney were not morally justified when they killed Matthew Shepard. Therefore, Christianity isn't true.
Argument 4
If evolutionary theory is true, then Harris and Klebold were morally justified when they killed their classmates at Columbine. Harris and Klebold were not morally justified when they killed their classmates at Columbine. Therefore, evolutionary theory isn't true.
Because Arguments 3 and 4 are valid, if we have good reason to accept their premises, we have good reason to reject Christianity and evolutionary theory, respectively. The problem is, it looks like Arguments 3 and 4 both start with a false premise.6 But now consider Arguments 1 and 2. Even if their conclusions are true, it's hard to see how they could give us any reason to reject Christianity or evolutionary theory. To see why, consider the following arguments:
Argument 5-A
Christianity is to blame for Matthew Shepard's murder. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
Argument 5-B
Christianity is to blame for Matthew Shepard's murder. Therefore, Jesus Christ was a mere mortal.
Argument 5-C
Christianity is to blame for Matthew Shepard's murder. Therefore, we don't need to be forgiven for our sins.
Argument 6-A
Evolutionary theory is to blame for the Columbine massacre. Therefore, the organisms that populate our planet have not descended from a common ancestor.
Argument 6-B
Evolutionary theory is to blame for the Columbine massacre. Therefore, the complexity and diversity of life on earth are not products of natural selection working on random genetic mutations.
Argument 6-C
Evolutionary theory is to blame for the Columbine massacre. Therefore, the organisms that populate our planet were created by God in the Garden of Eden.
Arguments 5-A through 6-C strike me as terrible. But given the logical relations I discussed here, something along their lines would be the only way to get from Matthew Shepard's murder or the Columbine massacre to the claim that Christianity or evolutionary theory is false. As a result, I'm inclined to think that, even if Christianity and evolutionary theory are to blame for Shepard's murder and Columbine (respectively), on this sense of "to blame," there's no way to get the conclusion that Christianity or evolutionary theory is false. In this case, even if we can legitimately blame Christianity and evolutionary theory for Shepard's murder and Columbine, this fact isn't a good reason to reject Christianity or evolutionary theory.
Of course, there's nothing special about the instances of bad behavior we have been considering. Instead of discussing Matthew Shepard's murder and Columbine, we could have talked about the Salem Witch Trials and the Holocaust, or the Spanish Inquisition and Stalin's tyranny. The same sorts of considerations would apply, and the arguments against Christianity and evolutionary theory based on these instances of really bad behavior would fail.
C O F F E E S H O PI'm inclined to think, then, that the usual arguments from really bad behavior fail. Christianity and evolutionary theory are not to blame for the usual things apologists blame them for, and, even if they were to blame for these things, there is no good argument to the conclusion that Christianity and/or evolutionary theory is false.
- To be quite a bit more specific, I noted that different people mean different things by "evolutionary theory," and on some of these meanings, evolutionary theory has very direct bearing on the moral status of murder. But I also noted that, when scientists and biology textbooks use the term "evolutionary theory," they mean the view that the organisms that populate our planet have descended from a common ancestor, and the morphological diversity and complexity we see among these organisms are results of natural selection working on random mutations. This view (in my opinion) cannot legitimately be blamed for Columbine. So, to be fully specific, when I say that evolutionary theory cannot legitimately be blamed for Columbine, I only mean the theory that scientists and biology textbooks talk about when they say "evolutionary theory." There are plenty of other theories that sometimes go by the name "evolutionary theory" that can legitimately be blamed for Columbine. Back^
- Counterfactuals are interesting little buggers. Back^
- See the article here. Back^
- At least, I'm not familiar with any argument for a positive connection between Christianity and drugs. Back^
- An argument is valid if the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion. Modus tollens is a valid argument form, and Arguments 3 and 4 both take the form of modus tollens. Check here for details. Back^
- I noted this problem in my last post. Back^
Blake Roeber is a graduate student in philosophy at Northern Illinois University, but not for long. After completing his MA in the spring of '08, he'll start a PhD in philosophy at Rutgers.
Back to top
