Is Astrology A Science?

            Astrology is the study of celestial bodies' purported influence on human behavior and worldly events. Astrology has captured the minds of so many millennials that they read their horoscope every day.¹ “According to a new survey by the National Science Foundation, nearly half of all Americans say that astrology is either "very scientific" or "sort of scientific." By contrast, 92 percent of the Chinese public think horoscopes are a bunch of baloney,” reports an article in the UPI.²     

   

            In an effort to validate astrology, its staunchest believers term astrology as a science. In fact, an Indian High Court pronounced astrology as a science, “India's Bombay High Court has ruled that astrology (which took a recent and very public drubbing after an astronomer pointed out that astrological signs have changed over millennia) is not merely a harmless diversion but instead a science, presumably on par with biology, astronomy and physics.”³

            Is astrology a scientific discipline?

            NASA emphasizes that astrology is not science and that it should not be confused with the scientific discipline of astronomy, “Astronomy is the scientific study of everything in outer space. Astronomers and other scientists know that stars many light years* away have no effect on the ordinary activities of humans on Earth.

            Astrology is something else. It's not science. No one has shown that astrology can be used to predict the future or describe what people are like based only on their birth date.”⁴

            An article in The Wire authored by Dr. S.K Arun Murthi, Assistant Professor, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, offers a scientific rebuttal to the notion that astrology is science:⁵

If astrology is about how planetary positions influence humans, then what exactly does the ‘strength’ of a planet mean as far as humans are concerned? This is not made clear. Meanings in such cases have to be made clear in empirical terms – by deriving meaning from observational correlations.

For example, there is a certain astrological concept called shukra asta, a period of around two months or more during certain parts of the year. According to astrological traditions, no auspicious ceremonies are to be performed during this period.

An internet search revealed that, according to astrological texts, planets come very close to the Sun at certain times of the year. As a result they lose their brightness, or lustre, with respect to the Sun. This is symbolic of a planet losing its strength, resulting in shukra asta (Sanskrit for ‘combustion of a planet’). The implication for astrology is that shukra asta robs the beneficial effects of the planet.

From this, we can infer that a planet’s strength stands for the intensity or brightness of its light, and such strengths or brightness symbolises certain good and bad effects for human lives. However, this explanation is puzzling because no planet has a light of its own. It only reflects the light of a star. Thus, to speak of the brightness of a planet being blunted because of its proximity to the Sun is empirically meaningless.

There are many people who have been exposed to school-level science and who attempt to provide a rational defence of astrology. Their superficial argument of how planets influence human beings, stemming from an evident lack of understanding, goes typically like this: Planets (in astrology, this includes the Sun and the Moon) influence Earth. Therefore, they influence water bodies that, in turn, influence the lives of living beings. This is essentially an appeal to Isaac Newton’s and Albert Einstein’s laws of gravity.

But this is demonstrably naïve. Of course, the gravity due to one object influences every other object – but the assumption is that these objects ought to be quite heavy for their effects to be perceptible. Second: the attractive force between two massive bodies is a physical force. So the question arises: how can the gravitational force exerted by a planet be able to affect out love lives, matrimonial prospects, business affairs, etc. – in other words, the typical issues that astrologers deal with? Can astrologers or astrological texts establish a literal causal relationship?

The flyer for the workshop proposed in the IISc campus (which stands now cancelled) described astrology as “a scientific tool for individual progress”. Individual progress is a matter of human activities (such as those listed in the previous para) and aspirations. Other animals that we inhabit our Earth with do not have to bother with these things and so astrology does not matter to them. Then again, this is precisely the point: how can there be natural influences on our socially constructed practices and behaviours, the evaluation of which is also socially constructed?

For example, to be successful at something is to achieve a specific set of outcomes that our society has evolved. So planets guided by natural laws can’t have any say in whether a person will achieve those outcomes. In fact, any such connection in this context will either be completely alien to us or, of course, simply meaningless. The astrological texts that do claim to make this connection will have resorted to metaphors. There is, as a result, a complete lack of meaning and evidence.

Such analytical demand for meaning and evidence is usually met by appealing to something unquestionable, such as a tradition. However, the excuse of a tradition is easily invoked as a shield whenever beliefs like shukra asta are threatened by rational sensibilities. If a tradition is taken as ground for belief – a ground where neither reason nor empirical thinking operate – then tradition becomes connected to ignorance, such as is the root of all superstitions some people adhere to in the name of tradition. It is time that a society guided by such baseless traditions works to right itself, and that TV channels stop airing nonsensical programs on astrology.

            So these are very reasonable objections (from non-Christian sources) against astrology being a scientific discipline.

            Finally, let us consider the objection of another non-Christian source, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, who is one of Hinduism’s most popular proponents, debunking astrology. When questioned whether we are defined by the stars or self, Sadhguru alludes to the notion that astrology does not impact our lives:⁶

Questioner: I have studied Vedic astrology and I am wondering, does astrology work? Are we defined by the stars, or by intention and mind, or by the self?

Sadhguru: You need to understand, India is not just about the Vedas or Vedic culture. Sage Vyasa, the person who compiled the four Vedas – his father was an Aryan and his mother was a Dravidian. In spite of that, in South India, they don’t ascribe to the Vedas.

Dravidian culture never went for astrology by looking at the stars, they made predictions by looking at people. Here, we have what is called Nadi Joshyam. But the Aryan culture came with astrology. Astrology is an interpretation of astronomy. If you try to interpret something, invariably you miss a lot of points. So it is a mis-interpretation because you missed a lot of things.

Anyway, the choice is this: either you try to live your life by predictions or you have the capability to make a plan and fulfill the plan. All those minds which are incapable of a plan will look for a prediction. The stars that you see in the sky are far away, so very far away that they have nothing to do with you. Just one star has a big influence upon you – the Sun. And its satellite, the Moon, also has some influence upon you. This planet has an even greater influence upon you. But above all, what is within you has the biggest influence upon you. All those who are incapable of committing themselves to a plan and fulfilling it, want a prediction. The advantage with predictions is, you can keep changing them. But if a plan has to work, you have to pay enormous attention in creating one. Then you have to stick to it.

I only hope all predictions go wrong for you. Then it means your life is happening wonderfully. Otherwise you are going by the script that was written by some fool. In India, for twenty-five rupees, or fifty cents, they will write your life. Let your life not be so bad. It does not matter what the hell happens, let something other than the prediction happen to you. Is that okay? May your predictions and dreams not come true. Because a prediction is just a compromised dream (Emphasis Mine).

            To conclude, astrology is not a science, and significantly, it does not impact our lives. Therefore, Christians should not practice/consult astrology (Deuteronomy 18:10-14; Acts 4:12, 16:16-18; Hebrews 12:2).

Endnotes:

¹https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-millennials-are-ditching-religion-for-witchcraft-and-astrology-2017-10-20

²https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/02/11/Majority-of-young-adults-think-astrology-is-a-science/5201392135954/

³https://www.livescience.com/12856-astrology-science-indian-court-ruling.html

⁴https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/starfinder2/en/

⁵https://thewire.in/religion/science-says-astrology-lacks-meaning-evidence

⁶ https://isha.sadhguru.org/in/en/wisdom/article/does-astrology-work

Websites last accessed on 30^th April 2019.

Why Islam Persecutes Christians?

            Christians are the most persecuted people on planet earth. Open Doors lists 33 countries where Christians are widely persecuted by Islam.¹ Most of these countries boast a Muslim majority. However, Christians are being persecuted even in a few countries where Islam is not a majority. This is an interesting dynamic.

            In the wake of the recent Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka, a proper understanding of the motive behind the Islamic persecution of Christians is necessary.

            The Quran seems to motivate terrorism against Christians. I mentioned a few verses from the Quran in my earlier blog entitled Islamic Terror & A Peaceful Response:²

Quran 2: 191: “And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.”

Quran 3: 85: “And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.”

Quran 5:33: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment…”

Quran 8: 12: “…I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.”

Quran 9:5: “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush…”

Quran 47:4: “So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.” 

         

            There are more verses from the Quran that seems to motivate the persecution of Christians. Christian apologist David Wood mentions these verses in his YouTube video:³

Quran 9:29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Quran 9:123: O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.

Quran 48: 29: Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating [in prayer], seeking bounty from Allah and [His] pleasure. Their mark is on their faces from the trace of prostration. That is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is as a plant which produces its offshoots and strengthens them so they grow firm and stand upon their stalks, delighting the sowers - so that Allah may enrage by them the disbelievers. Allah has promised those who believe and do righteous deeds among them forgiveness and a great reward.

Quran 8:60: And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.

Quran 9:111: Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.

            Some of our Muslim friends would refuse to believe that the Quran promotes terrorism. They insist that Islam is a peace-loving religion and that these verses are misinterpreted.

            Christian apologist David Wood has a very interesting thought. He correlates the life of Prophet Muhammad to the notion that Islam is a peace-loving religion, “…more than thirteen centuries ago, the relatively peaceful Muhammad fled Mecca because of intense persecution. As he fled the city, he left the path of peace farther and farther behind him. He eventually returned at the head of an army, and few were brave enough to oppose him. Islamic law was suddenly supreme, with a host of bloody tales to warn its enemies. A similar phenomenon occurs in the world today. When Muslims are in the minority (as they are in America) the message is always "Let us live in peace with one another, for Islam is a religion of tolerance and understanding." Then, once Islam has spread throughout the country, the message suddenly changes to "Anyone who stands against the Prophet is worthy of death!"”⁴

            In his article Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Christian apologist Sam Shamoun claims that Islam is not a peace loving religion. In fact, Shamoun demonstrates the fact that the Quran teaches Muslims to seek peace if they are outnumbered. On the contrary, and interestingly, if Muslims are in power (and in the majority), the Quran teaches them to not seek peace.⁵

            Shamoun lists three stages in the Muhammadan model of dealing with enemies:⁶

            Stage 1 – Preach tolerance when outnumbered by unbelievers/No retaliation stage.

            Stage 2 – Permit Defensive Fighting when there are enough Muslims and weapons to successfully carry it out.

            Stage 3 – After amassing a large number of soldiers and resources permission is given to carry out Offensive Warfare in order to kill the pagans and humble the Christians and Jews.

            To further substantiate the notion that Islam is not a peace loving religion, David Wood’s enlightening response to the question Is Islam a peace loving religion? is a must-read:

            David Wood writes, “If someone were to ask me, "David, do you believe that Islam is a religion of peace?" my answer would not be "Yes" or "No." Rather, my response would be, "First tell me what you mean when you say ‘Islam,’ for it is a term that is used in different ways." If by "Islam" we mean the religion that is practiced by more than a billion people around the world, I could reasonably answer with a qualified "Yes," because it is a religion of peace for many people (though not for all). But if by "Islam" we mean the religion taught by Muhammad, I would have to respond with a resounding "No."”⁷

            David Wood asserts that the peace-loving group and the terror-loving group can coexist under the unifying worldview of Islam. He writes, “One Muslim beheads an innocent woman to protest the war in Iraq, while another Muslim curses him for slaying the innocent. One group of Muslims flies an aircraft into a building, while another group condemns the attack. One Muslim detonates a bomb on a bus filled with passengers, while another Muslim says on the evening news, "Islam is a religion of peace." Each side quotes the Qur’an to support its actions. However, it may be even more important to note that each of them is following the example set by Muhammad.”⁸

            How then do we reconcile with our friends who ardently claim that Islam is a peace loving religion?

            David Wood cites the reason behind the claim of our benevolent Muslim friends that Islam is a peace loving religion. He writes, “I’m very happy that most Muslims are willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Yet we have to be honest here. Benevolent Muslims aren’t peaceful because they are following the example set by Muhammad. They are peaceful because they’ve chosen to do what’s right, and because they are willing to live far better lives than Muhammad himself lived. In fact, many Muslims are such kind, peaceful, and gentle people that they seem to be following the example set by another great religious leader—one who died on the cross for the sins of the world and rose from the dead to prove his message. This man gave his listeners a sober warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:15). And, may I add, we should also watch out for false religions, which come to us crying "Peace! Peace!" when they are built on a foundation of murder and bloodshed.”⁹

            To conclude, Islam persecutes Christians because the Quran validates the persecution and Prophet Muhammad’s life reflects the Quranic validation of persecuting Christians. Furthermore, there is a reasonably good case to believe that Islam is not a peace loving religion. Having said this, we should mention the presence of many Muslims who believe in living peaceably with their neighbor and let’s pray that these Muslims would, slowly yet surely, instill peace into Islam.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/world-watch-list/

²https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2017/06/islamic-terror-peaceful-response.html

³https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt8Z_XMcluw&t=362s&fbclid=IwAR37vizfZXQwMby6zoVZdBS0WUF2yQ2N1CDH16vsh_fwIZv-011wrjnH7qg

⁴https://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/two_faces.htm

⁵https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/na_debate.htm

⁶Ibid.

⁷https://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/two_faces.htm

⁸Ibid.

⁹Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 25^th April 2019.

To Build Or Feed? (Why God Allows A Quick Rebuilding Of Notre Dame Than Alleviating Poverty?)

           We were not only shocked to see the iconic Notre Dame Cathedral engulfed in flames, but we were also shocked to see the speed at which donors pledged money to rebuild this cathedral. “Within hours of the fire that destroyed much of the cathedral on Monday, donors pledged more than $1 billion to restore the Parisian icon to its former glory,” reports The Washington Post.¹

            The New York Times relays the just anger of those who recognize the evil disparity in rebuilding iconic structures over feeding the millions who remain in utter poverty, “But the spectacle of billionaires trying to one-up one another quickly intensified resentments over inequality that have flared during the Yellow Vest movement, just as President Emmanuel Macron was looking to transform the calamity into a new era of national unity…

            “Can you imagine, 100 million, 200 million in one click!” said Philippe Martinez, the head of the militant CGT labor union. “It really shows the inequalities in this country.”

            “If they’re able to give dozens of millions to rebuild Notre Dame,” he added, “they should stop telling us that there is no money to pay for social inequalities.”

            Ollivier Pourriol, a French philosopher and novelist, summed up the sentiment more drolly.

            “Victor Hugo thanks all the generous donors ready to save Notre Dame and proposes that they do the same thing with Les Misérables,” he wrote on Twitter, referring to another one of Hugo’s famous novels, about the lives of the poor.”²

            Yes, this anger is indeed appropriate.

            What’s the big need to rebuild an iconic structure when more than a million lives are in danger of dying because of the acute poverty they are in?  

            Well, this is precisely the world that we live in. The optics of rebuilding an iconic structure seems more significant than the optics of rehabilitation of the millions who lack the basic necessities of life.

            Regrettably, we even err in the optics!

            The frenzied response of the donors to the rebuilding of Notre Dame has ignited anger towards God in the minds of some who seek the truth amidst the multitude of hypocrisies in this world. The question they ask is this, ‘Why does God allow a quick rebuilding of an iconic structure rather than alleviating poverty?’

            An answer that does not multiply causes beyond necessity does justice to Occam’s razor. Let’s then strive for such an answer.

            First, be cognizant of the hypocrisy of importing God into this theme. When we zealously reject God while we kill our unborn babies (cf. Pro-Choice movement), why do we itch to import God in the rebuilding of Notre Dame?

            Let this remain a rhetorical question.  

            Second, everyone in whose mind this question resides knows we are not living in a theocratic society. We are neither ruled by God directly nor by priests claiming a divine commission. Given this reality, why do we even strive to import God into the decision-making process of a man? Or are we alluding that these billionaires are absolutely devout and godly that they look to the Triune God for every business decision?

            Let this also remain a rhetorical question.

            Third, what is God’s role in such situations as rebuilding Notre Dame? God has created us as free creatures. We are free to do this or that.

            God did not coerce the billionaires to donate a portion of their wealth towards rebuilding Notre Dame. Of this, we can be sure.  

            In fact, I posit godlessness to be the driving force that motivated these billionaires to pledge their millions.

            In our dispensation, we are cognizant of God’s mind with respect to such predicaments. If a godly man is presented an option to either feed the poor or build an extravagant structure (rather unnecessary) that would only serve as a good optics for that city or society, the godly man would inevitably choose to feed the poor.

            The Bible remarkably associates God’s final judgment to our care for the needy and the poor in our society:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25: 31-46, NIV)

            This passage, significantly, reveals that it’s not that those who feed the poor and care for the needy are made righteous in God’s presence. But it is the righteous (those who are already righteous by virtue of their belief and discipleship in Christ) that genuinely feed the poor and care for the needy.

            Therefore, every righteous believer of the Triune God would zealously strive to alleviate the suffering of God’s people than building extravagant structures that gratify the carnal passions of a secular man.

            So to conclude, if God is the active ruler of every wealthy person, poverty would have been extinct years ago. However, since God does not violate the freewill HE has offered to man, HE allows the man to decide on every matter. So man has the freedom to decide on every matter either by being obedient to God or by casting God out of his decision making purview.

            The rebuilding of Notre Dame is a recent instance of man’s decision that reveals the extent of his allegiance to the Triune God. 

Endnotes:

¹https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/billionaires-raced-to-pledge-money-to-rebuild-notre-dame-then-came-the-backlash/2019/04/18/7133f9a2-617c-11e9-bf24-db4b9fb62aa2_story.html?fbclid=IwAR3xi__SeXPM57L2_Ft8X1NSlghAL3mAsa2tQyeP5wT_cU_6VF6yFlRhOds&utm_term=.36b8775f8d5d

²https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/world/europe/yellow-vest-notre-dame-fire-donations.html

Websites last accessed on 20^th April 2019.

Consent Condoms & Consensual Sex

            The New York Post recently reported the latest development in the realm of sexual ethics – the “consent condom.” The article states, “This new “consent condom” is a hands-on experience.

            Tulipán, an Argentinian sex toy company, has created a new rubber that requires four hands to open — ensuring that both parties are equally involved in the decision to have sex.

            How it works: All four corners of the packaging must be pressed at the same time to open it.

            These origami-style contraceptive containers read, “If it’s not a yes, it’s a no.”

            Tulipán won’t officially launch the new prophylactic until later this year. Until then, the company is handing them out at bars in Buenos Aires for couples to test — and hyping them on social media, of course.”¹

            The consent condom is obviously predicated on ‘consent’ – the current sexual ethic that governs the sexual behavior of the impetuous and the naïve.

            According to Christian apologist, Sean McDowell (in his article entitled THE NEW “CONSENT CONDOM” IS A SIGN OF THE TIMES) this latest development reveals the failure of the sexual revolution:²

Creating a "Consent Condom" is certainly a savvy marketing move that will draw attention to their brand and may contribute to the conversation about reducing sexual assault (although it is questionable how much it will really help).

The point of this blog is not about the company and its marketing efforts, but to ask a deeper question: What does the creation of a “Consent Condom” reveal about the current sexual ethic?

Consent Condoms and Modern Sex

The first point is obvious: The new sexual ethic is consent. As long as it is consensual, any sexual behavior between adults is permissible. Former behavior that was considered shameful, such as pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, homosexual behavior, and so on, is now considered permissible if there is consent.

Failure of the Sexual Revolution

The second point regarding the “Consent Condom” is that it reveals the failure of the sexual revolution. That’s right. It shows that the promises of the sexual revolution are vacuous.

We were promised free love. We were promised freedom from sexual repression. We were promised increased mental and sexual health for individuals and society.

According to Italian philosopher Augusto Del Noce, proponents of the sexual revolution promised that “sexual liberation” would lead to the transformation of human nature:

 “Through absolute, unlimited sexual freedom, man will free himself of neurosis and become fully capable of work and initiative. His psychological structure will be changed, and he will also be freed from military and aggressive tendencies, and from sadist fantasies.”

Transformed Human Nature

Interestingly, Del Noce notes that proponents of the sexual revolution promised it would lead to people being less aggressive and freed from sexual fantasies. It's hard to imagine how anyone could argue this is the case.

Honestly, are we seeing a decrease in sexual aggressiveness? Are we seeing an increase in sexual self-control?

Quite obviously the opposite is the case. Rather than seeing less aggression, we are having a national conversation about the reality of sexual aggression (hence the need for the new condom). Rather than seeing more mental self-control, we are experiencing the pornification of society.

The fact that someone invented a “Consent Condom” shows how far we have come. It was designed to start the conversation about sexual assault, and it might do so. But in doing so, it also reveals something much deeper about the modern sexual ethic and the failure of the sexual revolution.

            Furthermore, let us revisit the theme of consensus being the justifying factor for sex outside the precincts of monogamous heterosexual marriage. I had debunked consensual sex with respect to homosexuality from the perspective of natural law in an earlier blog of mine entitled, Does Consensual and Harmless Sexual Intercourse Legitimize Homosexuality? That reasoning is not limited to homosexuality but can be used against any form of consensual sex. Here’s an excerpt:³

Much acclaimed theologian of the Catholic church, Thomas Aquinas, bases his doctrine on natural law. Natural law “does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe. According to natural law moral theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world… St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, "natural law").”²

So now I prefer to approach the theme of gay sex being consensual and harmless from the perspective of natural law…

(1)  The nature or essence of every biological organ, according to natural law theory, involves its purposes (or final causes). So the purpose of the eyeball is to make us see. Similarly, sexual intercourse also has its own purpose, which is to procreate (bear children).

But I have heard arguments that the final cause or the purpose of sexual intercourse is the pleasure. This is wrong! Pleasure cannot be a purpose for sexual intercourse.

Think about eating. You may argue that eating is pleasurable, but the biological point of eating is not to give pleasure, but to offer the body the nutrients it needs to be healthy and survive. The pleasure of eating is nature’s way of getting us to eat.

As Professor Edward Feser states, “So, the final cause of sex is procreation, and the final cause of sexual pleasure is to get us to indulge in sex, so that we’ll thereby procreate…Notice also that nature makes it very difficult to indulge in sex without procreation. There is no prophylactic sheathe issued with a penis at birth, and no diaphragm issued with a vagina. It takes some effort to come up with these devices, and even then, in the form in which they existed for most of human history they were not terribly effective.”3

(2) Natural law theory states that an action or a behavior, even if it does not harm anyone else, need not be acceptable or need not be the normal way of living life.

The life of an alcoholic is not acceptable, even if he/she does not harm anyone. Similarly, a person – inclined to molest children (even if he has not molested children) – who masturbates to pictures of naked children is living a sick life. Such a person is not living the way a normal human ought to live.

Therefore, gay sex cannot be justified even if it were harmless.

(3) In the same manner, consensus cannot be a legitimate reason for an action/behavior. Gay people cannot argue that consensual sex is always righteous.

Consensual sex cannot be righteous always. A pedophile cannot argue that he had sex with a child because the child consented. A parent cannot claim that he/she had sex with his/her child (minor or major) because the child agreed to have sex with the parent. In a marriage, consensus between the husband and the wife to have sex with others outside the marriage does not justify their affairs.

I will summarize now:

A. According to natural law theory, the main purpose of sex is procreation through the sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Thus gay sex cannot be natural, but it is an abnormal activity/behavior.

B. For reasons mentioned in (2) and (3), consensual and harmless sex cannot justify gay sex.

But remember that this question was popularized by the renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, and his fellow New Atheists. If you are an atheist, you can do just about anything and everything because you are your own authority (cf. relative morality and subjective truth claims). The problem with your position is that if you justify homosexuality, you should also, by the very same logic, endorse/accept bestiality, adultery, polyamory, incest, pedophilia etc.

I have only one request to you if you are an atheist; please do not yield to your subjective desires, for they can absolutely mislead you. Ask God in utter sincerity, by assuming HIS presence, to reveal HIMSELF to you, and HE will indeed do so.

If you are a Christian and if you are still unable to understand that a consensual and a harmless sex cannot justify homosexuality, then please communicate with your pastor or your church elder. Else please contact me. (My contact information is available on this website.)

Therefore, the notion that gay sex is acceptable if it is consensual and harmless is invalid and a false assertion.

            To conclude, consensual sex cannot justify any form of sex outside a monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Endnotes:

¹https://nypost.com/2019/04/04/this-consent-condom-takes-four-hands-to-open/

²https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/the-new-consent-condom-is-a-sign-of-the-times

³https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2018/06/does-consensual-and-harmless-sexual.html

Websites last accessed on 15^th April 2019.