Claims of "The Myth of Neutrality, A Time for Anger" and My Rebuttal
An analysis of the author's claims and charges: Franky Schaeffer, A Time for Anger
...with my responses in bold.
1.2 "Our world is deeply deceitful."
This sentiment sets the mood of the book for the reader. "Distrust everthing" and "everything is against you" are messages hammered into the readers' heads. Also, one is led to believe that there is a massive bias and great injustice pervading the systems of modern society (politics, media/journalism, education, judiciary, culture, etc).
1.3 Liberals do not play fairly--with an open mind and equality under the law.
See below for the author's more specific charges and my responses.
1.4 "Liberals have used deceit and evil to define 'choice' as 'death', 'government assistance' as control of population, 'liberal' as an indefinite tolerance of anything and everyone-except those who disagree about issues on the basis of 'moral principle' and 'pluralism' as 'truth does not really exist outside the limited sphere of science'.
The author views the issue of abortion so extraordinarily simply-so black and white. Abortion is murder, he says. People who have and perform abortions are murderers. Life begins at conception. Case closed. The fact that the author does not demonstrate even the slightest understanding of the reasonable arguments on the side of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia speaks loudy of his own dismal intelligence and his complete emmersion in emotional reactionism. Moreover, the author creates and reinforces sectarianism with gross generalizations regarding liberals.
Only a religious fundamentalist stoops so low and bypasses all intellectual consideration by charging that a group uses "evil" to get their way.
Still, it is true that the word "choice" has, in some way, served to gloss over the fact that with an abortion a killing takes place. However, I think it would be a terrible insult to most women who get abortions if you were to claim that they were not aware of the consequences (death of fetus) of the operation.
1.5 Liberals have made words denoting conservatism/religious belief into putdowns, and have skewed the implicit quality of words like "moderate", "liberal" "civil libertarian" to be greater than deserved.
I don't think you can explain how bias attaches itself to words by implying that a group of people who share a common disregard for religion/conservatism and strive for racial & gender equality planned to skew the implicit quality of certain worlds. If such a thing is done, then I'd expect it to originate from a smaller source, like Fox News or The Daily Show. Dealing with the population at large involves a cultural study--an expert in sociology.
At some point, I'm sure the phrase "slave owner" had more implicit quality to it. How that quality changed demands a study in how culture and morals change over time, not a blame game that resembles the creation of a conspiracty theory, replete with an evil mastermind and his minions the liberals.
2.1 Liberals have abused labelying to condition people to respond negatively to religion in the public sphere.
The author goes on the attack to avoid debating and considering the real issues. Does school prayer violate the consitution? Saying that it does is not tantamount to abusing labelying--the conclusion that the Supreme Court has reached was the product of a thorough investigation and a long consideration into the meaning of the Constitution. Clearly, schools are government-run institutions, and the Consititution charges that government does not involve itself in the relgious sphere, therefore, prayer should not be a part of the school day.
And it is no crime to take offense to the idea of government endorsing a particular religion (or religions)-most people do have a problem with this. Liberals have not had to call people names are tack on biases to words like "conservative" to sway peoples opinions on this matter.
17.4 When secular humanists claim to be objective reporters that do not make value judgements, they are lying.
I'm sure there are thousands of people who would take offense to this comment. Their job is to report the news, and I'm confident that those whose job it is to be objective do a pretty good job at being objective. So much news is not conducive to anything but objective reporting. Of course, those whose job it is to be subjective, or to personalize/humanize a story, will rightly do so in response to value judgements that are an inseperable part of who they are.
18.5 The New York Times is not being objective when they denounce incest and child abuse yet urge a pluralistic, do-your-own-thing society when it comes to abortion.
Must one subscribe to absolutist, Christian morals to be objective? I think not.
I could write my own commandments, like:
1) Thou shalt love thy Josh with all thy heart.
2) Thou shalt eat icecream every Tuesday night.
3) Thou shall not drive a car more than twice a week.
Using these as a basis for morality wouldn't constitute being objective. Even if one could derive something more akin to traditional morality from these commandments (like, "eating icecream every Tuesday demonstrates that enjoying good food in moderation is God's will"), I still don't see what objectivity has to do with it. And I don't see how it validates the believers' judgements over the non-believers'.
19.2 The New York Times and other media have double standards; on-again, off-again morality.
I doubt you will find the New York Times condeming a war one week and praising it the next. I don't think the New York Times and most any other media outlet would hold completely different views about issues that are completely the same. I don't see the issues of abortion and murder as exactly the same things.
19.3 The Times has no basis on which to make value judgements of any kind.
The Times has the collective brains that produce the paper to serves as a basis for their value judgements. Intelligence is a basis. Perhaps the author has been too busy reciting scripture to become aware of this thing called intelligence.
20.1 "The Constitution seperated the institution of the church from the state, but not a religous understanding of truth from the state."
The author admits it. But then he throws us a curve ball. A "religious understanding of truth"? I accept the concept. A religious understanding of truth is that there is truth beyond what is demonstratable in the real world. Something can also be truly good (in other words, there is no debate, it just is good, it just is bad...) because it is written in the Bible and preached by ministers.
Still, this truth-these laws-are not precisely the same as the laws of the state. They are religious laws that are true to believers, and those laws that are wholly religious in nature, with no further justification other than because it is written in a holy text, cannot be forced upon non-believers. If they were, the government would be overstretching its role, or violating the constitution. A law that punishes those who consume pork would be unconstitutional. This does not mean moral principals do not lie at the heart of a nation's laws-it just means those principals must be as secular as possible.
20.1 "The (first amendment) provided freedom for religion, not freedom from religion."
Wrong.
20.2 The Declaration of Independence justified the American Revolution on religious grounds, stating that "inalienable (God given)" rights had been denied.
At the time of the Declaration, the country's founding fathers' conceptions of God were not strictly Christian. They were highly influenced by the enlightenment, naturalism, science, and general deism.
There is no greater proof that these "inalienable (God given) rights" were not derived from Christianity specifically than the observance that the God of the Bible does not provide a long list of said rights. One would think that he would if they were so important.
20.2 The new union was, by design, to be in accord wiht the "Laws of nature and of natures God."
This is an extremely broad statement that could be fleshed out a million different ways.
20.3 "Religions truth, specifically the Judeo-Christian tradition, was the ground on which the Republic stood.'
Actually, the ground was the home of Native Americans for thousands of years prior to colonization....
The truths that really set the foundation for our country were the liberal ones-both social (john locke) and economic (adams) as well as governmental (jefferson, adams). Freedom and liberty to live as one would want to live, to believe what one would choose to believe-even those who were not a part of a majority: these are liberal principals.
20.3 British common law, which formed the basic legal framework of the United States, looked to the Ten Commandments and biblical absolutes as the basis.
The Ten Commandments has enjoyed a special stature that comes from the simple fact that it was the first list of laws to be written and to have survived to this day. Once a list of commandments solidifies itself in history and culture, its good merits are taken for granted-no one can imagine that morality ever existed before the commandments, and everyone is sure morality would disappear if the commandments disappeared. They are wrong, ofcourse.
The fact that British common law was inspired in part by the Ten Commandments doesn't prove that the latter was sent to us by God. It just demonstrates that governments came after religion, and there was no way to prevent religion from influencing the structure and law of government. And I'm not arguing that this is bad. Religion held a near monopoly on morality and authority for hundreds of years.
Poor ol' Golden Rule! Oh, the commandment "Thou Shalt not Kill"! These genuinly good moral guidelines have been held captive by mythology for thousands of years. Accept the rules and you accept the myth, they say. I say they are 100% seperable.
20.4 Seperation of church and state is a misbegotten notion-and an idea taught by historical revisionists to our youth.
Distrust, hate, our education system, the author implies. It is using evil, deceit, to turn your children into heartless, mindless, liberal zombies.
I say that a large church, like the Catholic Church, is a complicated thing. The Church has much it must attend to in order to successfully maintain and serve its members. Likewise, a government is expected to perform even more complex and far reaching duties. I highly doubt that both could accomplish what they need to accomplish if they took upon any of the duties of the other. Seperation of church and state is possible. A government that provides security, infrastructure, and basic guidelines for communal interaction does not need to involve itself in the religious life of its citizens.
20.5 Abortion is a human rights issue, not a secular constitutional question.
The consitution deals with human rights issues. That said, yeah, abortion is a human rights issue.
21.3 (Falwell pointed out:) Liberals said it was wrong for Christians to "impose" their moral viewpoint on everyone else, yet they found nothing wrong with imposing liberal views on civil rights, vietnam, busing, school prayer, and abortion.
I don't even want to respond to something Jerry Falwell said. He was a monster. He represents everything that is wrong about the far religious right.
23.1 (George F. Will:) "But liberal societies do not provide 'freedom of choice' without having certain expectations about which choices will be made. And they try to shape choices by shaping attitudes. All societies do this. Only liberal societies pretend to be neutral."
I'm trying hard to restrain myself--to not immediately dismiss as absurd claims that sound absurd. Chances are, there is some sense in even the most ridiculous statement, and why would I devote any time to a project like this if I didn't make a real effort to seperate the sense from the nonsense?
In this case, I can see the author's point if I squint really hard. Yes, some societies under theocratic, fascist, or tyrannical rule might declare that the shaping of attitudes is a national goal. Furthermore, it is evident that our government has played a definite role in shaping attitudes to affect "free" choices people make by making kids say the pledge of allegiance, by having national holidays, and so on. It might take a small leap in logic to say that laws play a role in shaping people's attitudes, but you could say it.
I get what the author is saying only in terms of the role of government. I think the author is way off track to cast such a broad net by accussing society in general of deceit-pretending to not purposely shape attitudes in a way that it channels our choices, our freedom, down a narrow path that is most preferred by society. The police department catches criminals, the schools teach algebra, media reports and editorializes, stores sell shoes--there is no grand purpose, and even the cummulative effects cannot honestly be construed to serve a purpose beyond securing the most free human condition as possible.
There are popular ideals regarding the vision of the perfect citizen/human, and they may in fact change little from individual to individual, but there is a great difference between a society made up of free individuals holding preferences (as is the case) and a society organized to work towards a common goal of shaping individual character. I may differ from the author and a majority of philosophers in my opinion that the community should not direct the individual (at least as little as possible). I think there is a degree to which a government and a society as a whole purposefully organizes itself to manipulate the attitudes of the individual. I believe that manipulation should be as little as possible. This may define me as a Liberal. The author, on the other hand, not only sees a role for government in setting expectations for the ways in which people use their "freedom", but he envisions the transference of Christian values and Christian beliefs from government to citizen, which unconstitutional and completely unacceptable. This ofcourse defines him as a Christian Conservative.
23.3 Christians helped (or are responsible for) end slavery.
Christianity does not deserve credit for the morality that defined slavery as inhumane, just as the Bible does not deserve credit for making murder immoral simply because it is stated within.
That said, Christians did help end slavery. Interestingly, Christians were those slave holders in the South who opposed the abolitionists as well. This fact makes the authors point moot.
23.4 Humanitarianism is almost always connected to Jews or Christians-or a conception of morality derived from these faiths.
There is great good in much of the morality derived from Judaism and Christianity. Nothing should take away from the good of the individuals who fed the hungry and otherwise provided for the poor, sick, and elderly today and throughout history. To the extent that religion has provided aid and comfort, it deserves credit. It deserves credit for helping to spread humanitarian tendencies among nations.
How exactly morality is to be safeguarded in an institution or system or society without the fantasy, the hierarchy, the perversion, and the natural divisiveness of its current steward-religion-is perhaps humanities most pressing concern. It is a challenge that I consider both exciting and possible.
23.5 "Every human being has a religion: he holds values, and these values imply a rationale; in this it makes no difference whether someone has accepted the values of an organized religion or has chosen his own."
The difference is found in the vitality of the mind and the freedom of the body.
Those who accept the values of a religion bow to tyranny-they enslave their minds. They declare that they will no longer think, no longer consider, all the intricacies and factors in all the myriad circumstances in which a demand for moral judgement is called for. The mind shuts off as the tyrant (religion) takes over.
Yes, all must consistently abide by something close to an absolute moral code. The moral code of the religious, however, need only be justified by the statement, "because it was commanded". Unbelievers must think beyond this. Their rationale must run deeper. Greater reasons than "because it is evil" or "because God doesn't like it" must be found. Irrational morality is responsible for things like genital mutilation and animal sacrifice. These things are possible when thorough reasoning is discouraged in favor of Biblical recitations.
Reasoning is not foolproof by any means, however. This is where the study of philosophy-particularly morality & ethics-comes into the picture. A best morality can be built upon best reason, and active discussion can help secure a consensus on what the best morality is.
24.1 .."There is.. no such thing as a nonreligious view of truth: to value one thing as opposed to another is to make a declaration of faith".
This is too abstract for me. Hmmm... I value water over oil because water keeps me alive. What is religious about this? Truth is that which is demonstratable or that which is supported by a preponderance of evidence. What does faith have to do with it? I have faith that I like icecream more than tripe....? WHa?! Is there a difference between holding the conviction that 1+1=2 and holding the conviction that Jesus was resurrected? Can one be called truth and one religious faith? Call me gullible, but I like to think so.
24.3 Secular humanism is dangerous, imposing, intollerant, exclusive and dedicated to elimnating 'traditional theism from participating in American culture.
Sorry, I shouldn't have included this. Its all opinion and no honest claim...it can't be-who would really think its true?
28.2 The media has become the enemy of religious principle.
Whatever. The reason the media is seen as the enemy of religious principle is because it is not posted at the start of every article that the Bible is the true word of God, as Christians would like. Also, religion has felt threatened ever since the Enlightenment during which time books and book reading that didn't involve the Bible became all the rage. Knowledge that either had nothing to do with religion, or actually eroded support for it (through simple objective fact-science, etc) was disseminated for all to read. The media is an enormous institution with magazines on every available subject, news articles covering the globe, and entertainment of tremendous variety. Ofcourse religion is going to feel like a small fish in a big pond. Ofcourse religion will feel-and be-threatened.
46.2 "Time for those christians in the media to stand up and push their own agenda with conviction."
I'm fine with people pushing their own agendas as long as they don't mind people pushing back. I'd hope that if someone pushed an agenda as unreasonable as requiring blindfolds to be worn while driving that plenty of people would stand up and call it what it is-a demonstrable, dangerous idea. Likewise, Christians can expect a backlash if they put themselves on Fox News or talk radio and begin sharing their particularly twisted views of the world with millions of people. There's a good chance that millions of people will see how ridiculous and dangerous it is a feel compelled to speak up in response. Indeed, I see this happening everywhere. Atheism & agnostism has never been more prominent and acceptable than it is now, after nearly a decade of a Christian Right onslaught.
46.3 "It is time that Christian money be used to acquire news organizations and use them to editorialized for justice and life."
The author would be proud to know that this has happened since he wrote those words in 1982. However, he might have done religion a favor if he'd not encouraged it to open its big mouth...(see above).
54.4 "We must develop this militant indifference to the edicts of mere men when they contradict God's law."
Religion is never far from calling for militant responses at any given time. Otherwise, I don't get this statement.
59.1 The law and justice system is in dissarray-is a mockery to the words law and justice.
People like to say this about the justice system. I wish they'd make more specific charges.
59.1 Violent criminals are freed and child murder sanctioned.
Oh, here are more specific charges. Hmm, we might need to get even more specific before we discuss these issues. Yes, its a travesty that a violent criminal could go free because police didn't read him his rights. Most would agree that there needs to be a better way to ensure that police read the accused their rights.
When the author say's "child murder", I think its safe to assume he means abortion. ("NO", I can here the author say, "I meant CHILD MURDER!" There's no need to debate abortion here and now. At any rate, since the majority of people are pro-choice and abortion is legal, I don't think you can point to the fact that abortion doctors aren't prosecuted as evidence that the justice system is all screwed up. Well, the author did do that, but he shouldn't have....
61.3 It is impossible for government to be completely neutral towards relgion and do absolutely nothing to advance it, since all of life involves religious issues.
All life involves religious issues? Give me a break. That may be true for a religious fanatic like the author, but its not true for normal human beings or the government.
61.4 The casual slaughter of the innocent, the total breakdown of the family and sexual morality, the horrible use of medicine as a means of destroying life, deliberately removing treatment from unwanted handicapped children: these evils would not be possible or legal if christians had power in proportion to their numbers.
Its not a casual slaughter, its a regrettable termination of life but a best choice in most cases. It's not a total breakdown of the family, it's women refusing to be their husbands slaves and seeking their own happiness. It's couples expressing love their way, instead of being compelled by tradition. Its not a breakdown of sexual morality, it's reversing the damaging sexual repression that religion inflicts. Its not the horrible use of medicince as a means of destroying life, its empowering individuals to take control of their own futures, or lack thereof. In some cases, its loving mercy for babies so horribly deformed that life lived would be unbearably painful.
70.2 Life begins at conception.
The construction of the body begins at conception. Life existed before, actually, because the sperm and the egg were alive. God did not grant these two living things any special protection at all. In fact, he designed them to go to waste every time a woman has her period; and when a man pees, sleeps, dreams, and has sex.
It does not take long for an embryo to take the shape of a baby. At what point along this development, or during further develpment, does the embryo possess such awareness and potential for feeling pain that would cause us to label it an individual person and grant it the right to live--this is an important question that's worthy of honest debate. Even just before birth, I have heard that a baby is essentially brain dead-his mind a jumble of unconnected neurons. Personally, I think partial-birth abortion is wrong, but the fact about the development of a baby's brain could be significant to the debate, when determining the morality of killing a somewhat developed fetus that may feel pain, yet lack awareness.
77.1 "It is time for a massive assault on this humanistic and bigoted culture in the name of freedom and compassion."
I get the feeling that the author is just really pissed off about abortion, and thinks that because it is legal, a "massive assault" is in order to correct the evil.
77.2 The liberal experiment with human lives is a horrible failure, is crazy, and should be abandoned.
78 Believers should agitate...to eductate without interference from the pagan government that now rules us.
The author is promoting home schooling or private schools, it seems. Controlling the information children recieve has always been the way religion secures its own survival. Its a dastardly tactic, propaganda.
99 Planned parenthood is not a neutral organization-they in fact draw on public funds and lobby intensely to legislate their morality.
The author is right. But given the fact that the author believes in pushing agendas, he cannot honestly blame planned parenthood from pushing its agenda of helping women control their own future. I do not think that this is an adequately religious value (freedom to choose) to make it unconstitutional.
101-102.1 "Within the Judiciious boundaries given to us by a wise and loving Creator, we find freedom to be human: freedom to care for others in ways that they can depend on and trust in; freedom to love in a way which makes others free; freedom to fight for life and compassion. Christianity is Life! It is Joy! It is warmth, comfort, consolation, and humanness."
I think the author has a bias. I would say the same, but in place of "wise and loving Creator", put "reason". In place of "Christianity" I'd put, simply, "Life".
102.2 "It is the mean-spirited, selfish, so called liberated sexual world that is narrow and confining to the human spirit."
I'd say the same thing, except about religious sexuality.
102.3 The issue of life is a life and death struggle with the forces of evil.
And this is how it happens. A religious zealot defines a debate that does not lack reason on either side as a struggle with the forces of evil. Let the Crusades begin....again.
103.2 "...the science today contains a liberal humanistic bias as twisted as the bigotry of the media."
Science cannot be trusted. If we can't trust science, public education, the media, government, and society in general, who can we trust? Only the church remains...
The author calls science that holds that there is no single organizing principle in the world "humanistic". He thinks that proper science follows from simply observing that there is order and governing laws, and accepting that these originated from a controlling being...The Christian God, duh! He points to the fact that early prominent scientists were of the later inclination-to assume a controlling source behind the order.
I think that the proper scientific way of thinking is to assume as little as possible. Conjuring up a God to explain why hydrogen atoms always have one proton or why water always freezes at 32 degrees (which it doesn't) is a radically unscientific way of thinking.
Being able to perceive order is what allows us to survive. Its what our eyes and minds are programmed to do. If we weren't already biased towards seeing order in everything, I'm certain we'd be awed by how much is random. Nothing is perfectly ordered forever.
103.5 the agenda of modern science is death as a solution to problems real or imagined.
Funny, I had the impression that modern science was attempting to-and succeeding at-curing sickness, injury, disease, malnutrition, a laborious life, ignorance, etc, etc, etc. ...the author's statement is so asinine.
103.5 The agenda of science is based on a philosophy, not science.
Science has an agenda. Let me ponder this. And whatever this agenda is, its based on a philosophy. What might this philosophy be...? Oh right, the agenda is DEATH. And the philosophy is "a lack of organizing principle".
103.5 The agenda of science is not neutral.
Well, the author says modern scientists only believe in chance and randomness. Then he goes on to say that they must trust in order and consistency to perform their studies/experiments. I think the author just contradicted himself.
104.1 Modern western science was based on views of God as reasonable, orderly, and consistent.
Modern science was based on observation. But things can only be observed in small segments of time. From this perspective, of course things seem very consistent. But as science advanced and became able to "observe" back in time hundreds, thousands, and millions of years, they saw that things changed, and are constantly changing.
104.4 (William B Provine) "The belief in a grand design shaping both the physical world and ethics was based on abundant, obvious, and emotionally satisfying evidence: regularities of the heavenly bodies, patterns in animals and plants, and the existence of human reason.... Belief in overarching order was dominant."
Some stars explode; some simply fade away and die. The larger of two stars will sometimes rob the smaller of its mass. Some stars collide into each other. Some planets travel in a perfect circle, some travel in elipses. There are planets of primarily gas, planets of liquid, and other made up of mostly rock. Some planets have moons the size of other planets. Being able to predict where a star or planet is going to be in the sky at any given time of the year is not such stupendous regularity in the movement of the earth and heavenly bodies as to outweigh the significance of variety and change in the universe.
Nothing follows logically from observing patterns. If one looks at a cheetah and observes spots, he may say "look, patterns! order in the universe!". But the cheetah's spots end-they do not extend outside the cheetah's body. Pattern interrupted by another pattern interrupted by another patter....ultimately this equals less of a pattern and more randomness than it does a pattern.
The existence of human reason is evidence that God exists? But what about all the reason that human's don't possess? Human's have a mechanism to that allows them to remember, and to make correlations. This mechanism-the brain-happens to be far more advanced than most animals. So it is natural that we will be able to observe, imagine a likely future, and shape our actions with the goal of shaping our futures. Being able to think mathematically and logically-this is a bonus that comes with such a large brain. We can "think" or imagine one apple and then another one, and see that now there are two. Its far more complicated than this, but I don't think the mind is so mysterious that one must throw themselves prostrate before a God just to obtain an explanation.
104.6 (William B Provine) According to Darwinianism, there is no organizing principle in the world and no purpose except for the laws of probability and cause and effect; thus, there are no moral or ethical laws that belong to the nature of things, no absolute guiding principles for human society.
Guiding moral principles can follow from absolute facts. Like, if you stab me, I will feel pain and likely die. I would not like that. If you tried to stab me, I might rather stab you first. You would not like that. No one likes pain and no one wants to die. (do not do to others what you would not like done to you) It doesn't take a genius to realize that morality springs from self interest within a communal situation. Negative actions are discouraged because of this natural law-sometimes they are encoded in law. Positive actions don't need to be encoded in law. Positive feelings come naturally. Love is natural and would exist without religion. Without some absolute guiding principle, people would still find great satisfaction in helping others and expressing love. (do to others what you would like done to you)
105.2 Consistency in governing principles denotes purpose.
I don't agree. What is the basis for this claim?
106.1 Darwin's evolutionary theory "survival of the fittest" made legitimate the tremendous brutality of the Industrial Revolution. It also legitimized the race war of the Nazis. It is being used to justify abortion and infanticide.
No, individuals chose to abandon any moral principals and used others for their own gain. This has happened throughout history.
The Nazis followed the rule "survival of the most murderous". Whether Darwin's theory was used to justify the holoscaust to the Nazis is something only an individual Nazi could answer.
106 "The philosophy upon which scientists base their work has very specific effects in what types of technologies (and moralities) grow out of scientific research."
?
122.1 The new scientific way of thinking considers oneself a God-or god like. This is as pervasive as it is pernicious.
No one could consider themselves anything close to God-like. Death is guaranteed. No one fools themselves into thinking they will live forever and without pain. No one thinks they can create or change the course of events at will.
122.2 "And we have come into an electronic dark age, in which the new pagan hordes, with all the power of technology at their command, are on the verge of obliterating the last strongholds of civilized humanity. A vision of death lies before us. As we have the shores of Christian Western man behind, only a dark and turbulent sea of despair stretches endlessly ahead...unless we fight!"
Wow. The author is a drama queen.
124 The true God given rights of men and women have been replaced by man-made, materialistic "rights".
Which rights are given of God? It is evident that god did not take care to enumerate those rights or express them both strongly and clearly enough to guarantee them over the last many thousands of years-not to mention the last hundreds of thousands of years.
Rights are indeed man-made constructs and man-guaranteed conditions. There is nothing ominous about this, and it does not lessen the importance of these enduring rights.
134 "Deceipt, duplicity, double standards, unrighteousness, the committing of abominations, the roles of the sexes reversed: what could be a more accurate description of our own day and age? Our humanistic society has fallen in love with sterility and ugliness and death. It calls good evil and evil good. "
Naturally accelerating in numbers, technology, and knowledge. Gifts of science and technology aboud. Extreme efficiency in market place, still too many overworked and living in poverty. Not using existing wisdom to is fullest. Well intentioned but still capable of great selfdestruction. Sexually inhibited. Views of sex perverted by tradition. Religious and liberal values vying for dominance.
I don't know, I think that that is a more accurate description of our own day and age.
137.2 The status quo is the reign of the devil.
What does this mean?
137.2 God directs history in an important way.
What is it? God directs history or Man is doing his own thing, ie being an evil, deceitful bastard..?
138.3 "The myth of neutrality holds sway in the arts, as it does in politics and the law.
I think the author needs to come to terms with the fact that artists, politicians, and lawyers have more sophisticated things to occupy their minds with than stories from ancient text. Believe it or not, but life is much larger than religion. The author simply can't accept that individuals are choosing to create and desciminate art n' ideas that don't originate entirely from religious text n' teaching.
139 The reason non-christian books appear on the best seller lists, while Christian books that sell more don't "is simple: the secular world is provincial, narrow-minded, and bigoted."
The reason I am right and the author is wrong is because the author is a big fat dummy head! I mean, c'mon.
141 Christians who work in any branch of the arts face the open discrimination of liberal zealots.
I think its ok to criticize a painting of Jesus on the cross as highly unimaginative-and if the painter fell far short of the standards set by renessaince artists for this particular genre, it is ok to criticize the painting as lacking skill n' beauty.
The fact of the matter is that Christianity is associated with soliciting-and soliciting in art is in bad taste (unless your Andy Warhol). The experience of true art should not be all about persuasion to buy a product--or atleast if it is about that it is an experience most do not wish for. You don't have to be a religious zealot to look down on religious art.
142.3 Liberals have a book burning mentality
Funny, I thought liberals were anti-book burning. I mean, the issue pretty much defines liberalism--tolerating or embracing diversity.
142.3 "sex fairness", the notion that boys and girls are the same, and the dismantling of "sex roles" are a part of the most extensive thought control compaing in American educational history.
"the notion that boys and girls are the same" is an incorrect representation of what liberals would mean by "sex fairness". No one is claiming that they are the same-how could they? What I'm sure agitates conservatives like the author is the liberals' insistence that men and women have the right to abandon traditional male and female roles if they so choose. Women can be in charge in business. Men can stay at home and take care of the kids. If deciding to do whatever a man or woman is capable of doing without falling in line behind religious or traditional norms means that a man or woman thinks that he or she is the same as the opposite sex; well then, all I can say is that its a ridiculous notion that completely ignores the value of freedom, which is the real issue here.
Liberals are simply trying to inform young people that "sex roles" are expectations put upon them by other people-they are roles that have developed somewhat accidentally-and these roles are by no means laws that they must obey. Liberals remind children that they do have a choice in how they want to play out their lives. What may be fulfilling for one may not be fulfilling for another.
142.4 This "dismantling of 'sex roles' has virtually superceded transmission of information as the aim of the classroom."
I don't know how the author can say this and look in the mirror with any self respect afterwards. The author must admit that there is true neutrality in the classroom-boys and girls are taught the same things-and if this neutrality constitutes the "dismantling of 'sex roles", then the transmission of information and the dismantling of sex roles are the same thing. Its like complaining about teaching black people math because one's religion declares that the "role" of black people is to pick cotton for their masters. How dare liberals teach black people all that there is to know just like white people are taught!? And how dare liberals tell black people that they don't have to pick cotton if they don't want to!?
147.2 The moral vision of Shakespeare plays depend utterly on Christianity.
I know very little about this Shakespeare fella. One thing I do know however, he wrote much better than the authors of God's book, and he demonstrated a much better understanding of human nature than even Jesus did. One could create a religion more easily from Shakespeare's words than of the Bible's I'm quite certain. Too bad Christianity was too entrenched, too tyrannical, to allow anything close to competition. The Holy Grail is morality. Religion planted its flag upon morality a long time ago; and since then, nothing has challenged its empire.
148.4 Turning to Christianity because one observes that artists of quality and favor are Christians is being openminded.
I cannot say for certain that several generations of a completely secular, atheistic society would produce artists of greater or lesser quality than a society that has constantly exploited myth to fuel its artists passions. Claims going either way would be conjecture at the most. I'd listen to what prominent sociologists/historians would have to say on the subject though.
150.2 "Every person of true moral principal should be prepared to stand and fight..."
What if one's moral principal was to never stand and fight? Interestingly, Jesus himself taught this sort of principal. Is the author contradicting Christ?
152.3 "The public education system turns out generation after generation of baffled, restless, religiously neutered neo-barbarions, who have been taught that there are no moral absolutes."
I'd prefer to call them "thinkers".
154 "Truth equals confrontation." (the authors final words)
Confrontation is such a harsh word. I like "truth equals teaching" or "truth equals discussion". If a group of people think they possess "the Truth", I think they are obligated to try to convince others that they are right. Of course, I'd prefer they do this scientifically or logically, which makes things especially difficult for believers; but then again, they can use whatever method they wish, as long as it doesn't involve cutting throats or dropping bombs...
...with my responses in bold.
1.2 "Our world is deeply deceitful."
This sentiment sets the mood of the book for the reader. "Distrust everthing" and "everything is against you" are messages hammered into the readers' heads. Also, one is led to believe that there is a massive bias and great injustice pervading the systems of modern society (politics, media/journalism, education, judiciary, culture, etc).
1.3 Liberals do not play fairly--with an open mind and equality under the law.
See below for the author's more specific charges and my responses.
1.4 "Liberals have used deceit and evil to define 'choice' as 'death', 'government assistance' as control of population, 'liberal' as an indefinite tolerance of anything and everyone-except those who disagree about issues on the basis of 'moral principle' and 'pluralism' as 'truth does not really exist outside the limited sphere of science'.
The author views the issue of abortion so extraordinarily simply-so black and white. Abortion is murder, he says. People who have and perform abortions are murderers. Life begins at conception. Case closed. The fact that the author does not demonstrate even the slightest understanding of the reasonable arguments on the side of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia speaks loudy of his own dismal intelligence and his complete emmersion in emotional reactionism. Moreover, the author creates and reinforces sectarianism with gross generalizations regarding liberals.
Only a religious fundamentalist stoops so low and bypasses all intellectual consideration by charging that a group uses "evil" to get their way.
Still, it is true that the word "choice" has, in some way, served to gloss over the fact that with an abortion a killing takes place. However, I think it would be a terrible insult to most women who get abortions if you were to claim that they were not aware of the consequences (death of fetus) of the operation.
1.5 Liberals have made words denoting conservatism/religious belief into putdowns, and have skewed the implicit quality of words like "moderate", "liberal" "civil libertarian" to be greater than deserved.
I don't think you can explain how bias attaches itself to words by implying that a group of people who share a common disregard for religion/conservatism and strive for racial & gender equality planned to skew the implicit quality of certain worlds. If such a thing is done, then I'd expect it to originate from a smaller source, like Fox News or The Daily Show. Dealing with the population at large involves a cultural study--an expert in sociology.
At some point, I'm sure the phrase "slave owner" had more implicit quality to it. How that quality changed demands a study in how culture and morals change over time, not a blame game that resembles the creation of a conspiracty theory, replete with an evil mastermind and his minions the liberals.
2.1 Liberals have abused labelying to condition people to respond negatively to religion in the public sphere.
The author goes on the attack to avoid debating and considering the real issues. Does school prayer violate the consitution? Saying that it does is not tantamount to abusing labelying--the conclusion that the Supreme Court has reached was the product of a thorough investigation and a long consideration into the meaning of the Constitution. Clearly, schools are government-run institutions, and the Consititution charges that government does not involve itself in the relgious sphere, therefore, prayer should not be a part of the school day.
And it is no crime to take offense to the idea of government endorsing a particular religion (or religions)-most people do have a problem with this. Liberals have not had to call people names are tack on biases to words like "conservative" to sway peoples opinions on this matter.
17.4 When secular humanists claim to be objective reporters that do not make value judgements, they are lying.
I'm sure there are thousands of people who would take offense to this comment. Their job is to report the news, and I'm confident that those whose job it is to be objective do a pretty good job at being objective. So much news is not conducive to anything but objective reporting. Of course, those whose job it is to be subjective, or to personalize/humanize a story, will rightly do so in response to value judgements that are an inseperable part of who they are.
18.5 The New York Times is not being objective when they denounce incest and child abuse yet urge a pluralistic, do-your-own-thing society when it comes to abortion.
Must one subscribe to absolutist, Christian morals to be objective? I think not.
I could write my own commandments, like:
1) Thou shalt love thy Josh with all thy heart.
2) Thou shalt eat icecream every Tuesday night.
3) Thou shall not drive a car more than twice a week.
Using these as a basis for morality wouldn't constitute being objective. Even if one could derive something more akin to traditional morality from these commandments (like, "eating icecream every Tuesday demonstrates that enjoying good food in moderation is God's will"), I still don't see what objectivity has to do with it. And I don't see how it validates the believers' judgements over the non-believers'.
19.2 The New York Times and other media have double standards; on-again, off-again morality.
I doubt you will find the New York Times condeming a war one week and praising it the next. I don't think the New York Times and most any other media outlet would hold completely different views about issues that are completely the same. I don't see the issues of abortion and murder as exactly the same things.
19.3 The Times has no basis on which to make value judgements of any kind.
The Times has the collective brains that produce the paper to serves as a basis for their value judgements. Intelligence is a basis. Perhaps the author has been too busy reciting scripture to become aware of this thing called intelligence.
20.1 "The Constitution seperated the institution of the church from the state, but not a religous understanding of truth from the state."
The author admits it. But then he throws us a curve ball. A "religious understanding of truth"? I accept the concept. A religious understanding of truth is that there is truth beyond what is demonstratable in the real world. Something can also be truly good (in other words, there is no debate, it just is good, it just is bad...) because it is written in the Bible and preached by ministers.
Still, this truth-these laws-are not precisely the same as the laws of the state. They are religious laws that are true to believers, and those laws that are wholly religious in nature, with no further justification other than because it is written in a holy text, cannot be forced upon non-believers. If they were, the government would be overstretching its role, or violating the constitution. A law that punishes those who consume pork would be unconstitutional. This does not mean moral principals do not lie at the heart of a nation's laws-it just means those principals must be as secular as possible.
20.1 "The (first amendment) provided freedom for religion, not freedom from religion."
Wrong.
20.2 The Declaration of Independence justified the American Revolution on religious grounds, stating that "inalienable (God given)" rights had been denied.
At the time of the Declaration, the country's founding fathers' conceptions of God were not strictly Christian. They were highly influenced by the enlightenment, naturalism, science, and general deism.
There is no greater proof that these "inalienable (God given) rights" were not derived from Christianity specifically than the observance that the God of the Bible does not provide a long list of said rights. One would think that he would if they were so important.
20.2 The new union was, by design, to be in accord wiht the "Laws of nature and of natures God."
This is an extremely broad statement that could be fleshed out a million different ways.
20.3 "Religions truth, specifically the Judeo-Christian tradition, was the ground on which the Republic stood.'
Actually, the ground was the home of Native Americans for thousands of years prior to colonization....
The truths that really set the foundation for our country were the liberal ones-both social (john locke) and economic (adams) as well as governmental (jefferson, adams). Freedom and liberty to live as one would want to live, to believe what one would choose to believe-even those who were not a part of a majority: these are liberal principals.
20.3 British common law, which formed the basic legal framework of the United States, looked to the Ten Commandments and biblical absolutes as the basis.
The Ten Commandments has enjoyed a special stature that comes from the simple fact that it was the first list of laws to be written and to have survived to this day. Once a list of commandments solidifies itself in history and culture, its good merits are taken for granted-no one can imagine that morality ever existed before the commandments, and everyone is sure morality would disappear if the commandments disappeared. They are wrong, ofcourse.
The fact that British common law was inspired in part by the Ten Commandments doesn't prove that the latter was sent to us by God. It just demonstrates that governments came after religion, and there was no way to prevent religion from influencing the structure and law of government. And I'm not arguing that this is bad. Religion held a near monopoly on morality and authority for hundreds of years.
Poor ol' Golden Rule! Oh, the commandment "Thou Shalt not Kill"! These genuinly good moral guidelines have been held captive by mythology for thousands of years. Accept the rules and you accept the myth, they say. I say they are 100% seperable.
20.4 Seperation of church and state is a misbegotten notion-and an idea taught by historical revisionists to our youth.
Distrust, hate, our education system, the author implies. It is using evil, deceit, to turn your children into heartless, mindless, liberal zombies.
I say that a large church, like the Catholic Church, is a complicated thing. The Church has much it must attend to in order to successfully maintain and serve its members. Likewise, a government is expected to perform even more complex and far reaching duties. I highly doubt that both could accomplish what they need to accomplish if they took upon any of the duties of the other. Seperation of church and state is possible. A government that provides security, infrastructure, and basic guidelines for communal interaction does not need to involve itself in the religious life of its citizens.
20.5 Abortion is a human rights issue, not a secular constitutional question.
The consitution deals with human rights issues. That said, yeah, abortion is a human rights issue.
21.3 (Falwell pointed out:) Liberals said it was wrong for Christians to "impose" their moral viewpoint on everyone else, yet they found nothing wrong with imposing liberal views on civil rights, vietnam, busing, school prayer, and abortion.
I don't even want to respond to something Jerry Falwell said. He was a monster. He represents everything that is wrong about the far religious right.
23.1 (George F. Will:) "But liberal societies do not provide 'freedom of choice' without having certain expectations about which choices will be made. And they try to shape choices by shaping attitudes. All societies do this. Only liberal societies pretend to be neutral."
I'm trying hard to restrain myself--to not immediately dismiss as absurd claims that sound absurd. Chances are, there is some sense in even the most ridiculous statement, and why would I devote any time to a project like this if I didn't make a real effort to seperate the sense from the nonsense?
In this case, I can see the author's point if I squint really hard. Yes, some societies under theocratic, fascist, or tyrannical rule might declare that the shaping of attitudes is a national goal. Furthermore, it is evident that our government has played a definite role in shaping attitudes to affect "free" choices people make by making kids say the pledge of allegiance, by having national holidays, and so on. It might take a small leap in logic to say that laws play a role in shaping people's attitudes, but you could say it.
I get what the author is saying only in terms of the role of government. I think the author is way off track to cast such a broad net by accussing society in general of deceit-pretending to not purposely shape attitudes in a way that it channels our choices, our freedom, down a narrow path that is most preferred by society. The police department catches criminals, the schools teach algebra, media reports and editorializes, stores sell shoes--there is no grand purpose, and even the cummulative effects cannot honestly be construed to serve a purpose beyond securing the most free human condition as possible.
There are popular ideals regarding the vision of the perfect citizen/human, and they may in fact change little from individual to individual, but there is a great difference between a society made up of free individuals holding preferences (as is the case) and a society organized to work towards a common goal of shaping individual character. I may differ from the author and a majority of philosophers in my opinion that the community should not direct the individual (at least as little as possible). I think there is a degree to which a government and a society as a whole purposefully organizes itself to manipulate the attitudes of the individual. I believe that manipulation should be as little as possible. This may define me as a Liberal. The author, on the other hand, not only sees a role for government in setting expectations for the ways in which people use their "freedom", but he envisions the transference of Christian values and Christian beliefs from government to citizen, which unconstitutional and completely unacceptable. This ofcourse defines him as a Christian Conservative.
23.3 Christians helped (or are responsible for) end slavery.
Christianity does not deserve credit for the morality that defined slavery as inhumane, just as the Bible does not deserve credit for making murder immoral simply because it is stated within.
That said, Christians did help end slavery. Interestingly, Christians were those slave holders in the South who opposed the abolitionists as well. This fact makes the authors point moot.
23.4 Humanitarianism is almost always connected to Jews or Christians-or a conception of morality derived from these faiths.
There is great good in much of the morality derived from Judaism and Christianity. Nothing should take away from the good of the individuals who fed the hungry and otherwise provided for the poor, sick, and elderly today and throughout history. To the extent that religion has provided aid and comfort, it deserves credit. It deserves credit for helping to spread humanitarian tendencies among nations.
How exactly morality is to be safeguarded in an institution or system or society without the fantasy, the hierarchy, the perversion, and the natural divisiveness of its current steward-religion-is perhaps humanities most pressing concern. It is a challenge that I consider both exciting and possible.
23.5 "Every human being has a religion: he holds values, and these values imply a rationale; in this it makes no difference whether someone has accepted the values of an organized religion or has chosen his own."
The difference is found in the vitality of the mind and the freedom of the body.
Those who accept the values of a religion bow to tyranny-they enslave their minds. They declare that they will no longer think, no longer consider, all the intricacies and factors in all the myriad circumstances in which a demand for moral judgement is called for. The mind shuts off as the tyrant (religion) takes over.
Yes, all must consistently abide by something close to an absolute moral code. The moral code of the religious, however, need only be justified by the statement, "because it was commanded". Unbelievers must think beyond this. Their rationale must run deeper. Greater reasons than "because it is evil" or "because God doesn't like it" must be found. Irrational morality is responsible for things like genital mutilation and animal sacrifice. These things are possible when thorough reasoning is discouraged in favor of Biblical recitations.
Reasoning is not foolproof by any means, however. This is where the study of philosophy-particularly morality & ethics-comes into the picture. A best morality can be built upon best reason, and active discussion can help secure a consensus on what the best morality is.
24.1 .."There is.. no such thing as a nonreligious view of truth: to value one thing as opposed to another is to make a declaration of faith".
This is too abstract for me. Hmmm... I value water over oil because water keeps me alive. What is religious about this? Truth is that which is demonstratable or that which is supported by a preponderance of evidence. What does faith have to do with it? I have faith that I like icecream more than tripe....? WHa?! Is there a difference between holding the conviction that 1+1=2 and holding the conviction that Jesus was resurrected? Can one be called truth and one religious faith? Call me gullible, but I like to think so.
24.3 Secular humanism is dangerous, imposing, intollerant, exclusive and dedicated to elimnating 'traditional theism from participating in American culture.
Sorry, I shouldn't have included this. Its all opinion and no honest claim...it can't be-who would really think its true?
28.2 The media has become the enemy of religious principle.
Whatever. The reason the media is seen as the enemy of religious principle is because it is not posted at the start of every article that the Bible is the true word of God, as Christians would like. Also, religion has felt threatened ever since the Enlightenment during which time books and book reading that didn't involve the Bible became all the rage. Knowledge that either had nothing to do with religion, or actually eroded support for it (through simple objective fact-science, etc) was disseminated for all to read. The media is an enormous institution with magazines on every available subject, news articles covering the globe, and entertainment of tremendous variety. Ofcourse religion is going to feel like a small fish in a big pond. Ofcourse religion will feel-and be-threatened.
46.2 "Time for those christians in the media to stand up and push their own agenda with conviction."
I'm fine with people pushing their own agendas as long as they don't mind people pushing back. I'd hope that if someone pushed an agenda as unreasonable as requiring blindfolds to be worn while driving that plenty of people would stand up and call it what it is-a demonstrable, dangerous idea. Likewise, Christians can expect a backlash if they put themselves on Fox News or talk radio and begin sharing their particularly twisted views of the world with millions of people. There's a good chance that millions of people will see how ridiculous and dangerous it is a feel compelled to speak up in response. Indeed, I see this happening everywhere. Atheism & agnostism has never been more prominent and acceptable than it is now, after nearly a decade of a Christian Right onslaught.
46.3 "It is time that Christian money be used to acquire news organizations and use them to editorialized for justice and life."
The author would be proud to know that this has happened since he wrote those words in 1982. However, he might have done religion a favor if he'd not encouraged it to open its big mouth...(see above).
54.4 "We must develop this militant indifference to the edicts of mere men when they contradict God's law."
Religion is never far from calling for militant responses at any given time. Otherwise, I don't get this statement.
59.1 The law and justice system is in dissarray-is a mockery to the words law and justice.
People like to say this about the justice system. I wish they'd make more specific charges.
59.1 Violent criminals are freed and child murder sanctioned.
Oh, here are more specific charges. Hmm, we might need to get even more specific before we discuss these issues. Yes, its a travesty that a violent criminal could go free because police didn't read him his rights. Most would agree that there needs to be a better way to ensure that police read the accused their rights.
When the author say's "child murder", I think its safe to assume he means abortion. ("NO", I can here the author say, "I meant CHILD MURDER!" There's no need to debate abortion here and now. At any rate, since the majority of people are pro-choice and abortion is legal, I don't think you can point to the fact that abortion doctors aren't prosecuted as evidence that the justice system is all screwed up. Well, the author did do that, but he shouldn't have....
61.3 It is impossible for government to be completely neutral towards relgion and do absolutely nothing to advance it, since all of life involves religious issues.
All life involves religious issues? Give me a break. That may be true for a religious fanatic like the author, but its not true for normal human beings or the government.
61.4 The casual slaughter of the innocent, the total breakdown of the family and sexual morality, the horrible use of medicine as a means of destroying life, deliberately removing treatment from unwanted handicapped children: these evils would not be possible or legal if christians had power in proportion to their numbers.
Its not a casual slaughter, its a regrettable termination of life but a best choice in most cases. It's not a total breakdown of the family, it's women refusing to be their husbands slaves and seeking their own happiness. It's couples expressing love their way, instead of being compelled by tradition. Its not a breakdown of sexual morality, it's reversing the damaging sexual repression that religion inflicts. Its not the horrible use of medicince as a means of destroying life, its empowering individuals to take control of their own futures, or lack thereof. In some cases, its loving mercy for babies so horribly deformed that life lived would be unbearably painful.
70.2 Life begins at conception.
The construction of the body begins at conception. Life existed before, actually, because the sperm and the egg were alive. God did not grant these two living things any special protection at all. In fact, he designed them to go to waste every time a woman has her period; and when a man pees, sleeps, dreams, and has sex.
It does not take long for an embryo to take the shape of a baby. At what point along this development, or during further develpment, does the embryo possess such awareness and potential for feeling pain that would cause us to label it an individual person and grant it the right to live--this is an important question that's worthy of honest debate. Even just before birth, I have heard that a baby is essentially brain dead-his mind a jumble of unconnected neurons. Personally, I think partial-birth abortion is wrong, but the fact about the development of a baby's brain could be significant to the debate, when determining the morality of killing a somewhat developed fetus that may feel pain, yet lack awareness.
77.1 "It is time for a massive assault on this humanistic and bigoted culture in the name of freedom and compassion."
I get the feeling that the author is just really pissed off about abortion, and thinks that because it is legal, a "massive assault" is in order to correct the evil.
77.2 The liberal experiment with human lives is a horrible failure, is crazy, and should be abandoned.
78 Believers should agitate...to eductate without interference from the pagan government that now rules us.
The author is promoting home schooling or private schools, it seems. Controlling the information children recieve has always been the way religion secures its own survival. Its a dastardly tactic, propaganda.
99 Planned parenthood is not a neutral organization-they in fact draw on public funds and lobby intensely to legislate their morality.
The author is right. But given the fact that the author believes in pushing agendas, he cannot honestly blame planned parenthood from pushing its agenda of helping women control their own future. I do not think that this is an adequately religious value (freedom to choose) to make it unconstitutional.
101-102.1 "Within the Judiciious boundaries given to us by a wise and loving Creator, we find freedom to be human: freedom to care for others in ways that they can depend on and trust in; freedom to love in a way which makes others free; freedom to fight for life and compassion. Christianity is Life! It is Joy! It is warmth, comfort, consolation, and humanness."
I think the author has a bias. I would say the same, but in place of "wise and loving Creator", put "reason". In place of "Christianity" I'd put, simply, "Life".
102.2 "It is the mean-spirited, selfish, so called liberated sexual world that is narrow and confining to the human spirit."
I'd say the same thing, except about religious sexuality.
102.3 The issue of life is a life and death struggle with the forces of evil.
And this is how it happens. A religious zealot defines a debate that does not lack reason on either side as a struggle with the forces of evil. Let the Crusades begin....again.
103.2 "...the science today contains a liberal humanistic bias as twisted as the bigotry of the media."
Science cannot be trusted. If we can't trust science, public education, the media, government, and society in general, who can we trust? Only the church remains...
The author calls science that holds that there is no single organizing principle in the world "humanistic". He thinks that proper science follows from simply observing that there is order and governing laws, and accepting that these originated from a controlling being...The Christian God, duh! He points to the fact that early prominent scientists were of the later inclination-to assume a controlling source behind the order.
I think that the proper scientific way of thinking is to assume as little as possible. Conjuring up a God to explain why hydrogen atoms always have one proton or why water always freezes at 32 degrees (which it doesn't) is a radically unscientific way of thinking.
Being able to perceive order is what allows us to survive. Its what our eyes and minds are programmed to do. If we weren't already biased towards seeing order in everything, I'm certain we'd be awed by how much is random. Nothing is perfectly ordered forever.
103.5 the agenda of modern science is death as a solution to problems real or imagined.
Funny, I had the impression that modern science was attempting to-and succeeding at-curing sickness, injury, disease, malnutrition, a laborious life, ignorance, etc, etc, etc. ...the author's statement is so asinine.
103.5 The agenda of science is based on a philosophy, not science.
Science has an agenda. Let me ponder this. And whatever this agenda is, its based on a philosophy. What might this philosophy be...? Oh right, the agenda is DEATH. And the philosophy is "a lack of organizing principle".
103.5 The agenda of science is not neutral.
Well, the author says modern scientists only believe in chance and randomness. Then he goes on to say that they must trust in order and consistency to perform their studies/experiments. I think the author just contradicted himself.
104.1 Modern western science was based on views of God as reasonable, orderly, and consistent.
Modern science was based on observation. But things can only be observed in small segments of time. From this perspective, of course things seem very consistent. But as science advanced and became able to "observe" back in time hundreds, thousands, and millions of years, they saw that things changed, and are constantly changing.
104.4 (William B Provine) "The belief in a grand design shaping both the physical world and ethics was based on abundant, obvious, and emotionally satisfying evidence: regularities of the heavenly bodies, patterns in animals and plants, and the existence of human reason.... Belief in overarching order was dominant."
Some stars explode; some simply fade away and die. The larger of two stars will sometimes rob the smaller of its mass. Some stars collide into each other. Some planets travel in a perfect circle, some travel in elipses. There are planets of primarily gas, planets of liquid, and other made up of mostly rock. Some planets have moons the size of other planets. Being able to predict where a star or planet is going to be in the sky at any given time of the year is not such stupendous regularity in the movement of the earth and heavenly bodies as to outweigh the significance of variety and change in the universe.
Nothing follows logically from observing patterns. If one looks at a cheetah and observes spots, he may say "look, patterns! order in the universe!". But the cheetah's spots end-they do not extend outside the cheetah's body. Pattern interrupted by another pattern interrupted by another patter....ultimately this equals less of a pattern and more randomness than it does a pattern.
The existence of human reason is evidence that God exists? But what about all the reason that human's don't possess? Human's have a mechanism to that allows them to remember, and to make correlations. This mechanism-the brain-happens to be far more advanced than most animals. So it is natural that we will be able to observe, imagine a likely future, and shape our actions with the goal of shaping our futures. Being able to think mathematically and logically-this is a bonus that comes with such a large brain. We can "think" or imagine one apple and then another one, and see that now there are two. Its far more complicated than this, but I don't think the mind is so mysterious that one must throw themselves prostrate before a God just to obtain an explanation.
104.6 (William B Provine) According to Darwinianism, there is no organizing principle in the world and no purpose except for the laws of probability and cause and effect; thus, there are no moral or ethical laws that belong to the nature of things, no absolute guiding principles for human society.
Guiding moral principles can follow from absolute facts. Like, if you stab me, I will feel pain and likely die. I would not like that. If you tried to stab me, I might rather stab you first. You would not like that. No one likes pain and no one wants to die. (do not do to others what you would not like done to you) It doesn't take a genius to realize that morality springs from self interest within a communal situation. Negative actions are discouraged because of this natural law-sometimes they are encoded in law. Positive actions don't need to be encoded in law. Positive feelings come naturally. Love is natural and would exist without religion. Without some absolute guiding principle, people would still find great satisfaction in helping others and expressing love. (do to others what you would like done to you)
105.2 Consistency in governing principles denotes purpose.
I don't agree. What is the basis for this claim?
106.1 Darwin's evolutionary theory "survival of the fittest" made legitimate the tremendous brutality of the Industrial Revolution. It also legitimized the race war of the Nazis. It is being used to justify abortion and infanticide.
No, individuals chose to abandon any moral principals and used others for their own gain. This has happened throughout history.
The Nazis followed the rule "survival of the most murderous". Whether Darwin's theory was used to justify the holoscaust to the Nazis is something only an individual Nazi could answer.
106 "The philosophy upon which scientists base their work has very specific effects in what types of technologies (and moralities) grow out of scientific research."
?
122.1 The new scientific way of thinking considers oneself a God-or god like. This is as pervasive as it is pernicious.
No one could consider themselves anything close to God-like. Death is guaranteed. No one fools themselves into thinking they will live forever and without pain. No one thinks they can create or change the course of events at will.
122.2 "And we have come into an electronic dark age, in which the new pagan hordes, with all the power of technology at their command, are on the verge of obliterating the last strongholds of civilized humanity. A vision of death lies before us. As we have the shores of Christian Western man behind, only a dark and turbulent sea of despair stretches endlessly ahead...unless we fight!"
Wow. The author is a drama queen.
124 The true God given rights of men and women have been replaced by man-made, materialistic "rights".
Which rights are given of God? It is evident that god did not take care to enumerate those rights or express them both strongly and clearly enough to guarantee them over the last many thousands of years-not to mention the last hundreds of thousands of years.
Rights are indeed man-made constructs and man-guaranteed conditions. There is nothing ominous about this, and it does not lessen the importance of these enduring rights.
134 "Deceipt, duplicity, double standards, unrighteousness, the committing of abominations, the roles of the sexes reversed: what could be a more accurate description of our own day and age? Our humanistic society has fallen in love with sterility and ugliness and death. It calls good evil and evil good. "
Naturally accelerating in numbers, technology, and knowledge. Gifts of science and technology aboud. Extreme efficiency in market place, still too many overworked and living in poverty. Not using existing wisdom to is fullest. Well intentioned but still capable of great selfdestruction. Sexually inhibited. Views of sex perverted by tradition. Religious and liberal values vying for dominance.
I don't know, I think that that is a more accurate description of our own day and age.
137.2 The status quo is the reign of the devil.
What does this mean?
137.2 God directs history in an important way.
What is it? God directs history or Man is doing his own thing, ie being an evil, deceitful bastard..?
138.3 "The myth of neutrality holds sway in the arts, as it does in politics and the law.
I think the author needs to come to terms with the fact that artists, politicians, and lawyers have more sophisticated things to occupy their minds with than stories from ancient text. Believe it or not, but life is much larger than religion. The author simply can't accept that individuals are choosing to create and desciminate art n' ideas that don't originate entirely from religious text n' teaching.
139 The reason non-christian books appear on the best seller lists, while Christian books that sell more don't "is simple: the secular world is provincial, narrow-minded, and bigoted."
The reason I am right and the author is wrong is because the author is a big fat dummy head! I mean, c'mon.
141 Christians who work in any branch of the arts face the open discrimination of liberal zealots.
I think its ok to criticize a painting of Jesus on the cross as highly unimaginative-and if the painter fell far short of the standards set by renessaince artists for this particular genre, it is ok to criticize the painting as lacking skill n' beauty.
The fact of the matter is that Christianity is associated with soliciting-and soliciting in art is in bad taste (unless your Andy Warhol). The experience of true art should not be all about persuasion to buy a product--or atleast if it is about that it is an experience most do not wish for. You don't have to be a religious zealot to look down on religious art.
142.3 Liberals have a book burning mentality
Funny, I thought liberals were anti-book burning. I mean, the issue pretty much defines liberalism--tolerating or embracing diversity.
142.3 "sex fairness", the notion that boys and girls are the same, and the dismantling of "sex roles" are a part of the most extensive thought control compaing in American educational history.
"the notion that boys and girls are the same" is an incorrect representation of what liberals would mean by "sex fairness". No one is claiming that they are the same-how could they? What I'm sure agitates conservatives like the author is the liberals' insistence that men and women have the right to abandon traditional male and female roles if they so choose. Women can be in charge in business. Men can stay at home and take care of the kids. If deciding to do whatever a man or woman is capable of doing without falling in line behind religious or traditional norms means that a man or woman thinks that he or she is the same as the opposite sex; well then, all I can say is that its a ridiculous notion that completely ignores the value of freedom, which is the real issue here.
Liberals are simply trying to inform young people that "sex roles" are expectations put upon them by other people-they are roles that have developed somewhat accidentally-and these roles are by no means laws that they must obey. Liberals remind children that they do have a choice in how they want to play out their lives. What may be fulfilling for one may not be fulfilling for another.
142.4 This "dismantling of 'sex roles' has virtually superceded transmission of information as the aim of the classroom."
I don't know how the author can say this and look in the mirror with any self respect afterwards. The author must admit that there is true neutrality in the classroom-boys and girls are taught the same things-and if this neutrality constitutes the "dismantling of 'sex roles", then the transmission of information and the dismantling of sex roles are the same thing. Its like complaining about teaching black people math because one's religion declares that the "role" of black people is to pick cotton for their masters. How dare liberals teach black people all that there is to know just like white people are taught!? And how dare liberals tell black people that they don't have to pick cotton if they don't want to!?
147.2 The moral vision of Shakespeare plays depend utterly on Christianity.
I know very little about this Shakespeare fella. One thing I do know however, he wrote much better than the authors of God's book, and he demonstrated a much better understanding of human nature than even Jesus did. One could create a religion more easily from Shakespeare's words than of the Bible's I'm quite certain. Too bad Christianity was too entrenched, too tyrannical, to allow anything close to competition. The Holy Grail is morality. Religion planted its flag upon morality a long time ago; and since then, nothing has challenged its empire.
148.4 Turning to Christianity because one observes that artists of quality and favor are Christians is being openminded.
I cannot say for certain that several generations of a completely secular, atheistic society would produce artists of greater or lesser quality than a society that has constantly exploited myth to fuel its artists passions. Claims going either way would be conjecture at the most. I'd listen to what prominent sociologists/historians would have to say on the subject though.
150.2 "Every person of true moral principal should be prepared to stand and fight..."
What if one's moral principal was to never stand and fight? Interestingly, Jesus himself taught this sort of principal. Is the author contradicting Christ?
152.3 "The public education system turns out generation after generation of baffled, restless, religiously neutered neo-barbarions, who have been taught that there are no moral absolutes."
I'd prefer to call them "thinkers".
154 "Truth equals confrontation." (the authors final words)
Confrontation is such a harsh word. I like "truth equals teaching" or "truth equals discussion". If a group of people think they possess "the Truth", I think they are obligated to try to convince others that they are right. Of course, I'd prefer they do this scientifically or logically, which makes things especially difficult for believers; but then again, they can use whatever method they wish, as long as it doesn't involve cutting throats or dropping bombs...
posted by Josh at
9:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home