Against Breakfast Grains

I have so many tabs open right now.

Thank God for the Brights. Every time I find myself at the top of the cliff of doubt, staring down into the dark and murky abyss, contemplating how much fun it might be to jump off and fly through the air, and listening intently to the voice that incessantly whispers into my ear, "go ahead; it won't hurt," all I need to do is read from a Bright. It is as if a bony and gnarled claw reaches up from the abyss in an attempt to grab me... but flails so wildly and inaccurately that it ends up knocking me back several feet from the abyss, and the force of landing so hard on my ass knocks me from my stupor and cleanses the voice from my ears. Their complete and utter misunderstanding of all things religious never elicits anything more than an eyeroll from me, and always serves to remind me of why it is I actually believe.

The strawmen erected in their arguments are always so laughably inept attempts to characterize the Church. It is as if I am kneeling at the glorious altar, adorned in gold and precious gems, sitting atop of which is the King of Glory to whom every knee must bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, when a Bright comes up behind me and taps me upon the shoulder. "What a stupid and ugly god you worship," he says. I look up at him, incredulously. He points and says, "why it's nothing more than a heap of feces and straw." I look at where he is pointing and notice that he has his back to the throne, and is looking off into the distance behind me, at what is indeed an ugly and stupid altar that he's erected from nothing more than fecal matter and straw. The Bright crosses his arms, a smug look of self-satisfaction on his face. Of course, it's impossible to get him to actually turn around. "No thanks, I can see your idiotic god just fine from here," he'll say confidently. The only thing you can really say in response is "yes, it is idiotic. Don't back away from it so fast you trip on my kneeler and land on your ass." (Which has happened at least a few times.)

The indispensable Archbishop Fulton Sheen summed it up so perfectly: "There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church. Which is, of course, quite a different thing."

Fr. Robert Barron, in one of his Catholicism series documentaries, commented that he actually agrees with a lot of atheists. They'll complain about how stupid it is to worship a "magical sky-fairy", to which Fr. Barron says "yeah, I agree." Or they complain about the sky-bully who arbitrarily condemns people to hell fire for breaking nonsensical rules. "I agree," says Fr. Barron. It seems to me that the majority of the arguments against Catholicism, against the Church, and against God that I hear (at least on the Internet, which isn't exactly known for intellectual thoroughness) are little more than strawmen.

All this is a very roundabout way of bringing me to a recently-posted "The Oatmeal" comic. Now, I'm a bit of a fan of The Oatmeal, so whereas I'd normally just ignore this type of slight, I though, in the interest of fanboyishness, to respond. It also helps that his comic is a collection of all the "best" arguments against religion (so I can rebut them all in one place), and actually is still kinda funny.

This May Be the First Time I've Ever Agreed with a Clinton

"Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday"

Full article

Of course, Obama can't decide if it's Tuesday or Wednesday on a Sunday.

And for a limited time only, two links for the price of one!

Idiot of the Day/Week/Month

On Wednesday, church founder Robert H. Schuller said he strongly disapproved of the covenant [which states that Crystal Cathedral ministries preaches chastity] because it goes against what he has built his church upon.

"I have a reputation worldwide of being tolerant of all people and their views," he told the Orange County Register. "I'm too well-educated to criticize a certain religion or group of people for what they believe in [further evidence for Dennis Prager's maxim that the more time you spend in college, the dumber you get]. It's called freedom."

Full article

(So what, exactly did he build his church upon? A wise man builds his church on the Rock.)

Reminds me a of a certain adjunct community college professor.

I will not tolerate intolerance!

Whale Biologist of the Day/Week/Month

"They Need to Be Liberated From Their God"

...says Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of one of the founders of Hamas. He converted to Christianity and became a spy for Israel.

"I converted to Christianity because I was convinced by Jesus Christ as a character, as a personality. I loved him, his wisdom, his love, his unconditional love.... I'm not trying to convert the entire nation of Israel and the entire nation of Palestine to Christianity. But at least if you can educate them about the ideology of love, the ideology of forgiveness, the ideology of grace. Those principles are great regardless, but we can't deny they came from Christianity as well."

Do you consider your father a fanatic? "He's not a fanatic," says Mr. Yousef. "He's a very moderate, logical person. What matters is not whether my father is a fanatic or not, he's doing the will of a fanatic God. It doesn't matter if he's a terrorist or a traditional Muslim. At the end of the day a traditional Muslim is doing the will of a fanatic, fundamentalist, terrorist God. I know this is harsh to say. Most governments avoid this subject. They don't want to admit this is an ideological war. (Quick, call John C. Wright. Someone else who agrees with him.)

"The problem is not in Muslims," he continues. "The problem is with their God. They need to be liberated from their God. He is their biggest enemy. It has been 1,400 years they have been lied to."

These are all dangerous words. Of the threats issued to his life by Islamists, he says, "That's not the worst thing that can happen to you. I'm OK with it, I'm not afraid. . . . Palestinians have reason to kill me. Some Israelis may want to kill me. My goal is not to defeat my enemy. It is to win over my enemy." (Spoken like St. Francis of Assisi)

Have fun with that. I'll be over here hiding from the suicide bombers running your way.

No, YOU'RE wrong!

[Warning: long rant on religion and politics follows]

So someone recently made the statement that a Catholic who supported the the invasion of Iraq must be just as morally confused as someone who is pro-choice.  Although I provided a clear and concise rebuttal to the originator of the statement ("your stoopid"), I thought I'd explore this statement in a little more detail.

First off, "moral confusion" is an imprecise and ambiguous phrase, so when I use it what I really mean (and what I assume the original commentator meant) is "morally incorrect."  "You're confused" as I usually see it used in this context seems to be intended as a more polite way of saying "you're wrong," except it's not more polite because everyone knows what it means, and condescending because it implies the other person isn't emotionally capable of dealing with someone telling them they're wrong.

Let's summarize why someone might be pro-choice (this has been discussed at length on this blog):

1. Unborn babies aren't human, so abortion is not an act that murders a human.

2. There's nothing inherently wrong with murdering innocent people.

3. Unborn babies are human, but it's okay to murder them because they aren't born (or crossed some arbitrary development threshold).

Note that I am assuming that we all accept that something that is inherently immoral is always morally wrong (i.e., if under some circumstances an act is not wrong, then it was not inherently so: the ends cannot justify the means).  Item #1 represents "moral confusion" by virtue of incorrect facts.  It is morally correct under the premise that unborn babies aren't human, but biology indicates otherwise.  Item #2 represents a point of view that most people do not hold, and I don't honestly think the original commentator believes that all those who support the war hold this view.  Item #3 is only morally correct with the introduction of a new moral principle that specifically excludes humans of some developmental stage or status from the prohibition against murder.  I have never seen a justification, much less a clear statement, of this new principle.  This also requires item #2, although supporters of abortion rarely admit it.  The only other possible position for someone who supports legal abortion is that it is the immoral murder of an innocent human and should not be prohibited by government.  This is an unusual view of the role of government.

In order for supporters of the war to be guilty of the same moral confusion as pro-choicers, then it must be because they believe that fighting a war is not inherently immoral, and possibly that there is some special reason that the invasion of Iraq need not be justified according to traditional just war theory.  But the Church teaches explicitly that waging war is not inherently immoral, and proponents of the war that argue it is justified within the traditional just war theory (whether you agree with their reasoning or not) do not require some new moral principle (example example example).  Therefore, proponents of the war in Iraq (including one singled out by the original commentator) clearly do not suffer the same "moral confusion" as pro-choicers in any meaningful sense.

The only other context given with the original offending comment was that the "morally confused" should have realized, after five years of tragedy, that the original decision was unjust.  This implies that the unintended, undesired, unforeseen consequences can affect whether a decision is just after it has been made, which leads to a ridiculous impossibility of making moral judgments, since all possible effects of a decision cannot be foreseen.

It is a logic error (and perhaps a lack of charity) to assume that those who seem to be wrong on a moral issue must be suffering from deficient moral reasoning.   Anyone can understand how identical logic applied to different premises can lead to different conclusions.

The only other statement by the original commentator I wish to comment on is "it is a reflection of ideology, not considered thought, to think that."  But how can one think that which is not thought?  Please be more clear.  Did you mean, "it is a reflection of belief not based on reason"?  But that is false on the face of it: as I showed above, the position (support for the war) is reasoned from facts and moral principles.  As far as I can tell, this statement means nothing.

Comments are welcome.