By David Hegg
Every day, as I drive down the hill from home to the busy avenue that takes me to my study at Grace Baptist Church, I come to a four-way stop. You know, an intersection where all four lanes converge at right angles due to the presence of four STOP signs. When I leave for work early in the morning, I’m usually the only one at that corner and have no trouble turning and going on my way. But, if I reach the corner when most of my neighbors are starting their commute, it can be much different. Of course, if we all play by the rules, things will go smoothly. We’ll wait our turn and travel on without anger or incident.
But, if you’re like me, you’ve become accustomed to the reality that more and more motorists, who either don’t know the rules or have come to believe they are exempt from following them, have no problem cheating. They’ve decided that “their truth” allows them to act without regard for the “actual truth” of the four-way stop. They’re playing with a new set of rules they’ve created according to their desires and purposes.
To some, this may seem trivial in a column about ethics, but stay with me. If you’ve been playing with open eyes and an educated mind, you’ve noticed the rapid erosion of what has consistently been recognized as “truth.” The example of the four-way stop is silly but works, in this case, to point out the unintended consequences when some in a society determine to substitute “their truth” for time-honored natural law.
What happens when the rules of the four-way stop no longer apply? Chaos happens, frustrations mount, anger rises, tempers flare, and sometimes, reckless action results in unethical hand signals or dented fenders. All of these are unintended by those who would argue that their apparent reckless actions showed a much better way to handle a four-way stop.
That’s always the case. Those who decide to replace truth with what amounts to personal desire always insist they are doing what will make everything better. Simply put, those who replace or redefine truth realize that they must make their untruths seem better for everyone. And if the public isn’t convinced, they manipulate the legislative and legal systems to make adherence to the “new truth” mandatory.
Take, for example, the “new truth” that biological sex is fluid, flexible, and has no relation to the “being” of the person. This “new truth” is grounded in the assumption that sex is not binary. That is, there is no such thing as male and female. Instead, a person can be either, both, or fluctuate as they feel best. This has created the well-known battle over pronouns, which would be part of every standup routine were it not for the fact that people are losing their jobs and reputations for “misgendering” others by using what are the proper pronouns.
In the past, when I have opined in this column about the inflexibility of biological sex, my critics have chalked it up to my biblical worldview, which they often deride as unscientific. So, I call to the stand perhaps the world’s greatest atheist, the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins.
In a recent post on X, Dawkins responded to a 2019 article in Scientific American in which the author argued that sex, like gender, is actually a “spectrum.” He gave examples of chromosomal abnormalities, intersex disorders, and the apparent similarities between the brains of trans individuals and those of the opposite sex. His conclusion was “[T]he science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real. … Trans humans represent the complexity and diversity that are fundamental features of life, evolution, and nature itself. That is a fact.”
Dawkins responded on X: “This ridiculous article (shame on the once-great Scientific American) ignorantly misunderstands the nature of the sex binary … Sex is not defined by chromosomes, nor by anatomy, nor by psychology or sociology, nor by personal inclination, nor by ‘assignment at birth,’ but by gamete size. It happens to be embryologically DETERMINED by chromosomes in mammals … But it is universally DEFINED by the binary distinction between sperms and eggs. You may argue about ‘gender’ if you wish (biologists have better things to do) but sex is a true binary, one of rather few in biology.”
Dawkins is clear. There are males and females because there are sperm and eggs. Beyond stating the obvious, Dawkins does so from a platform of natural law rather than any ideology, religion, or political bias. And what does that say? Simply this. Absolute truth exists and is essential to the organization and maintenance of humanity. This is true when it comes to being male and female, and all the way down to the ethics governing four-way stops.
Wake up, America. Open your eyes and realize the unintended consequences of those who boldly and surreptitiously erode natural law and other essential truths for their purposes. If you want to champion a narrative, choose natural law that binds the universe together and has governed humanity throughout history.
And then, hope you don’t encounter the “my truth is real and you must agree” people when you pull up to that four-way stop.
Local resident David Hegg is senior pastor of Grace Baptist Church. “Ethically Speaking” appears Sundays.
The post David Hegg | Truth or Consequences? appeared first on Santa Clarita Valley Signal.
David Hegg | Truth or Consequences?
3
0
03.03.2024
By David Hegg
Every day, as I drive down the hill from home to the busy avenue that takes me to my study at Grace Baptist Church, I come to a four-way stop. You know, an intersection where all four lanes converge at right angles due to the presence of four STOP signs. When I leave for work early in the morning, I’m usually the only one at that corner and have no trouble turning and going on my way. But, if I reach the corner when most of my neighbors are starting their commute, it can be much different. Of course, if we all play by the rules, things will go smoothly. We’ll wait our turn and travel on without anger or incident.
But, if you’re like me, you’ve become accustomed to the reality that more and more motorists, who either don’t know the rules or have come to believe they are exempt from following them, have no problem cheating. They’ve decided that “their truth” allows them to act without regard for the “actual truth” of the four-way stop. They’re playing with a new set of rules they’ve created according to their desires and purposes.
To some, this may seem trivial in a column about ethics, but stay with me. If you’ve been playing with open eyes and an educated mind, you’ve noticed the rapid erosion of what has consistently been recognized as “truth.” The example of the four-way stop is silly but works, in........
© Santa Clarita Valley Signal
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
