Points to Ponder:
(On God's Existence and Reason)
[E]ither God exists or he doesn’t. There are only two options. Either one recognizes the priority of reason, of the creative Reason that stands at the beginning of everything and is the origin of everything – the priority of reason is also the priority of freedom – or one upholds the priority of the irrational, according to which everything in our world and in our lives is only an accident, marginal, an irrational product, and even reason would be a product of irrationality. In the end, one cannot “prove” either of these views, but Christianity’s great choice is the choice of reason and the priority of reason. This seems like an excellent choice to me, demonstrating how a great Intelligence, to which we can entrust ourselves, stands behind everything. [Pope Benedict XVI]
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Revisiting the Subjects of Atheism and Rational Thought in General:
(Aka "'From the Mailbag' Dept.")
Having received a request from Beth over at Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to review a piece she wrote to an atheist, I sent her the following text in response on December 10th:
Hi Beth:
There are some spelling or grammatical glitches in the text but you can find those on a proofread. (As I make them myself at times so I am hardly going to be critical when other do it.)
Now, I don't subscribe to the belief that religion is the only thing that makes people compelled to good behavior (although it's certainly true for some), but it does give people inner peace, serenity, enlightenment, and often things like creativity and clarity in thinking.
I would change "it does" to "it can." I know not a few theists who frankly are lousy thinkers. But yes, if one accepts as a certain foundational presupposition that there is Infinite Intelligence (in some form or another) it can definitely assist with creativity and clarity in thinking because it defines a point of reference from which one can operate from. And as I am wont to say at times "definitions are the tools of thought."
On the whole the piece reads fine except it did not seem to me that you challenged the atheist while trying to defend yourself from his assertions. The following threads from my weblog may be of assistance in this area:
Musings on Atheism (circa August 15, 2003)
Points to Ponder on Atheism By Dr. Art Sippo (circa August 14, 2003)
Ultimately, atheism is arbitrary as both Dr. Sippo and I note in various ways. Because to be an atheist is to have an operative presupposition in your thinking that something was created out of nothing. I remember really pissing off atheists at the infidels board about six to seven years ago with pointing that out in various ways to a whole host of their presumed "arguments against God's existence." The beauty of it is that no matter how they slice it, that is what all of their attempts inexorably boil down to. Hope that helps.
I was considering blogging that email in standard anonymous format but since Beth blogged it to her comboxes, it seems appropriate to blog it as written here without alteration. She appended my email in the combox with this text:
Bingo. I had actually emailed him with a “help?!” after writing this post, because I had actually seen those pieces before, and as I said, he’s one of those people who can debate these issues far more thoroughly and knowledgably than I can. I would ask, encourage, Jeff and others to read those two pieces, at minimum. I assure you, you will have better answers there at his blog (Rerum Novarum) than I could ever supply. And in case you’re thinking you’ll encounter a fire-and-brimstone evangelist there, you’re wrong. I challenge you to read this extraordinarily rational, intellectual man’s work. (Isn’t that what an atheist would prefer hearing? Logic and reason?)
Thanks for your kind words Beth. It sure beats some of the baseless garbage that I have heard from fellow Catholics in recent years but then again, I suppose that is the standard tack taken by those addicted to the herd mentality who have no concern for building and maintaining authentic character.
I make no claims for wisdom beyond the objective validity of the arguments I advance on whatever topic I discuss. Logic and reason are not a special preserve of the self-proclaimed "intellectual class" but unfortunately, many people are content to consign us all to various totalitarian systems. These systems could be physical, intellectual, or whatever whereby only a self-anointed class of "experts" are presumed credible by virtue of something other than the intrinsic validity of their positions as ascertained by objective criteria.
The problem is, a lot of people are quite provincialist in their approaches to issues -judging the worth of an argument not on its merits but on who it is who is making the argument.{1} Certainly it happens in politics all the time and that is one reason I am an Independent voter and have been for ten years now.
In summary, yes I have an abiding respect for reason and logic and those who show an interest in these areas can count on respect from me even if I do not agree with them. Those who do not and who try to play games to skirt the rational faculties have nothing but scorn from me as they contribute not to the building up of civilization but to its tearing down however fine their motives may or may not be.
Note:
{1} This kind of atrocious double standard happens all the time -even in places where one may not suspect it. At bottom it is nothing but solipsism and implicitly undermines objective reality by denying that the latter actually exists or is possible.
(Aka "'From the Mailbag' Dept.")
Having received a request from Beth over at Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to review a piece she wrote to an atheist, I sent her the following text in response on December 10th:
Hi Beth:
There are some spelling or grammatical glitches in the text but you can find those on a proofread. (As I make them myself at times so I am hardly going to be critical when other do it.)
Now, I don't subscribe to the belief that religion is the only thing that makes people compelled to good behavior (although it's certainly true for some), but it does give people inner peace, serenity, enlightenment, and often things like creativity and clarity in thinking.
I would change "it does" to "it can." I know not a few theists who frankly are lousy thinkers. But yes, if one accepts as a certain foundational presupposition that there is Infinite Intelligence (in some form or another) it can definitely assist with creativity and clarity in thinking because it defines a point of reference from which one can operate from. And as I am wont to say at times "definitions are the tools of thought."
On the whole the piece reads fine except it did not seem to me that you challenged the atheist while trying to defend yourself from his assertions. The following threads from my weblog may be of assistance in this area:
Musings on Atheism (circa August 15, 2003)
Points to Ponder on Atheism By Dr. Art Sippo (circa August 14, 2003)
Ultimately, atheism is arbitrary as both Dr. Sippo and I note in various ways. Because to be an atheist is to have an operative presupposition in your thinking that something was created out of nothing. I remember really pissing off atheists at the infidels board about six to seven years ago with pointing that out in various ways to a whole host of their presumed "arguments against God's existence." The beauty of it is that no matter how they slice it, that is what all of their attempts inexorably boil down to. Hope that helps.
I was considering blogging that email in standard anonymous format but since Beth blogged it to her comboxes, it seems appropriate to blog it as written here without alteration. She appended my email in the combox with this text:
Bingo. I had actually emailed him with a “help?!” after writing this post, because I had actually seen those pieces before, and as I said, he’s one of those people who can debate these issues far more thoroughly and knowledgably than I can. I would ask, encourage, Jeff and others to read those two pieces, at minimum. I assure you, you will have better answers there at his blog (Rerum Novarum) than I could ever supply. And in case you’re thinking you’ll encounter a fire-and-brimstone evangelist there, you’re wrong. I challenge you to read this extraordinarily rational, intellectual man’s work. (Isn’t that what an atheist would prefer hearing? Logic and reason?)
Thanks for your kind words Beth. It sure beats some of the baseless garbage that I have heard from fellow Catholics in recent years but then again, I suppose that is the standard tack taken by those addicted to the herd mentality who have no concern for building and maintaining authentic character.
I make no claims for wisdom beyond the objective validity of the arguments I advance on whatever topic I discuss. Logic and reason are not a special preserve of the self-proclaimed "intellectual class" but unfortunately, many people are content to consign us all to various totalitarian systems. These systems could be physical, intellectual, or whatever whereby only a self-anointed class of "experts" are presumed credible by virtue of something other than the intrinsic validity of their positions as ascertained by objective criteria.
The problem is, a lot of people are quite provincialist in their approaches to issues -judging the worth of an argument not on its merits but on who it is who is making the argument.{1} Certainly it happens in politics all the time and that is one reason I am an Independent voter and have been for ten years now.
In summary, yes I have an abiding respect for reason and logic and those who show an interest in these areas can count on respect from me even if I do not agree with them. Those who do not and who try to play games to skirt the rational faculties have nothing but scorn from me as they contribute not to the building up of civilization but to its tearing down however fine their motives may or may not be.
Note:
{1} This kind of atrocious double standard happens all the time -even in places where one may not suspect it. At bottom it is nothing but solipsism and implicitly undermines objective reality by denying that the latter actually exists or is possible.
"Do Not Count Your Chickens" Dept.
(On the Incoming Senate Democratic Majority)
Readers of this humble weblog are aware that your host recently blogged a response to an emailer who was pessimistic about the majorities in the incoming congress. Among our response to them included these words:
As far as what the new situation is with the incoming Democrat congressional majorities, I am not that pessimistic actually. One vacancy in the Senate on the Democratic side -by death, scandal, or whatever- means the president gets to pick the replacement to serve out the term. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 7, 2006)]
I am unaware of anyone else who made this argument about the Senate{1} but we did so here at Rerum Novarum and at the moment, this observation may have been more prescient than we presumed when it was written. From the AP circa twenty minutes ago:
Sen. Johnson suffers possible stroke
Here is the pertinent part of the article:
WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson (news, bio, voting record) of South Dakota suffered a possible stroke Wednesday and was taken to a Washington hospital, his office said. If he should be unable to continue to serve, it could halt the scheduled Democratic takeover of the Senate.
Democrats won a 51-49 majority in the November election. South Dakota's governor, who would appoint any temporary replacement, is a Republican.
For some reason, I was under the assumption that it was the president who filled the congressional vacancy in such situations as I noted. Nonetheless, the substance of my observation remains intact and goes to point out why things are rarely as set in stone politically as many would presume. Senator Johnson being last elected in 2002 would be set to run for election again in 2008 so if I am not mistaken, the appointment to fill his seat would serve out the last two years of the term. Let me be the first to wish Sen. Johnson a solid long-term recovery. However, I cannot say that if in the short term he cannot continue to serve and his state's governor appointed a Republican to take his seat that I would be too disappointed.
(On the Incoming Senate Democratic Majority)
Readers of this humble weblog are aware that your host recently blogged a response to an emailer who was pessimistic about the majorities in the incoming congress. Among our response to them included these words:
As far as what the new situation is with the incoming Democrat congressional majorities, I am not that pessimistic actually. One vacancy in the Senate on the Democratic side -by death, scandal, or whatever- means the president gets to pick the replacement to serve out the term. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 7, 2006)]
I am unaware of anyone else who made this argument about the Senate{1} but we did so here at Rerum Novarum and at the moment, this observation may have been more prescient than we presumed when it was written. From the AP circa twenty minutes ago:
Sen. Johnson suffers possible stroke
Here is the pertinent part of the article:
WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson (news, bio, voting record) of South Dakota suffered a possible stroke Wednesday and was taken to a Washington hospital, his office said. If he should be unable to continue to serve, it could halt the scheduled Democratic takeover of the Senate.
Democrats won a 51-49 majority in the November election. South Dakota's governor, who would appoint any temporary replacement, is a Republican.
For some reason, I was under the assumption that it was the president who filled the congressional vacancy in such situations as I noted. Nonetheless, the substance of my observation remains intact and goes to point out why things are rarely as set in stone politically as many would presume. Senator Johnson being last elected in 2002 would be set to run for election again in 2008 so if I am not mistaken, the appointment to fill his seat would serve out the last two years of the term. Let me be the first to wish Sen. Johnson a solid long-term recovery. However, I cannot say that if in the short term he cannot continue to serve and his state's governor appointed a Republican to take his seat that I would be too disappointed.
On "Implicit Faith":
(From the Mailbag)
The emailers words will be in shale coloured font.
Hey Shawn,
I've been reading your blog for some time. I noticed that you're knowledgable in the Catholic faith.
I have some areas I know a lot about and other areas I do not know not as much about. Unlike most of those who consider themselves "apologists"{1}, I have the decency to let people know this in reality and not just in the abstract.{2} I suppose that is one of the benefits of not trying to make $$$ off of that endeavour XX{3}: being able to focus on what I do have knowledge in and at best{4} making a tentative statement on areas where I am not as well-informed. But enough on that and onto the contents of your emailing...
I have a question for you; Could you let me know what exactly does 'implicit faith' and 'explicit faith' mean in Catholic theology?
Explicit faith would by its very title have to involve some kind of visible manifestation of one's faith in whatever (or whomever) the faith is in. Such manifestation could involve (i) verbal or pictoral displays that make it clear what one has faith in (ii) syllogistic arguments in support of what one has faith in, etc. Implicit would mean either the faith is absent a corporeal point of reference or perhaps has said points of reference but they are not direct ones. Put another way, if one looked at a variety of factors in what a person said and what they did not say, one could conclude at least in outline where they probably were in their views.
For example, someone who makes no references to God but acted in a fashion that underscored a belief in certain immutable truths could be said to have "implicit faith." To the extent that they make no conscious movement in the converse direction or otherwise contradict their conscience, they can be said to be on the right track.
I know that Catholics don't draw the distinction between essential and non-essential doctrines, although there is a certian hierarchy of truths.
Yes, the hierarchy of truths refers to how they pertain to one another. It is a lot like dialogual approaches{5} when one views it as consisting of a series of concentric circles{6} with each circle being a more precise or direct understanding. Doctrines are like that in that some are more important than others -the Christological ones are obviously of paramount importance hierarchially speaking.
My impression is that the Catholic church teaches that the entire desposit of faith is essential in some sense. I am just not sure what this means in practise.
In practice it means one needs to have faith in all that has been revealed by God.
Are Catholics supposed to have implicit faith in all the doctrines that the church has proposed for belief throughout the centuries, even if they lack any understanding of the content of all these proposed doctrines?
Yes.
Is that what is meant by implicit faith in the church?
Yes. It also embraces the intuition that one will accept what is recognized later on as revealed of God and by their actions would conform themselves to it once they recognize it. (This is a tricky area also because the kind of recognition I am talking about is integral to the person.) Not all that is in what is called the "deposit of faith" is known at once because there is simply too much there. Some can be known directly whereas others take time to understand because they are not ascertained except by a more indirect path -building on information already possessed in the manner of any advancement of knowledge in the natural sciences.
Also, do you know of any internet resources which could help me to understand the distinction between implicit and explicit faith?
There are few that I put much stock in anymore for this kind of stuff. Part of the reason for this is we are taking about concepts that requires a lot more intellectual exercise than the lions share of "apologists" have any interest in doing -most of whom would not be able to adequately handle it anyway due to their own intellectual dependence.{7} But I will see if I can dig up some more material on it for you in the coming weeks as time allows for it. One that may be of assistance is this letter from the Vatican's doctrinal office issued in 1949. The passage particularly relevant to your question would be this one:
[W]hen a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
The concept of "invincible ignorance" is generally understood as a lack of knowledge that cannot be removed by what would reasonably be considered due diligence. This could vary from person to person due in no small part to the variety of foundational presuppositions{8} from which people operate. Hopefully this summarizes the concepts adequately and (in what is for me) a reasonably economical way.
Notes:
{1} I am a person who writes on a variety of subjects which are of interest to me at a given point in time who happens to be Catholic, not a Catholic apologist...I make this clarification because I have no small degree of annoyance at the garbage that so often passes for "Catholic apologetics"[...] and as a result I do not want to be affiliated with them in the slightest -at least not directly.[...] But enough on that for now. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa November 14, 2006)]
{2} I say "in the abstract" because all of them will admit that they are "not infallible" when it does not petain to a particular issue. However, in practice they defend with dogmatic insistence their views even on issues where they would be wise to refrain from discussing with the same tenor as they do issues where they may be able ot speak with relative certainty on.
{3} Those who wonder why your host has as a rule[...] not referred to individuals in his writings over the years and why that practice will remain intact in the future will now know the reason for that. In a sentence: to mention names generally distracts from the issues of discussion and introduces personalities into the mix. Once the latter happens, it is very difficult if not impossible to have an authentic dialogue if one of those parties is a grandstander or otherwise tries to draw attention to themselves.
Another way of saying it is this: the focus belongs not on the persons but instead on the arguments. That is the only way to try and check egos from coming into the equation and we all know what happens to any semblence of a decent discussion once that happens so no more needs to be said on that point. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
{4} I am also far more willing to direct people to those who know certain issues better because I am not in a position of having a financial stake in the process (and therefore try to "sell them" in a matter of speaking).
{5} Some Principles For Authentic Dialogue and the Proper Use of Sources in Papers (circa February 9, 2006)
The above thread was quoted in footnote one.
{6} In the understanding of relation to the Church in the form of concentric circles, the widest circle involves mankind in general and the Church seeks to promote that which is most authentically human. The summary of [Ecclesiam Suam] §97-98 is in the statement that without any temporal or political motive that Our sole purpose is to take what is good in man's life on earth and raise it to a supernatural and Christian level. Contingent on the latter is the moral values that the Church proposes which are of value to all people and are rooted in their consciences (cf. Rom. ii,11ff). [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from On the Intricacies of Dialogue - A Commentary (circa December 16, 2003)]
{7} Catholic apologists are oftentimes intellectually dependent. I say this because they demonstrate a serious lacuna in their ability to utilize the thinking mechanism. Their intellectual dependence is on what the Catholic Church's magisterium[...] says on issues. Where this authority speaks with a clear voice, they can wade their way into issues of discussion with a degree of comfort. However, where this authority does not speak[...], they are at a loss of what to do. This is where they flail around like a drowning man seeking to find anything they can remotely ascribe to a magisterial statement on the issue in question as their way of coping with a lack of such guidance which they so evidently need.
For it is easy to argue a position where there are definite guidelines of sorts and Catholic doctrine does provide certain principles which are able to be grasped. The problem is the areas where there is not the same authoritative guidance. Finding themselves unable to argue a position on the grounds of what is reasonable and what is logical[...], they seek to manufacture an intervention by magisterial authority in the hopes of avoiding accountability for the grey matter between their ears. This approach is (of course) not a properly Catholic one and any hope of convincing non-Catholics that their position is the correct one evaporates like dew on a hot summer morning. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 5, 2006)]
{8} I have not discussed in detail what I mean by the term foundational presuppositions but from the context in which I use the term, its general meaning should be evident. Nonetheless, I did find this thread in my archives from earlier this year where I explained the term by virtue of what a change in said foundational presuppositions would inexorably involve. To wit:
[O]ne has to consider from time to time not only if the arguments they use to advance their position are good ones or not but even if their position itself is actually correct. As all of this probably sounds more complicated than it actually is, I will use the analogy of stocks and options to explain it in brief.
Those who are familiar with how stocks and options have a symbiotic relationship know that one of the reasons many investors like options[...] is because a small movement in the stock results in a magnified movement in the underlying option. This is the potential power inherent in dealing with foundational presuppositions of an individual: small shifts there can result in magnified movements in the individual's weltanschauung though sometimes it takes a bit of time for working out the ramifications of such shifts. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 28, 2006)]
(From the Mailbag)
The emailers words will be in shale coloured font.
Hey Shawn,
I've been reading your blog for some time. I noticed that you're knowledgable in the Catholic faith.
I have some areas I know a lot about and other areas I do not know not as much about. Unlike most of those who consider themselves "apologists"{1}, I have the decency to let people know this in reality and not just in the abstract.{2} I suppose that is one of the benefits of not trying to make $$$ off of that endeavour XX{3}: being able to focus on what I do have knowledge in and at best{4} making a tentative statement on areas where I am not as well-informed. But enough on that and onto the contents of your emailing...
I have a question for you; Could you let me know what exactly does 'implicit faith' and 'explicit faith' mean in Catholic theology?
Explicit faith would by its very title have to involve some kind of visible manifestation of one's faith in whatever (or whomever) the faith is in. Such manifestation could involve (i) verbal or pictoral displays that make it clear what one has faith in (ii) syllogistic arguments in support of what one has faith in, etc. Implicit would mean either the faith is absent a corporeal point of reference or perhaps has said points of reference but they are not direct ones. Put another way, if one looked at a variety of factors in what a person said and what they did not say, one could conclude at least in outline where they probably were in their views.
For example, someone who makes no references to God but acted in a fashion that underscored a belief in certain immutable truths could be said to have "implicit faith." To the extent that they make no conscious movement in the converse direction or otherwise contradict their conscience, they can be said to be on the right track.
I know that Catholics don't draw the distinction between essential and non-essential doctrines, although there is a certian hierarchy of truths.
Yes, the hierarchy of truths refers to how they pertain to one another. It is a lot like dialogual approaches{5} when one views it as consisting of a series of concentric circles{6} with each circle being a more precise or direct understanding. Doctrines are like that in that some are more important than others -the Christological ones are obviously of paramount importance hierarchially speaking.
My impression is that the Catholic church teaches that the entire desposit of faith is essential in some sense. I am just not sure what this means in practise.
In practice it means one needs to have faith in all that has been revealed by God.
Are Catholics supposed to have implicit faith in all the doctrines that the church has proposed for belief throughout the centuries, even if they lack any understanding of the content of all these proposed doctrines?
Yes.
Is that what is meant by implicit faith in the church?
Yes. It also embraces the intuition that one will accept what is recognized later on as revealed of God and by their actions would conform themselves to it once they recognize it. (This is a tricky area also because the kind of recognition I am talking about is integral to the person.) Not all that is in what is called the "deposit of faith" is known at once because there is simply too much there. Some can be known directly whereas others take time to understand because they are not ascertained except by a more indirect path -building on information already possessed in the manner of any advancement of knowledge in the natural sciences.
Also, do you know of any internet resources which could help me to understand the distinction between implicit and explicit faith?
There are few that I put much stock in anymore for this kind of stuff. Part of the reason for this is we are taking about concepts that requires a lot more intellectual exercise than the lions share of "apologists" have any interest in doing -most of whom would not be able to adequately handle it anyway due to their own intellectual dependence.{7} But I will see if I can dig up some more material on it for you in the coming weeks as time allows for it. One that may be of assistance is this letter from the Vatican's doctrinal office issued in 1949. The passage particularly relevant to your question would be this one:
[W]hen a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
The concept of "invincible ignorance" is generally understood as a lack of knowledge that cannot be removed by what would reasonably be considered due diligence. This could vary from person to person due in no small part to the variety of foundational presuppositions{8} from which people operate. Hopefully this summarizes the concepts adequately and (in what is for me) a reasonably economical way.
Notes:
{1} I am a person who writes on a variety of subjects which are of interest to me at a given point in time who happens to be Catholic, not a Catholic apologist...I make this clarification because I have no small degree of annoyance at the garbage that so often passes for "Catholic apologetics"[...] and as a result I do not want to be affiliated with them in the slightest -at least not directly.[...] But enough on that for now. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa November 14, 2006)]
{2} I say "in the abstract" because all of them will admit that they are "not infallible" when it does not petain to a particular issue. However, in practice they defend with dogmatic insistence their views even on issues where they would be wise to refrain from discussing with the same tenor as they do issues where they may be able ot speak with relative certainty on.
{3} Those who wonder why your host has as a rule[...] not referred to individuals in his writings over the years and why that practice will remain intact in the future will now know the reason for that. In a sentence: to mention names generally distracts from the issues of discussion and introduces personalities into the mix. Once the latter happens, it is very difficult if not impossible to have an authentic dialogue if one of those parties is a grandstander or otherwise tries to draw attention to themselves.
Another way of saying it is this: the focus belongs not on the persons but instead on the arguments. That is the only way to try and check egos from coming into the equation and we all know what happens to any semblence of a decent discussion once that happens so no more needs to be said on that point. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
{4} I am also far more willing to direct people to those who know certain issues better because I am not in a position of having a financial stake in the process (and therefore try to "sell them" in a matter of speaking).
{5} Some Principles For Authentic Dialogue and the Proper Use of Sources in Papers (circa February 9, 2006)
The above thread was quoted in footnote one.
{6} In the understanding of relation to the Church in the form of concentric circles, the widest circle involves mankind in general and the Church seeks to promote that which is most authentically human. The summary of [Ecclesiam Suam] §97-98 is in the statement that without any temporal or political motive that Our sole purpose is to take what is good in man's life on earth and raise it to a supernatural and Christian level. Contingent on the latter is the moral values that the Church proposes which are of value to all people and are rooted in their consciences (cf. Rom. ii,11ff). [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from On the Intricacies of Dialogue - A Commentary (circa December 16, 2003)]
{7} Catholic apologists are oftentimes intellectually dependent. I say this because they demonstrate a serious lacuna in their ability to utilize the thinking mechanism. Their intellectual dependence is on what the Catholic Church's magisterium[...] says on issues. Where this authority speaks with a clear voice, they can wade their way into issues of discussion with a degree of comfort. However, where this authority does not speak[...], they are at a loss of what to do. This is where they flail around like a drowning man seeking to find anything they can remotely ascribe to a magisterial statement on the issue in question as their way of coping with a lack of such guidance which they so evidently need.
For it is easy to argue a position where there are definite guidelines of sorts and Catholic doctrine does provide certain principles which are able to be grasped. The problem is the areas where there is not the same authoritative guidance. Finding themselves unable to argue a position on the grounds of what is reasonable and what is logical[...], they seek to manufacture an intervention by magisterial authority in the hopes of avoiding accountability for the grey matter between their ears. This approach is (of course) not a properly Catholic one and any hope of convincing non-Catholics that their position is the correct one evaporates like dew on a hot summer morning. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 5, 2006)]
{8} I have not discussed in detail what I mean by the term foundational presuppositions but from the context in which I use the term, its general meaning should be evident. Nonetheless, I did find this thread in my archives from earlier this year where I explained the term by virtue of what a change in said foundational presuppositions would inexorably involve. To wit:
[O]ne has to consider from time to time not only if the arguments they use to advance their position are good ones or not but even if their position itself is actually correct. As all of this probably sounds more complicated than it actually is, I will use the analogy of stocks and options to explain it in brief.
Those who are familiar with how stocks and options have a symbiotic relationship know that one of the reasons many investors like options[...] is because a small movement in the stock results in a magnified movement in the underlying option. This is the potential power inherent in dealing with foundational presuppositions of an individual: small shifts there can result in magnified movements in the individual's weltanschauung though sometimes it takes a bit of time for working out the ramifications of such shifts. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 28, 2006)]
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
On Men and Woman, the Latter Having Any Positions of Authority in Society, Etc.
(Dialogue With Some Friends)
Should one of my friends not object to being named in this posting, I will reveal their identity. Their words will be in darkgreen font while the words of others will be in blue font.
Why do you think it is that men are overwhelming more drawn to apologetics than women?
Because men are more logical and rational than women.
As a rule this is true.
Women based decisions primarily on emotion ...which is why it is absolutely insane that we allow them to vote and have other positions of authority in our society.
Frankly XXXX, there are a lot of men who base their decisions this way too. I favour not gender exclusion from voting but some kind of test that shows that the person taking it can reason properly and not fall into solipsistic fallacies. I can think of not a few men who would fail that test along with most women. Some of them are even apologists -though I do not have you in mind with that criticism amigo :)
Any honest historian can see that society was more stable and healthy before we allowed such things.
Society was more stable when concern was more for the common good than for individual wants wherever the two conflicted. As it is, the rise of women voting happens to coincide with a societal shift in this area of no small problem...a subject for another time perhaps. But your assertion is far too simplistic and does not seem to account for a variety of factors which were involved in what happened.
Women were also much more happy and well-adjusted, because they knew precisely what was expected of them and were able to achieve their own excellence in society, which means that they were able to be a powerful civilizing influence as mothers and wives, etc. Women need conformity, and they seek conformity (e.g. "Oprah says it, so it must be true" or "one girl screams for some pop star, and all the others scream too")..
People in general are that way XXXX. One of the reasons the Founders were concerned about giving any branch of the government over to election by the populace is because of the problem with public opinion. Even Alexander Hamilton (the founder whose outlook most approximates my own incidentally) while he favoured the populace electing the House of Representatives, did not favour such things for the Senate. His rationale was as follows:
The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government... Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the public good?
They are rarely (if ever) able to "think outside the box."
Again, that describes people in general.
Every advancement in human learning, technology, or art was made, not by a woman, but by a man.
That is a bit of a stretch XXXX.
This cannot be denied.
I just did and yes it can.
Did you ever hear the old saying that "little girls mature faster than boys." This is not actually true.
Really???
It's not that girls "mature" faster. Rather, girls CONFORM faster --that is, they look around at how things ARE (the status quo in a family, etc.) and adapt to it (and this, to a parent, is often interpreted as "maturity").
I know not a few non-conformist women XXXX. While this may be the case as a rule, there are certainly exceptions to it which could be noted.
Boys, on the other hand, retain an individualistic mentality, and this is what allows men to come up with new things and advance society.
Again, there are women inventors too. Not as many as men but I already disproved your universal negative so no more needs to be said about it.
It's also what allows us to think logically and rationally, whereas women are predominately the victims of their need to conform and to "nest" (that is, to maintain the status quo as they know it).
Again, this is a bit too simplistic XXXX.
This is why you will never win an apologetics argument with an Evangelical woman. She is not an Evangelical because of any rational decisions to be an Evangelical (although she will try to use supposedly rational arguments ["from the Bible"] to try and convert you. ;-)). Rather, she is an Evangelical because that's what her surroundings tell her she must be (her peers and/or family) and also because she is fed EMOTIONALLY by Evangelicalism, which is her only standard for truth.
It depends on how you define "winning." I "won" every apologetics argument I had with an Evangelical ex-ladyfriend. Lost the war in the process though -an important education that was for me but I digress. She was highly intelligent but had a foundational presupposition towards evangelicalism because that was how she was raised. This is hardly unique to women though as most people accept uncritically the religion their parents bring them up in, their family or locale's political beliefs, etc. And though (admittedly) there are more women than men who are intellectually dependent; nonetheless, this situation is not unique to one sex or the other.
You can rationally prove the Catholic interpretation of Scripture beyond any shadow of a doubt to her. But, it will have no effect. She will just ignore you and continue to spout the same nonsense.
I am having de ja vu in reading this.
And why? Because, in her mind, emotion is a greater gage of truth than local and/or reason.
Most people are that way unfortunately.
Now, please understand, there are illogical and overly-emotional men as well ...religion is 80% emotion and 20% reason anyway.
Agreed. That is why I have had greater difficulty with apologetics over the years: for all the pretenses towards being "intellectual" far too many of its practicioners are anything but that at all.
But, when it comes to women, hardly any (and I would even dare say: none at all) are converted to truth based on (reasonable) apologetics arguments.
Most apologetics arguments are too simplistic and hardly as "reasonable" as you presume XXXX.
Rather, just like in dating, they must be "wooed" to believe by appealing to their emotions.
That is generally the case with men too: if you get down to the nitty gritty, virtually no one changes their view on the basis of rational argumentation. Whatever of the latter is involved, it is always dwarfed by more personal or emotional elements. That is in some respects unfortunate but it is reality.
This is why so many women convert to Catholicism because they are exposed to our Marian devotions and similar things.
In most cases this is probably true.
And while there are female intellectual types (like Patty Bonds, etc.) who also honestly explore the reasonable arguments for Catholicism and are convinced by them, this is only to supplement and intuitive (read: emotion-based) sense that Catholicism is correct. They are not converted (as a man often is) because of the reasonable apologetics arguments themselves. This is an important distinction.
Rather than the complete dichotomy you postulate, it would be more accurate to state the above paragraph this way:
And while there are female intellectual types (like Patty Bonds, etc.) who also honestly explore the reasonable arguments for Catholicism and are convinced by them, this is quite often to supplement an intuitive (read: emotion-based) sense that Catholicism is correct. They are generally not converted (at least as often as a man can be) because of the reasonableness that apologetics arguments themselves can have. This is an important distinction.
Again, a little nuance goes a long way.
And, please understand .... Everyone is converted by the grace of God; and only the grace of God. Sometimes this grace appeals to the intellect, and sometimes it appeals to the emotions.
Agreed.
So, converting to truth because of an emotional conviction is not a bad thing. I'm not saying that it is. All I'm saying is that women are predominately converted (by God's grace) because of emotional factors, whereas men are far more open to reasonable, intellectual arguments, which is why they have a far-greater affinity for apologetics.
This is a much better explanation than the more simplistic "black and white" approach you tried earlier XXXX.
Apologetics is a "man's game" because it is based on reason. There is very little emotional content to it, and so women don't typically find it attractive because of that.
Well, there are more than enough problems which could be noted about the activity of apologetics XXXX: far more than I could possibly cover in a brief posting such as this. But that is all I will say on it at this time.
(Dialogue With Some Friends)
Should one of my friends not object to being named in this posting, I will reveal their identity. Their words will be in darkgreen font while the words of others will be in blue font.
Why do you think it is that men are overwhelming more drawn to apologetics than women?
Because men are more logical and rational than women.
As a rule this is true.
Women based decisions primarily on emotion ...which is why it is absolutely insane that we allow them to vote and have other positions of authority in our society.
Frankly XXXX, there are a lot of men who base their decisions this way too. I favour not gender exclusion from voting but some kind of test that shows that the person taking it can reason properly and not fall into solipsistic fallacies. I can think of not a few men who would fail that test along with most women. Some of them are even apologists -though I do not have you in mind with that criticism amigo :)
Any honest historian can see that society was more stable and healthy before we allowed such things.
Society was more stable when concern was more for the common good than for individual wants wherever the two conflicted. As it is, the rise of women voting happens to coincide with a societal shift in this area of no small problem...a subject for another time perhaps. But your assertion is far too simplistic and does not seem to account for a variety of factors which were involved in what happened.
Women were also much more happy and well-adjusted, because they knew precisely what was expected of them and were able to achieve their own excellence in society, which means that they were able to be a powerful civilizing influence as mothers and wives, etc. Women need conformity, and they seek conformity (e.g. "Oprah says it, so it must be true" or "one girl screams for some pop star, and all the others scream too")..
People in general are that way XXXX. One of the reasons the Founders were concerned about giving any branch of the government over to election by the populace is because of the problem with public opinion. Even Alexander Hamilton (the founder whose outlook most approximates my own incidentally) while he favoured the populace electing the House of Representatives, did not favour such things for the Senate. His rationale was as follows:
The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government... Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the public good?
They are rarely (if ever) able to "think outside the box."
Again, that describes people in general.
Every advancement in human learning, technology, or art was made, not by a woman, but by a man.
That is a bit of a stretch XXXX.
This cannot be denied.
I just did and yes it can.
Did you ever hear the old saying that "little girls mature faster than boys." This is not actually true.
Really???
It's not that girls "mature" faster. Rather, girls CONFORM faster --that is, they look around at how things ARE (the status quo in a family, etc.) and adapt to it (and this, to a parent, is often interpreted as "maturity").
I know not a few non-conformist women XXXX. While this may be the case as a rule, there are certainly exceptions to it which could be noted.
Boys, on the other hand, retain an individualistic mentality, and this is what allows men to come up with new things and advance society.
Again, there are women inventors too. Not as many as men but I already disproved your universal negative so no more needs to be said about it.
It's also what allows us to think logically and rationally, whereas women are predominately the victims of their need to conform and to "nest" (that is, to maintain the status quo as they know it).
Again, this is a bit too simplistic XXXX.
This is why you will never win an apologetics argument with an Evangelical woman. She is not an Evangelical because of any rational decisions to be an Evangelical (although she will try to use supposedly rational arguments ["from the Bible"] to try and convert you. ;-)). Rather, she is an Evangelical because that's what her surroundings tell her she must be (her peers and/or family) and also because she is fed EMOTIONALLY by Evangelicalism, which is her only standard for truth.
It depends on how you define "winning." I "won" every apologetics argument I had with an Evangelical ex-ladyfriend. Lost the war in the process though -an important education that was for me but I digress. She was highly intelligent but had a foundational presupposition towards evangelicalism because that was how she was raised. This is hardly unique to women though as most people accept uncritically the religion their parents bring them up in, their family or locale's political beliefs, etc. And though (admittedly) there are more women than men who are intellectually dependent; nonetheless, this situation is not unique to one sex or the other.
You can rationally prove the Catholic interpretation of Scripture beyond any shadow of a doubt to her. But, it will have no effect. She will just ignore you and continue to spout the same nonsense.
I am having de ja vu in reading this.
And why? Because, in her mind, emotion is a greater gage of truth than local and/or reason.
Most people are that way unfortunately.
Now, please understand, there are illogical and overly-emotional men as well ...religion is 80% emotion and 20% reason anyway.
Agreed. That is why I have had greater difficulty with apologetics over the years: for all the pretenses towards being "intellectual" far too many of its practicioners are anything but that at all.
But, when it comes to women, hardly any (and I would even dare say: none at all) are converted to truth based on (reasonable) apologetics arguments.
Most apologetics arguments are too simplistic and hardly as "reasonable" as you presume XXXX.
Rather, just like in dating, they must be "wooed" to believe by appealing to their emotions.
That is generally the case with men too: if you get down to the nitty gritty, virtually no one changes their view on the basis of rational argumentation. Whatever of the latter is involved, it is always dwarfed by more personal or emotional elements. That is in some respects unfortunate but it is reality.
This is why so many women convert to Catholicism because they are exposed to our Marian devotions and similar things.
In most cases this is probably true.
And while there are female intellectual types (like Patty Bonds, etc.) who also honestly explore the reasonable arguments for Catholicism and are convinced by them, this is only to supplement and intuitive (read: emotion-based) sense that Catholicism is correct. They are not converted (as a man often is) because of the reasonable apologetics arguments themselves. This is an important distinction.
Rather than the complete dichotomy you postulate, it would be more accurate to state the above paragraph this way:
And while there are female intellectual types (like Patty Bonds, etc.) who also honestly explore the reasonable arguments for Catholicism and are convinced by them, this is quite often to supplement an intuitive (read: emotion-based) sense that Catholicism is correct. They are generally not converted (at least as often as a man can be) because of the reasonableness that apologetics arguments themselves can have. This is an important distinction.
Again, a little nuance goes a long way.
And, please understand .... Everyone is converted by the grace of God; and only the grace of God. Sometimes this grace appeals to the intellect, and sometimes it appeals to the emotions.
Agreed.
So, converting to truth because of an emotional conviction is not a bad thing. I'm not saying that it is. All I'm saying is that women are predominately converted (by God's grace) because of emotional factors, whereas men are far more open to reasonable, intellectual arguments, which is why they have a far-greater affinity for apologetics.
This is a much better explanation than the more simplistic "black and white" approach you tried earlier XXXX.
Apologetics is a "man's game" because it is based on reason. There is very little emotional content to it, and so women don't typically find it attractive because of that.
Well, there are more than enough problems which could be noted about the activity of apologetics XXXX: far more than I could possibly cover in a brief posting such as this. But that is all I will say on it at this time.
Points to Ponder:
(On Envy of Others and Insecurity)
[D]o you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It's resentment of another man's achievement. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own - they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top. The loneliness for an equal - for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire. They bare their teeth at you from out of their rat holes, thinking that you take pleasure in letting your brilliance dim them - while you'd give a year of your life to see a flicker of talent anywhere among them. They envy achievement, and their dream of greatness is a world where all men have become their acknowledged inferiors. They don't know that that dream is the infallible proof of mediocrity, because that sort of world is what the man of achievement would not be able to bear. [Ayn Rand (circa 1957)]
(On Envy of Others and Insecurity)
[D]o you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It's resentment of another man's achievement. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own - they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top. The loneliness for an equal - for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire. They bare their teeth at you from out of their rat holes, thinking that you take pleasure in letting your brilliance dim them - while you'd give a year of your life to see a flicker of talent anywhere among them. They envy achievement, and their dream of greatness is a world where all men have become their acknowledged inferiors. They don't know that that dream is the infallible proof of mediocrity, because that sort of world is what the man of achievement would not be able to bear. [Ayn Rand (circa 1957)]
Monday, December 11, 2006
To revisit a remembrance thread from last year:
Remembering Chris
While substantially reiterating everything I said in that thread, a few things come to mind which I have thought about at times since the posting of that thread. I want to note them in a brief paragraph before I forget to mention them so here goes...
I know Chris that you are absent this world now but it is my hope that you are in a place where there is no pain, only wonderous things beyond what we can imagine. Your sister told me in tears after reading a version of the material at the above thread that you had expressed some regrets in your last days: regrets about slights committed against others. Yes, there were some slights you committed against me, I need not tell you because you know what they are. But I assure you my friend, that stuff was minutiae in the grand scheme of things, that is all it was. Know that while I may not have said it explicitly, you were forgiven long ago. I consider myself far more culpable for my negligences towards you in recent years than anything I could recall from the less-than-stellar parts of our relationship: I held no grudge or ill-will, I simply did not do my full duty towards you. You will always be close to my heart my friend: always. May God rest your soul until (hopefully) we meet again in a much better place.
Remembering Chris
While substantially reiterating everything I said in that thread, a few things come to mind which I have thought about at times since the posting of that thread. I want to note them in a brief paragraph before I forget to mention them so here goes...
I know Chris that you are absent this world now but it is my hope that you are in a place where there is no pain, only wonderous things beyond what we can imagine. Your sister told me in tears after reading a version of the material at the above thread that you had expressed some regrets in your last days: regrets about slights committed against others. Yes, there were some slights you committed against me, I need not tell you because you know what they are. But I assure you my friend, that stuff was minutiae in the grand scheme of things, that is all it was. Know that while I may not have said it explicitly, you were forgiven long ago. I consider myself far more culpable for my negligences towards you in recent years than anything I could recall from the less-than-stellar parts of our relationship: I held no grudge or ill-will, I simply did not do my full duty towards you. You will always be close to my heart my friend: always. May God rest your soul until (hopefully) we meet again in a much better place.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
"See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
As things move quickly through the grapevine of the blogosphere, it was not long before a reader made me aware of a response of sorts from Dave Armstrong to the December 7, 2006 weblog thread on the hypocritical double standards of the apologetics oligarchy and also a Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG thread from November 27, 2006 where I defined explicitly the term apologetics oligarchy.
The decision to define the latter term occurred after I had drafted a post response to Jimmy Akin where I used the term. It made sense therefore to define the term so I could link to the definition throughout the aforementioned post response to Jimmy; ergo, that is what I did. So Dave seems interested in the term apologetics oligarchy and also the post from 12/7 of an email originally sent on November 14, 2006.{1} Dave as is his wont posted on those threads with a misleading title and premise:
Reports of the Death of Catholic Apologetics Greatly Exaggerated: Momentous Anti-Apologetics Manifesto Launched
All is not bad I suppose since (at the very least) he spared us all yet another attempt to disingenuously cut and paste bits from what I wrote to try and erect another cohort of strawmen for his rhetorical cornfield.{2} Nonetheless, the title he used with the pictures is quite misleading. For one thing, he tries to bring into the picture Dr. Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, and Pat Madrid as if they are necessarily being viewed by me in the same light as I do Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, and himself. Secondly, Dave obviously is interested in playing this up in his predictable way{3} as an excuse to ignore my arguments as he has been doing for the better part of sixteen months now (on and off) since he came up looking quite bad on a subject matter I do not want to go into again at this time.{4} The title of the post basically sums his view up in a nutshell: if you are in any way whatsoever critical of any aspect of Catholic apologetics, then you are an "anti-apologist."{5} How else can it possibly be interpreted than that???
You read that correctly folks: there is no such thing as criticism allowed. PERIOD. Instead, you are to just close your eyes and pretend all is well. Oh and do not forget to tip your biretta, bow three times and uncritically incense what Dave and the others say. Oh and send your $$$ to the addresses they indicate while you are at it. But by all means, shut your yappers. Pay attention instead to the smoke and mirrors before you and do not inquire what is actually behind the curtain. Shut up, pay, pray, and obey essentially. And do not ask yourselves why you should do this either.
The same goes for standards too folks: there is one standard for them and one standard for others. Do not question it or else you will be labeled as a "hater of apologetics" because that is what it must be. So if you see them acting in the same way as those non-Catholic apologists they like to publicly screech about, do not even think of calling them on it in the interest of respect for non-contradiction. For if you do, you are an anti-apologist. Be afraid folks...be VERY afraid!!!
If anything, their whole way of responding to criticism conforms so precisely to my definition of what an apologetics oligarch is that no more needs to be said on it. These problematical sorts would rather protect one another and excuse their excesses while hypocritically chastising non-Catholic apologists for acting in the same way against them. I remind you all of the challenge advanced in my critical thread which was posted before the email itself:
[W]hile I am sure this will piss off some parties, frankly I do not give a damn. Furthermore, I challenge anyone who disputes my viewing of this matter to present a viable hypothesis of their own to explain the obvious double standards involved here otherwise their kvetching will be without merit to me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 7, 2006)]
Dave and the others if they have any semblance of basic ethics should interact with my arguments on their merits. Of course I am perhaps a bit naively optimistic that these sorts have the cajones to actually do this but I generally like to think better of people than they often deserve. Dave even has a kind of "poll" at his site so people can "vote" on what I say. As if the veracity of someone's arguments are based on popular voting instead of properly being assessed by objective criteria which means using the tools of reason and logic, not emotional impulses. But to go over that with the detail it deserves would take more time than I want to devote to this posting so it will have to be put aside for another time perhaps.
The bottom line though is this: any attempts to oppose what I wrote with anything that does not deal with my arguments on their merits or lack thereof will reveal these people as grandstanding demagogues interested not in truth but instead in how they can protect their own backsides from legitimate scrutiny. And no matter how Dave, Jimmy, Mark, and/or their uncritical and fawning sycophants try to spin it to sound differently, that is the bottom line folks.
Notes:
{1} Which incidentally was referred to in the November 28th post to Jimmy Akin and previously quoted in my election synopsis thread of November 24, 2006.
{2} To post all of the posts at Rerum Novarum where I sought to get him to do this in the past would be to make this post overly long. I will however post here the last post in the sequence at this time:
Standing on Principles Vs. Public Demagogery and Historical Airbrushing--An Open Note to the Participants on Dave Armstrong's Weblog on the Subjects of Apologetics and General Ethics (circa September 21, 2006)
Many of the other postings preceding them can be found linked to it at some point or another.
{3} Dave has basically done everything he can including continually trying to to manufacture conflicts as people are naturally drawn to them much as they are to a trainwreck. Dave is also quite good at casting himself as the martyr. There will always be a certain large segment of humanity that is drawn to that sort of thing -even if only out of curiosity. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 16, 2006)]
{4} See footnote two for one such example and also this thread.
{5} This is a marvelous way to try and evade accountability and only highlights in spades why my reference to the apologetics oligarchy is so apropo.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
As things move quickly through the grapevine of the blogosphere, it was not long before a reader made me aware of a response of sorts from Dave Armstrong to the December 7, 2006 weblog thread on the hypocritical double standards of the apologetics oligarchy and also a Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG thread from November 27, 2006 where I defined explicitly the term apologetics oligarchy.
The decision to define the latter term occurred after I had drafted a post response to Jimmy Akin where I used the term. It made sense therefore to define the term so I could link to the definition throughout the aforementioned post response to Jimmy; ergo, that is what I did. So Dave seems interested in the term apologetics oligarchy and also the post from 12/7 of an email originally sent on November 14, 2006.{1} Dave as is his wont posted on those threads with a misleading title and premise:
Reports of the Death of Catholic Apologetics Greatly Exaggerated: Momentous Anti-Apologetics Manifesto Launched
All is not bad I suppose since (at the very least) he spared us all yet another attempt to disingenuously cut and paste bits from what I wrote to try and erect another cohort of strawmen for his rhetorical cornfield.{2} Nonetheless, the title he used with the pictures is quite misleading. For one thing, he tries to bring into the picture Dr. Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, and Pat Madrid as if they are necessarily being viewed by me in the same light as I do Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, and himself. Secondly, Dave obviously is interested in playing this up in his predictable way{3} as an excuse to ignore my arguments as he has been doing for the better part of sixteen months now (on and off) since he came up looking quite bad on a subject matter I do not want to go into again at this time.{4} The title of the post basically sums his view up in a nutshell: if you are in any way whatsoever critical of any aspect of Catholic apologetics, then you are an "anti-apologist."{5} How else can it possibly be interpreted than that???
You read that correctly folks: there is no such thing as criticism allowed. PERIOD. Instead, you are to just close your eyes and pretend all is well. Oh and do not forget to tip your biretta, bow three times and uncritically incense what Dave and the others say. Oh and send your $$$ to the addresses they indicate while you are at it. But by all means, shut your yappers. Pay attention instead to the smoke and mirrors before you and do not inquire what is actually behind the curtain. Shut up, pay, pray, and obey essentially. And do not ask yourselves why you should do this either.
The same goes for standards too folks: there is one standard for them and one standard for others. Do not question it or else you will be labeled as a "hater of apologetics" because that is what it must be. So if you see them acting in the same way as those non-Catholic apologists they like to publicly screech about, do not even think of calling them on it in the interest of respect for non-contradiction. For if you do, you are an anti-apologist. Be afraid folks...be VERY afraid!!!
If anything, their whole way of responding to criticism conforms so precisely to my definition of what an apologetics oligarch is that no more needs to be said on it. These problematical sorts would rather protect one another and excuse their excesses while hypocritically chastising non-Catholic apologists for acting in the same way against them. I remind you all of the challenge advanced in my critical thread which was posted before the email itself:
[W]hile I am sure this will piss off some parties, frankly I do not give a damn. Furthermore, I challenge anyone who disputes my viewing of this matter to present a viable hypothesis of their own to explain the obvious double standards involved here otherwise their kvetching will be without merit to me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 7, 2006)]
Dave and the others if they have any semblance of basic ethics should interact with my arguments on their merits. Of course I am perhaps a bit naively optimistic that these sorts have the cajones to actually do this but I generally like to think better of people than they often deserve. Dave even has a kind of "poll" at his site so people can "vote" on what I say. As if the veracity of someone's arguments are based on popular voting instead of properly being assessed by objective criteria which means using the tools of reason and logic, not emotional impulses. But to go over that with the detail it deserves would take more time than I want to devote to this posting so it will have to be put aside for another time perhaps.
The bottom line though is this: any attempts to oppose what I wrote with anything that does not deal with my arguments on their merits or lack thereof will reveal these people as grandstanding demagogues interested not in truth but instead in how they can protect their own backsides from legitimate scrutiny. And no matter how Dave, Jimmy, Mark, and/or their uncritical and fawning sycophants try to spin it to sound differently, that is the bottom line folks.
Notes:
{1} Which incidentally was referred to in the November 28th post to Jimmy Akin and previously quoted in my election synopsis thread of November 24, 2006.
{2} To post all of the posts at Rerum Novarum where I sought to get him to do this in the past would be to make this post overly long. I will however post here the last post in the sequence at this time:
Standing on Principles Vs. Public Demagogery and Historical Airbrushing--An Open Note to the Participants on Dave Armstrong's Weblog on the Subjects of Apologetics and General Ethics (circa September 21, 2006)
Many of the other postings preceding them can be found linked to it at some point or another.
{3} Dave has basically done everything he can including continually trying to to manufacture conflicts as people are naturally drawn to them much as they are to a trainwreck. Dave is also quite good at casting himself as the martyr. There will always be a certain large segment of humanity that is drawn to that sort of thing -even if only out of curiosity. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 16, 2006)]
{4} See footnote two for one such example and also this thread.
{5} This is a marvelous way to try and evade accountability and only highlights in spades why my reference to the apologetics oligarchy is so apropo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)