Idiots of the Day/Week/Month.
*Sigh* Why do I keep doing this to myself? I only make myself more depressed.
#1. A while ago I read that a recent poll showed that most Americans see atheism as the greatest threat to their ideals. I thought this was interesting. I mean, I may not agree with them, but I could make an argument for why radical Islam or Communism is more of a threat.
Then I read this. I did not read the whole thing, but only had to get to the third page to send shivers down my spine. (Note, you might not want to read it if you've been having societal-induced anxiety attacks recently.)
Key quote: "How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?" Dawkins asks. "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?"
So basically, he's contesting parents' duty and obligation to pass their faith onto their children.
Oh, and another bonus Idiot award to Brian Briggs for linking to that. I was going to e-mail Brian and ask why the heck he chose to link to that, when his links normally are for pages of a geeky interest. But then I realized he probably blocks my e-mails as that "Da Vinci hater".
#2. Andrew Sullivan on Hugh Hewitt's show (transcript).
Oscar. Michael. Foxtrot. Golf. What an idiot. He has no idea what the Catholic faith is about. And what's the Sensus Fidelium that he refers to? I haven't heard of that before, so I looked it up in the Catechism and the only reference I could find was in paragraph 67, when talking about Private Revelation. Can someone give more information on that? Perhaps a context and what it's all about?
And if you're depressed after reading or listening to that drivel, listen to this. It will make your day.
Y'know, what a hypocrite that Andrew Sullivan is. On the one hand he insists that "you as a Catholic are not supposed to simply submit to what some Pope says" and speaks out against Hugh's mindset of "authoritarianism" where "the point of all faith is to submit to authority, and to give up judgment and conscience." He then goes on to insist that Hugh and President Bush support torture and rails against them for that. If I were Hugh, I just would have said, "well, my conscience tells me that it's OK to torture terrorists who are trying to kill me to prevent further terrorist attacks, and I'm not going to mindlessly submit to your authoritarian morality that that's wrong."
ReplyDeleteThe problem with moral relativists is they still see things in absolutes.
Not condoning condoms is not advocating the spread of AIDS or even being complicit with it. Supporting monogamy and celebacy is a much surer way to stop the spread of AIDS. Morons.
ReplyDeleteReligion keeps in check those who refuse to abide by the "defaults" as Dennett puts them.
There have been plenty of cults of reasons in the past ranging from the French Revolution to Marxist revolutions. None has led to a "live and let live" result. We find that when people aren't molded by bad "meme[s]" to be ignorant and superstitious people believing in a higher good than themselves, they usually act wretchedly. And no amount of "reasoning" is going to convince me that if I have the power to get away with rape that I still shouldn't rape. Only a fear of a higher power and a love for the "moral good" will ever accomplish that. So you can take your "[un]reasoning" and stuff it.
Thanks for the warning to avoid yet another societal-induced anxiety attack. :) I needed only to read about 2 paragraphs to see where the idiot was going. (I, for one, plan to indoctrinate my children with no qualms whatsoever about imposing my theology upon their impressionable little minds.)
ReplyDeleteWhen I read drivel like this, I draw some comfort from something one of my professors was fond of saying: "Bad ideas can bear the weight of reality for only so long."
And that weather interview was AWESOME.
Thanks for linking to the Wired post on atheists campaigning against religious belief. I thought it was very interesting, and the author of the article has a certain amount of intellectual honesty. What struck me most was Dawkins' apparent fear of religion. He does not sound like a man who is serenely secure in his own unbelief. He sounds like a man who is very much threatened by the notion that God may exist.
ReplyDeleteIt brought to mind an excellent passage from then Cardinal Ratzinger's An Introduction to Chrisitanity in which he discusses the problem that doubt poses to the believer and the unbeliever alike. Here is a quote:
"Just as we have already recognized that the believer does not live immune to doubt but is always threatened by the plunge into the void, so now we can discern the entangled nature of human destinies and say that even the non-believer does not represent a rounded and closed existence. However, vigorously he may assert that he is a pure positivist, who has long left behind him supernatural temptations and weaknesses, and now accepts only what is immediately certain, he will never be free of the secret uncertainty whether positivism really has the last word. Just as the believer is choked by the salt water of doubt constantly washed into his mouth by the ocean of uncertainty, so the non-believer is troubled by doubts about his unbelief, about the real totality of the world which he has made up his mind to explain as a self-contained whole. He can never be absolutely certain of the autonomy of what he has seen and interpreted as a whole; he remains threatened by the question whether belief is not after all the reality which it claims to be. Just as the believer knows himself to be constantly threatened by unbelief, which he must experience as a continual temptation, so for the unbeliever faith remains a temptation and a threat to his apparently permanently closed world. In short, there is no escape from the dilemma of being a man. Anyone who makes up his mind to evade the uncertainty of belief will have to experience the uncertainty of unbelief, which can never finally eliminate for certain the possibility that belief may after all be the truth. It is not until belief is rejected that its unrejectability becomes evident."
He also cites this story from Martin Buber:
"An adherent of the Enlightenment [writes Buber], a very learned man, who had heard of the Rabbi of Berditchev, paid a visit to him in order to argue, as was his custom, with him too and to shatter his old-fashioned proofs of the truth of his faith. When he entered the Rabbi's room he found him walking up and down with a book in his hand, wrapped in thought. The Rabbi paid no attention to the new arrival. Suddenly he stopped, looked at him fleetingly and said, 'But perhaps it is true after all'. The scholar tried in vain to collect himself – his knees trembled, so terrible was the Rabbi to behold and so terrible his simple utterance to hear. But Rabbi Levi Jizchak now turned to face him and spoke quite calmly: 'My son, the great scholars of the Torah with whom you have argued wasted their words on you; as you departed you laughed at them. They were unable to lay God and his Kingdom on the table before you, and nor can I. But think, my son, perhaps it is true.' The exponent of the Enlightenment opposed him with all his strength; but this terrible 'perhaps' which echoed back at him time after time broke his resistance."
You can find the whole passage at http://www.jknirp.com/ratzmore.htm.
Pray for those who try to deny God, or to refashion Him after their own image. I do not think they can know genuine peace, since they do not accept the Author of peace.
And be of good cheer. Our Lord has overcome the world, as He said Himself, and we are assured of final victory if we stay faithful to Him.
ReplyDeleteNote to Dr. Dawkins et. al. -- If thousands of priests, bishops & cardinals for 2000 years have been unable to destroy religion, what makes you think YOU'RE going to succeed?
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is his fear that God does exist that makes Dawkins both fear and desire the destruction of religion. Perhaps in his twisted mind, he reasons that if he can destroy religion, he can prove that God does not exist by virtue of the fact that God was unable to preserve religion. Perhaps he also fears the opposite (as illogical as it may be) may be true that if he cannot, then God may be preserving it?
ReplyDeleteIt is his very desire to destroy religion - to "free" us from that which holds us back, which in fact opens every door to every questionable act, to make all arguments for morality moot. Can a man claim that it is wrong to kill another man when it is man's idea alone that this is wrong? What then happens when the charismatic leader comes along and claims that all truth is irrelevant - this is what you are to believe. Do as you wish and all will be given unto you... at the expense of everyone else. Disorder ensues. "slippery slope?" Perhaps God's mercy has kept us from destroying ourselves for this long, but I believe that the reason for a second coming would be to prevent us from destroying ourselves.
ReplyDelete