This is an conversation I had with Craig French of Atheism sucks on a recent edition of Paleo Radio. The title of this blog entry says it all. Read the original post here.
To read his material, visit Atheism Sucks. And look forward to more contributors from Atheism Sucks on Paleo Radio.
To read his material, visit Atheism Sucks. And look forward to more contributors from Atheism Sucks on Paleo Radio.
15 comments:
Ahh yes, it all makes sense now, people who don't believe in God desire human flesh for consumption.
If I were going to make wild allegations relating people's religious beliefs and cannibalism, I think accusing Christians of being cannibals would be much easier. You know, the whole communion being the body and blood of Jesus.
from: http://www.nobeliefs.com/communion/communion.htm
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (John 6:53-55)
Egads, I thought. Jesus really wants them to EAT HIM! It would make perfect sense if the disciples did eat his dead corpse. Of course you wouldn't want to admit your cannibalism to the unbelievers and you'd have to explain the missing body to the authorities. You might say something like, "He is not here, but is risen..." (Luke 24:6). Yeah, right, that's the ticket.
Hmm...maybe being Agnostic isn't for me, and i should return to the Catholic Church in order to get my weekly fix of human flesh and blood...because I am a godless cannibal?
No, that wasn't the point of the blog entry or even our conversation. The purpose of his entry was simply to point out that the unbeliever does not have a presuppositional framework wherein he or she can meaningfully condemn the action.
As for the doctrine of the Real Presence, Craig is a Presbyterian. They do not believe in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
Send Austin Jackson my regards.
so because I'm an "unbeliever" (good newspeak, by the way) I have no moral or ethical argument against cannibalism?
How about as a Marxist-Leninist, I do not support cannibalism, because workers should not eat their proletarian brothers and sisters. If we consume our Comrades, how will revolution ever occur? Ta Da! The "unbeliever" suddenly has a "framework wherein he or she can meaningfully condemn the action."
Workers of the World UNITE!....and don't eat your comrades....unless there is a grain shortage and we have to purge some counter-revolutionaries for dinner.
I knew you'd love the line about grain shortages and purges.
Newspeak? If you understood the historical context of that word, the political motivations of the one who coined the phrase, or the book that it was made popular in, then you would see just how absurd it is for a Marxist-Leninist to insinuate that I am engaging in it.
It is very clear you have no idea what we are talking about here. We are not discussing an atheist's inability to make an argument. Nobody would deny this. We are talking about one's ability or inability to demonstrate how their espoused worldview can account for normative ethics and meaningful judgments on various thoughts, motives, or actions.
Do your homework, kiddo.
Actually, this reminds me of the discussions we had in my political philosophy class (which was about Plato, who was almost a defacto Christian.)
The problem with you Christians is you think men are the original sinners, completely bad beings. You have an unhealthy contempt for humanity, because you don't believe in it.
Most people are simpathetic to other people, except sociopaths, who are a minority. There is no need to make some huge philosophical framework to rationalize some of our gut feelings concerning life, pain, and death.
We are condemned to eternal moral ambiguity.
moral ambiguity.
Only a commie would find such a fine line distinction. I believe a case could be made (not a rabbit trail I wish to wander here) that he was writing not only against totalitarianism but also against democratic socialism. But this is beside the point.
What I am saying is rather simple. Any and all people make ethical judgments. The problem rests with how one is able to demonstrate from their worldview how this judgment is meaningul, normative, or binding. My contention as a presuppositionalist is that they cannot. Simple enough yet?
Marmot:
You are equivocating. Belief in original sin neither requires belief in total depravity. In fact, this Calvinist doctrine is considered heretical by the Catholic Church.
As for how we view the world, you are still way off. This is an easy misconception given the various uses of the word "world" in the Scriptures and other highly esteemed writings. Premillinarians may hold such a view, but Catholics are overwhelmingly Amillennial or Postmillennial in their eschatology. Both are optimistic, but the latter is very optimistic. I am part of the latter.
I would contend also that the Encyclicals of the Popes on social matters are quite balanced in their view of the world. This also deals with sympathy and concern for the wellbeing of individuals and the common good.
In short, I think you are wrong on all counts. May be misinformed, maybe sheer ignorance of the topic (this is common), but wrong nonetheless.
George Orwell was really to the left around 1936. After all he enlisted to a marxist militia, and wrote about his admiration for anarchist-communists and his marxist comrades. He also wrote about his distaste for the Catholic Church and its marriage to the fascists and landlords.
He was always a leftist. However, in his last years, it seems his politics got a little dilluted. He wasn't against "democratic socialism" though.
Reactionaries love to portray Orwell as one of them. After all 1984 makes the perfect "anti-communist" propaganda without the historical context. However, obviously reactionaries never care about historical context.
Mentality of most Christians. Most Christians, in my experience, tend to have a well rounded view of the world. On the one hand, they admit that there is sin and social injustice. On the other hand, they are actively engaged in the process and, at least until the advent of Dispensationalism, were engaged in education, art, architecture, culture, etc.
We don't view the majority of the world as heretics because a heretic is something rather specific. Are they sinners? Sure. Does this mean they are totally depraved and that there are evil henchmen around every corner waiting to molest little babies? Of course not. Instead, it takes human nature as a both/and. It is both sinful and worthy of respect. I think this is sensible.
Remorse for sin should be considered a mental illness? Take homosexuality off the list, give a free pass to transgendered people, but crack down on people who are upset with themselves because they did not live up to the moral code they believe in? You have to be kidding me.
Christians don't generally hate themselves. Most of them love their families, try to do the best they can at what they do, and take part in social matters. Do they dislike certain tendencies of regret certain actions? Sure. But it is in line with their moral code. And what things do they regret that they shouldn't? Pride? Hatred? Alcoholism? Adultery? Theft? The inability to be content with one's lot in life? To say that it is insane or in any way harmful for them to regret such actions or tendencies is foolish.
As a human being, without the whole philosophical gobbidigook, I would feel bad if I caused pain to to another person if I didn't think they deserved it. That is different however, from feeling guilty of having sex with a random stranger or getting piss drunk once in a while. I am not going to feel guilty for doing stuff that I like from time to time and make me happy. Remorse in excess can obviously hold the characteristics of an illness, after all it is self-destructive because it prevents someone from being happy. If my "moral standards" were to stab myself, and I am too scared to do it, I am obviously feeling remorse for something stupid.
As I said before, we are eternally condemned to moral ambiguity, at least while we live in a class society. That is why detailed "moral frameworks" are worthless. We both, including your politics and your christian moralism, are extremely biased to our own economic standings, or experiences, the way we where raised, etc. I can only speak of what I believe and desire the most, but I can't justify it in terms of rigid moral frameworks. The atheists who try to do this, and use, as the guy in the radio said, stuff like "evolutionary terms", are bullshitting themselves. I am at least honest about my own incapability, compared to loads of people out in the world though (including christians). Your dear Catholic Church who backed fascist land owners and state murder gangs in 1936, wasn't obviously able to avoid their economic class-make up.
"I believe a case could be made (not a rabbit trail I wish to wander here) that he was writing not only against totalitarianism but also against democratic socialism. But this is beside the point."
You should read Homage to Catalonia, it's all about Orwell's experiences during the Spanish Civil War. In chapter 7 Orwell says that he was a "convinced democratic Socialist" by the time he left Spain. His experience with stalinist militia's during the war helped make him into a strong anti-stalinist.
I assume you have read Animal Farm by Orwell, the satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution, it's betrayal, and Stalinist totalitarianism. In the book he has very pro Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky views in the forms of Old Major (Marx/Lenin), and Snowball (Trotsky). Napoleon (Stalin) is the pig that destroys the revolution, purges other pigs, makes Animal Farm unequal once again, and starts an alliance with the humans (the Tehran Conference).
Face it, Orwell was a pinko, not a reactionary.
I would never contend that Orwell was an advocate for Traditionism or the philosophy of the Old Right. Pinko may be a fine description. As I said, this is a rabbit trail hardly worth the time of day, at least under this specific post.
You wouldn't feel remorse due to the moral standard you adhere to. The Catholic or Evangelical moral standard is quite different. Consequently, what you deem wrong (or stupid) differs from them.
Detailed moral frameworks are stupid? What is the alternative? Well, you said moral ambiguity. Yet you continue to work from a moral framework. You see class society as an evil, the Church (to whatever degree) backing fascists in 1936 as wrong, and Catholics loathing various intentions or actions as wrong and even possibly insane.
These judgments are all in harmony with your worldview. That not so ambiguous network of related presuppositions involving life, being, ethics, etc. The debate is never over a moral framework or no moral framework but over which moral framework.
Pinko said:
Back to the topic at hand, you're saying that an atheist can't condemn cannibalism. I'm still not getting how someone cannot condemn cannibalism just because they are not religious.
Morality/ethics involve *shouldness* and *should not-ness"...from an atheistic metaphysic, how is it that morality *necessarily* follows? It doesn't.
When push comes to shove, atheism (at best) can produce moral relativism...so when it comes to cannibalism and pumpkin pie, it really just comes down to taste for you.
Moral repulsion from an atheistic/materialist perspective is more akin to a chemical imbalance than anything.
Post a Comment