We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, October 11. 2014
Tracked: Oct 12, 09:22
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Well, they have to suppress the alternate visions since their vision has no basis except in Christian morality and the teachings of Christ. And why go for a cheap knock off when you can easily have an original?
Christianity, as a late writer has pointed out in words well chosen, is the only system of socialism which commends it self as having a rational basis, and its founder the most practical teacher of it that the world has ever seen. " The aim of all socialism is the securing of equality in the social condition of mankind, and if equality is to be secured at all it will be secured only by changing the hearts of men, and never by setting to work, in the first instance, upon the conditions." But the present impulse of socialism is not Christian, but rather one willing to put an end to Christianity. And it is a system of machinery, like the kingdom of a tyrant, not of souls, like that of Christ. Now the Christian system did not rest on force at all. It was communistic, but not socialistic, as the word is properly used; for its very essence was the freedom of the individual will.
Stuart Schneiderman did pretty good take down when commenting on the recent biology professor who declared you can believe in God or Science but not both.
In a sense Barash has proved Hume’s point. If you want science to be the gold standard you must eliminate morality. In an amoral universe there is no reason to follow the precept of benevolence. One might say that, in such a universe, cruelty is the order of the day.
It should be noted that not all religions are the same. Not all of them place divine or even parental benevolence at the center of their moral universe.
But if follow Barash's version of science, how can we avoid the conclusion that human beings, if they want to live in harmony with an amoral natural world should act as though there are no rules? Amorality means that there are no rules. Immorality means that there are rules, but that you break them.
Wow. We wrote at the same time and made mutually supporting points. I nod and toast.
Because it is a competing religion.
Marxism is essential an heretical form of Christianity which seeks to enforce its vision. It held on to some of that root when it morphed to socialism, though even that eventually had to embrace enforcement to continue.
The derivatives have moved farther from Christianity, though they wish to keep its virtues without its personal costs or intellectual rigor. They water down and add new ingredients in each generation, not acknowledging - because that would be painful - that they have no other source for their definition of "good" which holds up to 100 seconds of examination.
This will not change. Over-excited Christians forever sensing that revival is imminent to the contrary, we are in a post-Christian world, unless God decides to intervene in some dramatic form. (Which has happened before and is possible, with or without warning.)
They do not see how much they owe to the Church, to Christ, to the Hebrews: No matter, they will rule despite their blindness.
They will saw off the branch of their own moral stances despite decades of warning. No matter, they will rule despite their lack of insight.
They will blame others even as they take their food. No matter, the will rule despite - or perhaps becoause of - their arrogance.
Well all commentators are correct, but let me add: because they have been seduced by Evil.
Christianity calls in to question their sins--particularly their sins of pride-- and they cannot bear that.
Ultimately, we must face the fact that we have what is essentially a tribe of barbarians in charge of what remains of our civilization.
And no, they are not "scientists", they really do not understand the nature of science at all. They merely indulge in "Scientism" They are so poorly educated that they cannot understand the scope of science at all in our history and our lives. It is merely a repeat of the determinism of the Marxist Leninist and Maoist "scientific socialism". They have reject at least half of what it means to be humans--perhaps more than half. They truly have nothing viable to replace what they would destroy, nothing at all. There feeble Scientism will implode in itself. It is amazing that after the bloody history of the last century we cannot put this nonsense behind us.
The question is: can we ever right ourselves? Can these people and their "beliefs" be pushed back to the margins where they belong. From where we sit now this looks impossible.
When the last (non-liberal) boomer goes, much of the innate and human knowledge and understanding of what Western Civilization was will go with them. How do we raise the cane up when it is in the field?
Scientism was a Lewis term. Is that where you got it?
Christianity tells us that man cannot guide himself based purely on his own sense of right and wrong - he need divine help to do so. That would require the people exercising authority over us to recognize that they do not know everything and cannot create a perfect society purely from their own knowledge and judgement. It also requires that they understand that there is an authority even they are subject to. Liberals are not fond of either premise.
No surprises. The left has been trying to destroy Christianity since socialism was born in the crucible of the French Revolution. Western society is founded on Christianity. In order to remake society, the left needs an omnipotent government, using its police powers, to be the final arbiter of morality - and thus our laws. And when that happens, the dignity and sanctity of individual life is no longer the highest moral good. The protection and propagation of the state becomes the highest moral good . . . and the streets run red with blood.
Read Anne Applebaum's book Iron Curtain. In order to impose a totalitarian form of government, all sources of authority other than the state must be destroyed. Religion is high on the list, as is family.
I am not aware that Lewis invented the term, but he often used it. It does have a broader coinage and many usages, though though none of the nuances of usage contradict the primary sense of the term, which was of course how Lewis used the term
Strangely, Wikipedia has a resolvable entry for the term (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism).
Here is a good, brief adumbration of Lewis sense of the term. http://www.lewissociety.org/scientism.php
I meant here by mt usage both Lewis' usage and the broader meaning.
It is really so simple and logical:
They see religion as the great lie, it was never true. Bits and pieces of the legend may have happened but even then typically the religious angle was hyped or totally made up. And they see themselves as educated and realize that an educated person doesn't believe in these fantasy's. Religion was built by the priests and kings who most benefited by it. Absolute fealty was demanded to the religion and the kings and priests who determined what religion was. Throughout history these priests and kings did horrible things in the name of and benefit of religion. Today your average educated person knows as much or more then a renaissance man of the 1800's did. They know of the great deceptions and outright political misuse of religion. They don't see a lot of difference even today. They consider a very religious person to be stupid/naive/incapable of modern thought. And right on cue numerous very religious people act out publicly in the most "dumb" ways to prove the modern liberal right. Their belief is that given all we know and all the revelations of the lies and wrongdoing throughout history by those hiding behind religion that you would have to be stupid beyond belief to still swallow this propaganda. They consider devotion and committment to religion little more then any addiction like drugs or gambling and they have pity on them for their inability to understand the world and their place in it. And the coup de grace is that when confronted by the truth and discrepencies of religion most/all religious people wil double down and say things beyond a rational persons wildest expectations of them. They cannot talk rationally to a religious person it is like talking to a child about the tooth fairy with the difference being that the child is so cute. Religion is and always has been a political system created to demand absolute control of the people for the benefit of the elite.
Is it then religion or Christianity that is so despised? You implicate religion in the broadest sense, but the liberal distaste for Christianity doesn't appear to extend to the various eastern religions. There may be a libertarian distaste for religion in general, disliking any perceived fetter on the license of the individual.
Well that's because the arguement is mostly between Western liberals and Western religions. For 2000 years give or take a few hundred that had been mostly Christianity. Most people born and raised in the West were exposed to Christianity either as adherents or bystanders. Until the last 30 years or so there was no other major religion in the West. The reasoning would apply equally as well to any religion.
Joshua Muravchik wrote an article on socialism as religion.
Ironically, by disavowing Christianity, the "Liberals" have gutted the Liberal Arts. You can hardly understand the art, literature, music, etc. of Western Civilization of the last 2000 years if you do not have at least a comprehension of the Bible from a historical viewpoint.
Try listening to what liberals/communists/fascist say and what they write. Then the answer will be apparent.
Rivals: liberalism/communism/fascism/nazism/feminism recognizes that religions (in general) and Judaism and Christianity (in particular) offer alternative, superior ways of life.
I am likely reiterating what others have said.
Libs hate Christianity because they believe theology to be myth.
They hate it because Christians answer to a higher authority than government and thus oppose essential tenets of liberalism. The fact that they view the belief as imaginary galls them even more.
They hate Christianity because Christians are an opposing political demographic. A huge obstacle in the advancement of leftist ideology.
I would speculate that their logic is, if they can destroy Christianity, they can destroy much of the opposition they face.
I believe they look just as disdainfully at other religions, but those adherents don't pose a threat to their political power so the tenets of those religions are mostly ignored.