Sexuality As Proof Of A Designer

[MindOverMatter2]

Let me quickly note that this argument is not a proof against evolution; but rather it is a proof regardless of whether evolution is true or not.

I have a penis and she has a virgina.
we are men and women for the “purpose” of sex; therefore there is a designer.

Forgive me if this sounds a bit rude.

 

[Call_Me_V]

I have to disagree. Evolution is key to this discussion, so you might not want to pursue it in light of the ban.

V

 

[aperture]

Most species have such compatible sexual faculties. If a species had sexual faculties that were incompatible, they would die out.

 

[coolduude]

Most species have such compatible sexual faculties. If a species had sexual faculties that were incompatible, they would die out.

True. However I think the OP is trying to make the point that there must be a Designer because He made two sexes instead of 200. Sorry if I put words in your mouth MOM2

 

[aperture]

True. However I think the OP is trying to make the point that there must be a Designer because He made two sexes instead of 200. Sorry if I put words in your mouth MOM2

Doesn’t the same principle apply, though? Two sexes is easy enough, but fosters genetic diversity that asexual reproduction can’t bring.

 

[Justin1982]

Doesn’t the same principle apply, though? Two sexes is easy enough, but fosters genetic diversity that asexual reproduction can’t bring.

Good point, just as well, we are the only species with a complex personality and self-realization.

 

[anns82]

I think a more accurate conclusion would that it leads beyond the proof of a Designer, and to the conclusion that the “Designer” is in it’s being, Love. If the act of creating new life was through a hurtful action - then the conclusion could be made that the Designer was a cruel being. Considering the perspective of the Church is that the sex was to be experienced as part of the loving, mutual sacrifice of the marriage covenant, it reveals God’s intentions as being one of love as well.

In the case of rape and similar abuses, I see it as evidence into the sacred nature of the sexual relationship. If it were simply physical, then why would the wounds of sexual abuse reach deeper than material damage?

This general concept is also in contrast to other religions which present sex as being something that is bad or shameful. I would be curious to hear other perspectives.

 

[Call_Me_V]

I think a more accurate conclusion would that it leads beyond the proof of a Designer, and to the conclusion that the “Designer” is in it’s being, Love. If the act of creating new life was through a hurtful action - then the conclusion could be made that the Designer was a cruel being.

Anyone who wanted to defend the existence of a cruel designer could come up with a theodicy in order to explain this, just like defenders of a good God come up with theodicies to explain the bad things that happen. Perhaps they might say that the designer allows us to experience pleasure on this earth so that when he tortures us for all of eternity, we’ll have fond memories to look at, remembering a time when we were happy, making our pain even worse. In any case, anyone defending a cruel creator could come up with a creative theodicy to avoid the problem, just like normal theists come up with theodicies to defend a good God, and so your objection doesn’t hold water.

In the case of rape and similar abuses, I see it as evidence into the sacred nature of the sexual relationship. If it were simply physical, then why would the wounds of sexual abuse reach deeper than material damage?

You don’t think that it has anything to with the trauma of being physically injured, often drugged, often threatened with further violence, and then used against your will by someone that you often previously knew and trusted, among countless other things?

In any case, if what you were saying was true, and the loss of sexual purity was such horrific thing as to cause us actual trauma, you’ve got a lot of happy playboys that your hypothesis does not account for. Seriously, the vast majority of people fornicate, commit adultery, what ever, and don’t feel even a little bit of guilt about the sacred nature that they’ve just lost.

A good friend of mine was raped a few years ago, and even though she would sleep with strangers without hesitation, the experience still badly traumatized her. It obviously had nothing to do with the fact that it was a sexual experience, and everything to do with the fact that it was a sexual experience that was forced on her, by someone she knew, who also drugged her and then proceeded to use her against her will.

Though I don’t have the credentials to back it up, I have often heard that rape is more about control than than sexual issues. The rapist is concerned not just with sex (anyone with a brain can find legal ways to get sex) but with totally controlling and dominating his victim, and that is what is so traumatic for the victim, the loss of control, the feeling that one is being violated without any ability to stop it, the feeling that they’re powerless. It has nothing to do with any violation of some sacred nature (though, obviously, if one had been raised to believe that sex was sacred, then that person might feel even further traumatized by having had a sexual experience outside of marriage, but that’s not a typical thing).

V

 

[Justin1982]

It has nothing to do with any violation of some sacred nature (though, obviously, if one had been raised to believe that sex was sacred, then that person might feel even further traumatized by having had a sexual experience outside of marriage, but that’s not a typical thing).

I don’t think that you have to be raised into those beliefs. I have only recently understood those beliefs and question how much actual love is involved in most sexual action today. I developed quite a deep relationship with my fiancee (at the time) all without sex. If you can love your partner without sex you gain a deeper understanding of that person and whether they are the right one for you. I respected the beliefs of my fiancee and tried it because personally I had tried it the other way with other relationships and it didn’t amount to much. If we only cater to our animal instincts then that’s all we will ever be, you inherently need some sort of discipline in your life to maintain the spirit’s(or if you prefer mind’s) dominance over the body.

 

[Call_Me_V]

I don’t think that you have to be raised into those beliefs. I have only recently understood those beliefs and question how much actual love is involved in most sexual action today. I developed quite a deep relationship with my fiancee (at the time) all without sex. If you can love your partner without sex you gain a deeper understanding of that person and whether they are the right one for you. I respected the beliefs of my fiancee and tried it because personally I had tried it the other way with other relationships and it didn’t amount to much. If we only cater to our animal instincts then that’s all we will ever be, you inherently need some sort of discipline in your life to maintain the spirit’s(or if you prefer mind’s) dominance over the body.

Sorry, I didn’t mean necessarily “raised with” but just “believe in”, in general, regardless of what point in your life you adopt those beliefs. Thanks for correcting me.

Believe it or not, I actually have some respect for Christian sexual ethics… at the least, the hedonistic “sleep with a different girl every night” lifestyle never appealed to me at all, I’m a fairly monogamous guy. But that could just be because it was instilled in me from a young age, I don’t know. In any case, I still think that arguing “trauma caused by rape proves the sacredness of sex” (my words, not his) is a very flawed argument. There are dozens of reasons why rape is so traumatic that don’t involve Christian sexual ethics.

V

 

[anns82]

Anyone who wanted to defend the existence of a cruel designer could come up with a theodicy in order to explain this, … anyone defending a cruel creator could come up with a creative theodicy to avoid the problem, just like normal theists come up with theodicies to defend a good God, and so your objection doesn’t hold water.

True, people are creative and have the ability to rationalize pretty much anything. It does not contradict my view though considering we are talking about a Creator, who, through our act of love, shares the task of creation. It may not be fully convincing to you, but it does not take away the logic. There is a difference between using your imagination to “avoid possible problems” and seeing the connection between human experience and centuries old teaching.

You don’t think that it has anything to with the trauma of being physically injured, often drugged, often threatened with further violence, and then used against your will by someone that you often previously knew and trusted, among countless other things? V

Yes, that does play a role (interesting how violating someone’s free will effects a person), but it is not exactly the same as a person being mugged or being forced to do some other action. There is the notion of being “damaged goods” that a person often works through. It is also unfortunately part of the reason why people sometimes avoid reporting the case even with the realization that it can prevent other such crimes.

In the case of people who do not recognize it as sacred to begin with, that is more a result of developing a callousness to the act. I think everyone would agree that loosing one’s virginity is considered a big deal. People do not always feel bad about something they do wrong, so it would be no surprise that people who regularly fornicate do not feel guilty. That’s kinda how it works. If you eat a bunch of sugary foods all the time, quality meals will be less appreciated. But that doesn’t take away from the nutritional value of the meal. Yes, there were many factors in the trauma of your friend, but that does not discredit the feeling of violation of taking something that is supposed to be a gift.

The rapist is concerned not just with sex (anyone with a brain can find legal ways to get sex) but with totally controlling and dominating his victim
V

I agree, the sexual experience can be perverted into something that it is not meant to be. Considering it’s about giving one self in love, it would make sense that someone with extreme control issues would go after something that should only be enjoyed through the self gift of another. It does not take away from the nature of the act, it uses it’s nature against the victim.

I think it is important to note that by nature, sex and creation go hand and hand. The contraceptive mentality created the myth that sex is just about physical pleasure. “Recreational sex” is man made, it is not how God created it.

 

[anns82]

There are dozens of reasons why rape is so traumatic that don’t involve Christian sexual ethics.

V

True, there are many reasons why people are injured through rape, but it does not discredit the idea that there is something uniquely special about sex that causes rape to be more profoundly painful than other abuses.

 

[Justin1982]

Sorry, I didn’t mean necessarily “raised with” but just “believe in”, in general, regardless of what point in your life you adopt those beliefs. Thanks for correcting me.

Believe it or not, I actually have some respect for Christian sexual ethics… at the least, the hedonistic “sleep with a different girl every night” lifestyle never appealed to me at all, I’m a fairly monogamous guy. But that could just be because it was instilled in me from a young age, I don’t know. In any case, I still think that arguing “trauma caused by rape proves the sacredness of sex” (my words, not his) is a very flawed argument. There are dozens of reasons why rape is so traumatic that don’t involve Christian sexual ethics.

V

I respect your opinion, though just because someone does not fully understand the sacredness of the act does not discredit the fact that it is sacred. It seems to me somewhat of a parallel of how we are all ingrained with a sense of Natural Law regardless of our upbringing.

 

[Call_Me_V]

True, people are creative and have the ability to rationalize pretty much anything. It does not contradict my view though considering we are talking about a Creator, who, through our act of love, shares the task of creation. It may not be fully convincing to you, but it does not take away the logic. There is a difference between using your imagination to “avoid possible problems” and seeing the connection between human experience and centuries old teaching.

I wasn’t trying to contradict your views on a creator, I was trying to point out that your criticisms of a cruel creator were not valid.

Yes, that does play a role (interesting how violating someone’s free will effects a person), but it is not exactly the same as a person being mugged or being forced to do some other action. There is the notion of being “damaged goods” that a person often works through. It is also unfortunately part of the reason why people sometimes avoid reporting the case even with the realization that it can prevent other such crimes.

Yes, she never reported it, and now its too late, and that man is still out there. I still don’t see how someone feeling violated when someone uses them means there is something sacred about sex. Even if it were true that all people thought that their sexuality was sacred, and became horrified at other people’s taking of it without permission, that still wouldn’t lend any strength to the idea that it is, in fact, sacred. People perceive things that aren’t there all of the time.

In the case of people who do not recognize it as sacred to begin with, that is more a result of developing a callousness to the act. I think everyone would agree that loosing one’s virginity is considered a big deal. People do not always feel bad about something they do wrong, so it would be no surprise that people who regularly fornicate do not feel guilty. That’s kinda how it works. If you eat a bunch of sugary foods all the time, quality meals will be less appreciated. But that doesn’t take away from the nutritional value of the meal. Yes, there were many factors in the trauma of your friend, but that does not discredit the feeling of violation of taking something that is supposed to be a gift.

So is the first time you ride a big roller coaster. Firsts are always a big deal. I’m not saying that sex is nothing, or that it’s no big deal, it is obviously one of the most powerful experiences humans have. But that doesn’t mean it’s sacred.

I think it is important to note that by nature, sex and creation go hand and hand. The contraceptive mentality created the myth that sex is just about physical pleasure. “Recreational sex” is man made, it is not how God created it.

If you provide one shred of evidence that God did, in fact, create it that way, I might believe you.

You seem to be saying that everything is consistent with the idea that sex is sacred. That’s not good enough, the evidence is consistent with my claim as well. I think that people feel they have a right to control their own body, and as a result, they are extremely upset and traumatized when someone uses their body without their consent. I also think that if a person believes that sex is sacred, then they will be even further traumatized when forced into a sexual act against their will.

True, there are many reasons why people are injured through rape, but it does not discredit the idea that there is something uniquely special about sex that causes rape to be more profoundly painful than other abuses.

No, it does not discredit the idea, but it refutes your evidence for the idea, which was that the intense trauma from rape implies sex is sacred.

I respect your opinion, though just because someone does not fully understand the sacredness of the act does not discredit the fact that it is sacred.

Yes, but the burden of proof is on someone who claims that it is sacred.

It seems to me somewhat of a parallel of how we are all ingrained with a sense of Natural Law regardless of our upbringing.

A) There are many plausible naturalistic reasons for why we humans would have at least some shared morality.

But in fact,
B) We don’t all have nearly as much shared morality as most people think. There is a lot of moral consensus now, but for most of human history, many people have seen nothing wrong with butchering other tribes, raping the other tribe’s women as spoils of war, etc. This belief that all of our moral values are the same, written into our hearts by God, is thoroughly unevidenced, and I think that there’s good reason to believe we humans do not all share basically the same moral compass.

V

 

[Justin1982]

We don’t all have nearly as much shared morality as most people think. There is a lot of moral consensus now, but for most of human history, many people have seen nothing wrong with butchering other tribes, raping the other tribe’s women as spoils of war, etc. This belief that all of our moral values are the same, written into our hearts by God, is thoroughly unevidenced, and I think that there’s good reason to believe we humans do not all share basically the same moral compass.

I feel as though your perception of butchering of tribes and spoils of war has led you to an understanding that callousness need not apply to society. Within a society(or tribe) if led by the wrong leader can become morally corrupted and without the counter of their culture to remove those immoral persons in power than it will merely perpetuate until those ends occur. (Ex: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, even go back to the Mongols to name a few.) Yes, I understand that even Christian nations become corrupted if led down the road of indifference and relativism (look at America today). The greatest thing about Catholicism (and Christianity as a whole) is the understanding that we are all imperfect beings, though if you turn off your conscience or lose that discipline in your life we do become that pleasure driven animal that we were talking about before.

Side Bar: I find it interesting that a small religion from its inception survived 200 plus years of persecution, was given the light to thrive through eventual acceptance and became the largest and most universal in the world.

 

[anns82]

I wasn’t trying to contradict your views on a creator, I was trying to point out that your criticisms of a cruel creator were not valid.V

You claimed my view as not “valid” because people are able to rationalize their own answers to such questions. Yet, if my thoughts are true, then no matter how many other false answers are presented, that does not make the truth less valid.

People perceive things that aren’t there all of the time.V

…and people do not perceive things that are there… so what’s your point?

So is the first time you ride a big roller coaster. Firsts are always a big deal. V

Really? You think that the first time you go on a big roller coaster is comparable to the first time you have sex? Wow.

I’m not saying that sex is nothing, or that it’s no big deal, it is obviously one of the most powerful experiences humans have. But that doesn’t mean it’s sacred.V

So please, tell me what you think is “sacred?” I contend that the beginning of human life is sacred. Please, correct me.

If you provide one shred of evidence that God did, in fact, create it that way, I might believe you.V

God created nature. The natural way for humans to create new life is through the intimate embrace of sex. Are you saying that sex is not intimate? Are you saying that the true nature of sex is all about control? If that were the case, there would be no such thing as a loving family, and the idea of unconditional love would not exist.

You seem to be saying that everything is consistent with the idea that sex is sacred. That’s not good enough, the evidence is consistent with my claim as well. I think that people feel they have a right to control their own body, and as a result, they are extremely upset and traumatized when someone uses their body without their consent. I also think that if a person believes that sex is sacred, then they will be even further traumatized when forced into a sexual act against their will.V

Yes, I am agreeing that the evidence is consistent with your claim because the idea of control is a valid issue, but it is not the only one. As you say, it is perceived differently when a person who believes that sex is sacred is raped, but whether or not someone perceives something is sacred does not negate it’s value in truth. That is why non Catholics are not permitted to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic church. If sacredness only lied in perception, then it would not matter if the person did not believe because it would not be the Eucharist for that person. It is a matter of acknowledging something beyond the materialistic level. If you are not open to consider that aspect of life, then nothing anyone can say will be “good enough.”

May God bless you. Even if you don’t perceive it.

 

[Justin1982]

Before this gets too heated I just want to thank everybody for maintaining cool heads in a civilized debate thus far.

 

[Call_Me_V]

I feel as though your perception of butchering of tribes and spoils of war has led you to an understanding that callousness need not apply to society. Within a society(or tribe) if led by the wrong leader can become morally corrupted and without the counter of their culture to remove those immoral persons in power than it will merely perpetuate until those ends occur. (Ex: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, even go back to the Mongols to name a few.) Yes, I understand that even Christian nations become corrupted if led down the road of indifference and relativism (look at America today). The greatest thing about Catholicism (and Christianity as a whole) is the understanding that we are all imperfect beings, though if you turn off your conscience or lose that discipline in your life we do become that pleasure driven animal that we were talking about before.

I’m afraid I don’t understand. Are you saying that these were only the actions of a few leaders? That the people just went along with it?

In any case, there is huge disagreement about morality among human beings. You can’t look at the parts that are shared and say “that’s proof we have natural law written on our hearts” and then say to all of the parts where humanity disagree “well, they would agree if they weren’t ignoring natural law”. I think that the odds that humanity would agree on some morals is far more plausible than the idea that everyone would disagree on everything concerning morals, so the fact that humanity agrees on some moral tenets isn’t that significant.

Side Bar: I find it interesting that a small religion from its inception survived 200 plus years of persecution, was given the light to thrive through eventual acceptance and became the largest and most universal in the world.

Plenty of religions have prospered in less than ideal circumstances. Take the cult centered around Sathya Sai Baba in India. I find it almost impossible that someone could actually pull off such a feat in the modern age of skepticism and non-belief, but he has managed to attract millions of followers (and by the way, he has more than 10 times the number of eyewitnesses to his miracles than Jesus does).

You claimed my view as not “valid” because people are able to rationalize their own answers to such questions. Yet, if my thoughts are true, then no matter how many other false answers are presented, that does not make the truth less valid.

You’re correct, the truth is the truth, and false views don’t change that. But what I was saying is that if you accept the logic of “good God” theodicies, and then a defender of a “cruel God” uses the same logic to establish his own theodicies, you have to accept his arguments, because they’re using the same logic. In every theodicy I’ve seen, this amounts to “God has a reason for the things he does”. A good God potentially has a reason for not interfering in rape, according to the theodicy, and a cruel God potentially has a reason for allowing pleasure, according to the theodicy. If you accept the logic of the first, you must accept the logic of the second, because they’re the same logic.

…and people do not perceive things that are there… so what’s your point?

My point was that believing sex is sacred does not make it so. Do you disagree?

Really? You think that the first time you go on a big roller coaster is comparable to the first time you have sex? Wow.

I know plenty of people for whom it was not a huge deal. Anyways, as I went on to say, I’m not saying it’s not a big deal, just that people’s perception that it is a big deal does not make sacred.

So please, tell me what you think is “sacred?” I contend that the beginning of human life is sacred. Please, correct me.

I believe nothing is sacred, at least objectively. Something can be sacred to you, or sacred to me, or sacred to God, whatever. But nothing is just “sacred” in and of itself.

God created nature.

And you know I don’t believe that.

The natural way for humans to create new life is through the intimate embrace of sex. Are you saying that sex is not intimate? Are you saying that the true nature of sex is all about control? If that were the case, there would be no such thing as a loving family, and the idea of unconditional love would not exist.

No, I didn’t say any of those things.

Yes, I am agreeing that the evidence is consistent with your claim because the idea of control is a valid issue, but it is not the only one. As you say, it is perceived differently when a person who believes that sex is sacred is raped, but whether or not someone perceives something is sacred does not negate it’s value in truth. That is why non Catholics are not permitted to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic church. If sacredness only lied in perception, then it would not matter if the person did not believe because it would not be the Eucharist for that person. It is a matter of acknowledging something beyond the materialistic level. If you are not open to consider that aspect of life, then nothing anyone can say will be “good enough.”

Exactly. Your feelings, or mine, about whether or not something is sacred is irrelevant, therefore your first post, which said that the feeling people get after being raped is evidence that sex is sacred, is false, because feelings about an issue have nothing to do with the actual truth of the issue.

V

P.S.

Before this gets too heated I just want to thank everybody for maintaining cool heads in a civilized debate thus far.

We try.

 

[Justin1982]

Plenty of religions have prospered in less than ideal circumstances. Take the cult centered around Sathya Sai Baba in India. I find it almost impossible that someone could actually pull off such a feat in the modern age of skepticism and non-belief, but he has managed to attract millions of followers (and by the way, he has more than 10 times the number of eyewitnesses to his miracles than Jesus does).

Skepticism is a tad bit different than the sword, many early Christians were martyred.

I’m afraid I don’t understand. Are you saying that these were only the actions of a few leaders? That the people just went along with it?

I was merely saying that through indifference and relativism societies are allowed to fall prey to immoral leaders that stake claim in incomplete truths to progress an agenda which may appear righteous on the surface though morally corrupt subsurface. Not to get too off topic but a different view on sex has corrupted our society to a point where a baby is treated like an infection until the parents are ready to have a baby.

 

[Call_Me_V]

Skepticism is a tad bit different than the sword, many early Christians were martyred.

I don’t think it was as intense as most people have been lead to believe. I wrote about why we shouldn’t conclude that any of the twelve chose to go to their death rather than give up Jesus here, if you’d like to debate that topic. I’d like to write more about the exaggerated martyrdom rumors, but I haven’t found the time yet.

I was merely saying that through indifference and relativism societies are allowed to fall prey to immoral leaders that stake claim in incomplete truths to progress an agenda which may appear righteous on the surface though morally corrupt subsurface. Not to get too off topic but a different view on sex has corrupted our society to a point where a baby is treated like an infection until the parents are ready to have a baby.

Ah. Well that is not disputed.

V