TOP NAV
BOOK
BLOGS 12
BLOGS 11
BLOGS 10
BLOGS 09
BLOGS 08
BLOGS 07
BLOGS 06
BLOGS 05
BLOGS 04
| The Cars at the Detroit Auto Show |
by Christopher Chantrill
January 05, 2007 at 10:35 am
THERE HAVE been a lot of books written by atheists about the folly of religion recently, and they tend to take a rather high line with believers.
Apart from the usual bromides about religion causing wars, and religious people hopelessly missing the point about evolution, they proudly parade their "rational ethics" as a substitute for belief.
As Sam Schulman writes:
They write as if great minds had never before wrestled with the big questions of creation, moral law and the contending versions of revealed truth. They argue as if these questions are easily answered by their own blunt materialism. Most of all, they assume that no intelligent, reflective person could ever defend religion rather than dismiss it.
Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion complains about people accusing him of being very "nineteenth century."
Actually, it is probably more accurate to call him "eighteenth century." He seems to think that we are still arguing about the proofs of God's existence. But I thought that Kant had put that one away two hundred years ago and more when he showed that you couldn't prove or disprove God's existence.
But Kant did something more. He claimed that we couldn't know reality, things-in-themselves, but only appearances. He must have been onto something because a century later a young German kid completely upset the assumptions about space and time by saying that space and time were relative, not absolute as Newton had assumed.
Atheists like Dawkins and Sam Harris of The End of Faith don't engage with Kant, and that's a shame. They delight their followers by beating up on the small fry like fundamentalists and the religious right instead of dealing with the big beast.
Kant is generally thought to be the most important philosopher since Aristotle, so what he wrote about God would have to be important, you would think.
By the way, Sam Harris writes a lot about in The End of Faith about "rational ethics," but when it comes to the point he just presents his idea of the end of ethics as increasing happiness and decreasing suffering as given. How rational is that?
Sphere: Related Content |Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com. His Road to the Middle Class is forthcoming.
When we began first to preach these things, the people appeared as awakened from the sleep of agesthey seemed to see for the first time that they were responsible beings...
Finke, Stark, The Churching of America, 1776-1990
In 1911... at least nine million of the 12 million covered by national insurance were already members of voluntary sick pay schemes. A similar proportion were also eligible for medical care.
Green, Reinventing Civil Society
We have met with families in which for weeks together, not an article of sustenance but potatoes had been used; yet for every child the hard-earned sum was provided to send them to school.
E. G. West, Education and the State
Law being too tenuous to rely upon in [Ulster and the Scottish borderlands], people developed patterns of settling differences by personal fighting and family feuds.
Thomas Sowell, Conquests and Cultures
The primary thing to keep in mind about German and Russian thought since
1800 is that it takes for granted that the Cartesian, Lockean or Humean scientific and
philosophical conception of man and nature... has been shown by indisputable evidence to be
inadequate.
F.S.C. Northrop, The Meeting of East and West
Inquiry does not start unless there is a problem... It is the problem and its
characteristics revealed by analysis which guides one first to the relevant facts and then,
once the relevant facts are known, to the relevant hypotheses.
F.S.C. Northrop, The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities
But I saw a man yesterday who knows a fellow who had it from a chappie
that said that Urquhart had been dipping himself a bit recklessly off the deep end.
Freddy Arbuthnot
Dorothy L. Sayers, Strong Poison
I mean three systems in one: a predominantly market economy; a polity respectful of the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and a system of cultural institutions moved by ideals of liberty and justice for all.
In short, three dynamic and converging systems functioning as one: a democratic polity, an economy based on markets and incentives, and a moral-cultural system which is plural and, in the largest sense, liberal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism
The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness...
But to make a man act [he must have]
the expectation that purposeful behavior has the power to remove
or at least to alleviate the felt uneasiness.
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
[In the] higher Christian churches… they saunter through the liturgy like Mohawks along a string of scaffolding who have long since forgotten their danger. If God were to blast such a service to bits, the congregation would be, I believe, genuinely shocked. But in the low churches you expect it every minute.
Annie Dillard, Holy the Firm
When we received Christ, Phil added, all of a sudden we now had a rule book to go by, and when we had problems the preacher was right there to give us the answers.
James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh
The recognition and integration of extralegal property rights [in the Homestead Act] was a key element in the United States becoming the most important market economy and producer of capital in the world.
Hernando de Soto, The Mystery of Capital
mysql close 0
©2007 Christopher Chantrill