Skip to main content

Two good bloggers

Two bloggers worth reading - Poretto and Burgess Jackson 1) Presumption and Naturalism Francis Porretto has an interesting post up today at Eternity Road. It's hard to grab a quote the does it justice, but he concludes like this:
... one must keep firmly in mind that a fully virtuous life is eminently possible to non-Christians, agnostics, and outright atheists, and that professing Christians have been known to commit every sin and outrage in history's catalog...
It's true you know. You can go to church and it will not help you if you don't live your faith. Going through the motions won't do. A man in a cave with no contact with the faith can do his level best to find the faith even if he is starting from zero (or close to it). It's like any discovery. We know about say, electricity, but we could decide to ignore that knowledge for some reason. And the guy in the cave could discover it on his own. In truth it's hard to imagine anyone climbing that mountain of knowledge in one lifetime, but the man in the cave could get the ball rolling, however, and that honest seeking and receptivity is important. I hope in my posts on Naturalism I have not given the impression that I don't agree with Poretto on this point. I do. My one distinction is that I think they do so despite what they profess, and not because of what they profess. They are like the man in the cave trying to re-invent electricity, unaware that it has been done. I'm not being too harsh because I came to the same conclusion about myself at one point. I'm not being any tougher on them than I have already been on myself. There is a great passage at the beginning of Chesterton's Orthodoxy on this sort of experience:
I am the man who with the utmost daring discovered what had been discovered before... I have discovered, not that they were not truths, but simply that they were not mine. When I fancied that I stood alone I was really in the ridiculous position of being backed up by all of Christendom.
It's one of my favourite posts in that favourite book. Think of it like this. The Church says that there is no salvation outside the church; that Christ said that "no one reaches the Father but through me." The ideas are often taken as very cold and very harsh. But! Think now... it all depends on how one defines "Church" and "Christ" (or "the Spirit."). Can we truly say that we know where the Holy Spirit is not? That would be the sin of presumption, would it not? It's not a step that I am comfortable making. ******* 2) Consequentialism and Torture Keith Burgess Jackson continues to explore (and pound on, in his quiet way) Consequentialism of the sort Peter Singer has made a career out of. Today he looks at it through the issue of torture, inspired no doubt by the hearings into Mr. Gonzales that took place down south just a few days ago.
There are two types of deontology: absolute and nonabsolute. To an absolute deontologist, no amount of good consequences can justify torture. It is always and everywhere wrong, whatever the consequences. To a nonabsolute deontologist, torture can be justified (i.e., right, all things considered) if it produces enough overall good. Note the difference between consequentialism and nonabsolute deontology. They are not the same... I’m a conservative deontologist. Peter Singer is a liberal consequentialist. Where is Peter Singer in this debate? He might hold the view that torture is usually not the best means to maximizing overall happiness (or, as he prefers to put it, preference-satisfaction), but he can’t rule it out categorically. (Consequentialists rule out no acts categorically.) Liberal consequentialists need to speak out. If they are remaining silent because they think their defense of torture will give aid and comfort to the Bush administration in the war on Islamic terrorism, then they have no integrity. They are putting expediency (political advantage) ahead of moral principle.
I have nothing to add to Burgess Jackson's conclusion - he's got it right and pointing out something the left leaning Peter Singers of the world would rather remained innoticed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi