Archive for December, 2012

Newer Entries »

Moral Absolutism in an Atheist Universe

Posted December 6, 2012 By John C Wright

Does atheism allow for an objective moral code?

Now, it is no use to say that ‘atheism’ is not a doctrine since not all atheists agree on all points. Nonsense. They all agree on the one point that there is no God.

All atheists in order to be called atheist must hold that there is no God. This means all atheists must hold that there is no divine intelligence who created the universe, created man, or has any right, neither by virtue of paternity nor wisdom, to issue moral imperatives to mankind, nor is there any divine authority whose writ runs to all men throughout all time and space.

This means that all atheists must hold that either morality is subjective or objective; but if it is objective, the atheist must hold that this alleged objectivity is not based on the writ of an intelligent authority whose power reaches everywhere across all time.

Within that limitation, I would offer that atheism does allow for a certain degree of objectivity in the question of morals.

An atheist could argue, and I think quite successfully, that certain self-destructive behaviors, or behaviors deleterious to the common good, cannot be maintained in a man or in a society under normal conditions. In such cases, it is simply a matter of logic, not of judgment, that one cannot will the consequences of an action without willing the antecedents. One cannot logically will self-preservation and will acts which lead to self-destruction.

By arguments along these lines, a man’s own sense of self-preservation and his own desire to serve his self-interest, can form a foundation upon which to erect an objective moral code.

The limitation to this argument is that it does not apply to emergencies, short-term situations, or situations where self-sacrifice or even self-restraint is called for.

Read the remainder of this entry »

32 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Apologetics, Reasonings

The Futility of Man’s Search for Meaning

Posted December 5, 2012 By John C Wright

Here is a very insightful, I am tempted to say brilliant, article by “Spengler” in the Asia Times.

The article is an argument against the central effort of modernity, namely, man’s search for meaning. The article interprets this “search for meaning” to be a search for originality, particularly originality of artistic self-expression, based on the ludicrous notion of Sartre that a man’s essential nature is something he can invent for himself.

If man’s nature is something he invents for himself, in order to be an invention, it must be original, and in order to be original, it must defy all prior tradition; but these means posterity must defy him in turn, and cast him and his work into the rubbish heap of history. Spengler says:

If we set out to invent our own identities, then by definition we must abominate the identities of our parents and our teachers. Our children, should we trouble to bring any into the world, also will abominate ours. If self-invention is the path to the meaning of life, it makes the messy job of bearing and raising children a superfluous burden, for we can raise our children by no other means than to teach them contempt for us, both by instruction, and by the example of set in showing contempt to our own parents.

Read the remainder of this entry »

20 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings, Only Posting a Link

How to Find God

Posted December 4, 2012 By John C Wright

When asked what it would take to convince him that there were a God, Tyrrell McAllister writes in reply:

I don’t know, but my imagination is limited. Nonetheless, I am certain that an omnipotent and omniscient God, unburdened by my limits, could think of something.

If there is a God, then I want to believe that there is a God. I sincerely hope, and strongly believe, that, if there is a God, then it would be possible for some evidence to convince me.

I confess that my limited imagination cannot picture in detail what that evidence would be. But that doesn’t worry me too much, because I can’t currently imagine a lot of things that actually exist or will actually happen. That is obvious. I can see that what I can now imagine is too paltry an image to possibly be a perfectly accurate and complete picture of reality.

That my paltry imagination doesn’t contain something is only very weak evidence that that “something” doesn’t exist. (In this case, the “something” is evidence that would convince me of God’s existence.) Here, this weak evidence is overwhelmed by the fact that it is even harder for me to imagine what could possibly stop God, if he existed, from finding a way to convince me.
The arguments that you and your commenters make above about post-modern epistemology and peoples’ obstinate immunity to all evidence doesn’t help me to see how God could be unable to convince me. I am not a post-modernist, and I don’t believe that I am immune to all possible evidence. Therefore, were God unable to convince me, it seems to me unlikely that it would be for the reasons that you have given.

Brother, I sympathize more than I can say. It was when I reached a point in my atheist pondering when I realized that no miracle, no evidence, nothing whatsoever I could see with my eyes could possibly convince me of the existence of God that I came to myself, and realized my method of inquiry was grossly inadequate. It was a thought prison.

If you are not a modern or a postmodern thinker, and you are looking for evidence in the existence of God, allow me in all humility to suggest two things.

First, I suggest the use of reason.

Read the remainder of this entry »

70 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Apologetics

Leftroids Usurp Wikipedia

Posted December 3, 2012 By John C Wright

Nicole Swinford of the College Fix:

Prominent gender and media studies professors from across the country converged recently to help host what was dubbed by organizers as a “Feminist, Anti-Racist Wikipedia Edit-a-thon” to create or influence dozens of entries on the online encyclopedia.

A Claremont Graduate University endowment fund sponsored the effort, which promoted creating and “improving” entries dedicated to: feminists; feminist theories; science studies; science, technology and society; human sexuality; artificial intelligence; and film theory; according to an email that announced the event to the Claremont Colleges community, as well as the “Edit-a-thon Wikipedia Page.”

My comment:

Why, O Conservatives, are we always playing defensively, always playing catch-up, always surprised when the forces of Mind Control make yet another attempt to indoctrinate the young, stifle free speech, monopolize the culture, marginalize the Christian and civilized voices who lingers in ever small numbers among us?

Why?

29 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Only Posting a Link

Obama Usurps Schools

Posted December 3, 2012 By John C Wright

Well, that did not take long. You voted for him, America, and now he will revise what your children are taught in schools. Suckers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/334645/obamacore-white-house-takes-schools-stanley-kurtz

Is it, of course, unconstitutional for the administration to dictate to your local school board the content of curriculum.

President Obama’s bid to control what your children learn in school is surely one of the most important and disturbing of his many transformative plans. Not only is Obama’s attempt to devise what is in effect a national K-12 school curriculum arguably unconstitutional and illegal, the fact that most Americans have no idea that the new “Common Core” (aka Obamacore) even exists may be the most troubling thing about it.

Today’s Washington Post features an article on the controversy being kicked up by the new English curriculum that 46 states and the District of Columbia are just now waking up to. Not coincidentally, this new education war is hitting less than a month after Obama’s re-election, just in time to prevent the public from taking the most effective step it could have to block the changes. You have to get nearly to the end of today’s Post article even to get a hint of the fact that Obama is the real force behind the new curriculum. Following that link takes you to an article that more frankly lays out Obama’s role in commandeering the substance of what’s taught in the nation’s schools. The print version of this September 21, 2012 article featured a more revealing headline than the web version: “Education overhaul largely bypasses Congress.”

[…]

That 45 states and the District of Columbia have signed on to what is in effect becoming a new national curriculum, most of them without even seeing the new standards, is a Constitutional, legal, political, and educational outrage. Obama is most at fault, yet the states (many run by Republicans) also deserve blame for selling their Constitutional birthright for a mess of pottage. I have much more to say about the Common Core here.

George Will on a related topic:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-disregard-for-those-pesky-things-called-laws/2012/03/08/gIQAHIA61R_story.html

 

14 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Only Posting a Link

School Removes God from a First Grader’s Veteran’s Day Poem

Posted December 3, 2012 By John C Wright

I am not making this up.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/29/school-removes-god-first-graders-poem
Welcome to O-merica.

Be the first to comment
Filed in Only Posting a Link

Gonzaga University Meekly Tramples the Crucifix

Posted December 3, 2012 By John C Wright

Horrible news. H/T to Mark Shea. One of his readers writes:

Sadly, it appears that GU will comply with the HHS Mandate without even a fight.   I spoke to Melissa in Human Resource at Gonzaga today and she confirmed December 1, 2012 Gonzaga will cover contraceptives, sterilizations and plan b drugs.  This devastating news comes out at the same time Cardinal Dolan said as Catholics we will fight the immoral HHS Mandate.

As Catholics, we will be called in the days ahead to stand up for our Catholic faith and it will be difficult.   Remember what our Lord said about being “lukewarm” and have courage.

If you feel called to email or make a phone please do.  Above all please keep Dr. McCulloh and Bishop Cupich in your prayers.

President Thayne McCulloh, D. Phil
president@gonzaga.edu
509-313-6102

Most Reverend Blase J Cupich
509-358-7305
Mary Cole, Executive  Assistant to the Bishop
mcole@dioceseofspokane.org

5 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings

The Coyness of God

Posted December 3, 2012 By John C Wright

Over at Bad Catholic (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/11/an-imperfect-god.html) One of Mr Barnes’ readers there asks the plaintive question:

If God tailors his interactions to suit his audience, then why are atheists wrong to ask for definitive evidence of his existence? Thomas got it. Why can’t I?

While it sounds like a complaint, it is actually an honest question, and merits an honest answer. Here, to the best of my admittedly limited abilities, is mine:

First, you are asking the wrong question, and second, the answer is right in front of you.

Read the remainder of this entry »

41 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Apologetics

City of Heroes is Dead

Posted December 1, 2012 By John C Wright

Trivial as it might sound, this was the only online game I played. This moment 3.00 AM Eastern time, Midnight Pacific, all servers forcibly disconnected. Despite that the game was making money, and despite the rumors that someone might buy the property from NC Soft, the company decided to abolish the game.

I was playing my final character, the Merriest Widow, and was one ‘bubble’ or unit of experience points away from reaching level 50, the final level. Had I had another ten minutes of playtime, or even five, I might have reached the goal. But it was not to be.

Read the remainder of this entry »

26 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Announcement
Newer Entries »