The Skeptic
“…But the new rebel is a Skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything.
He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist.
And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.
Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself.
He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it.
As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time.
A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself.
A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie.
He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble.
The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.
In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.
Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt.
By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything…”
G. K. Chesterton
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Monday, April 2, 2007
The Dawkins Confusion
Richard Dawkins is one of America’s leading Atheists who has written many popular works against Theism. Alvin Plantinga reviews Dawkins’ latest book, The God Delusion, in Books & Culture, March/April 2007, pages 21-24.
Plantinga, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame does an excellent job showing how Dawkins makes some very weak, misleading and very unsound arguments in his attempt to show that the idea of God is absurd. Plantinga’s own words say it best:
“Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying.”
Dawkins claims that the existence of God is “monumentally improbable,” by which he means that the more complex a creature is, the less probable its existence; and since God is infinitely complex, it is infinitely improbable that he exists. Plantinga points out that God is not necessarily complex, and since He is immaterial, the argument for complexity doesn’t fit. God is a necessary being upon whom all other beings depend on for their existence.
Plantinga goes on to examine the evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe. If the force of gravity were slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants, and if it were weaker all stars would be red dwarfs; in either case, intelligent life would be impossible. If the weak and strong nuclear forces were either stronger or weaker, intelligent life would be impossible. The existence of life also depends on the expansion/compression ratio of the expanding universe, so that if the universe were expanding any faster it would be too cold, and if it were expanding any slower, it would be too hot and collapse back in on itself; in either case, intelligent life would be impossible. Stephen Hawking concludes that life is possible only because the universe is expanding at just the rate required to avoid recollapse.
Dawkins tries to evade this evidence by suggesting that there are an infinite number of universes, with different combinations of distribution of values over the physical constants. First, there is no evidence for this, and second, very few would have viable combinations that would allow intelligent life to exist. His argument also doesn’t answer the question of why this particular universe in which we live is extremely fined tuned.
Dawkins tries to avoid the conclusions drawn from the argument from design by saying, “But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself… . To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer.” Thus he tries to reassert his original argument from complexity for the improbability of God.
However, if we were to land on an alien planet and discover sophisticated machines, we would instantly proclaim that some intelligent alien beings created those machines. If someone in the group argued that we hadn’t explained anything at all since any intelligent life that designed those machines must be at least as complex as they are, we would send him back to earth on the first available flight to enroll in Philosophy 101. Such an argument is meaningless and misses the point entirely. So, too, does Dawkins’ argument, which is sophomoric at best.
Theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for organized complexity but only organized complexity in general, to explain one specific manifestation of it (the universe). Even Dawkins’ arguments do not give an ultimate explanation for organized complexity. Explanations must come to an end somewhere on any view. Dawkins has merely tried to give a technical covering to the age old question, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” Such a question confuses categories since God is an eternal, self-existent, non-contingent, uncreated being.
Dawkins also fails to carry his arguments to their ultimate logical conclusion. If man is the product of unguided random evolution, then his brain is the product of the same process. Therefore, man can not be certain that his brain is functioning properly and that he is able to perceive reality accurately or reason about it accurately. Naturalism, then, is self-defeating since it is based on unreliable cognitive processes.
“he real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.”
Plantinga concludes:
“The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a "delusion." The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it.”
You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
Richard Dawkins is one of America’s leading Atheists who has written many popular works against Theism. Alvin Plantinga reviews Dawkins’ latest book, The God Delusion, in Books & Culture, March/April 2007, pages 21-24.
Plantinga, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame does an excellent job showing how Dawkins makes some very weak, misleading and very unsound arguments in his attempt to show that the idea of God is absurd. Plantinga’s own words say it best:
“Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying.”
Dawkins claims that the existence of God is “monumentally improbable,” by which he means that the more complex a creature is, the less probable its existence; and since God is infinitely complex, it is infinitely improbable that he exists. Plantinga points out that God is not necessarily complex, and since He is immaterial, the argument for complexity doesn’t fit. God is a necessary being upon whom all other beings depend on for their existence.
Plantinga goes on to examine the evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe. If the force of gravity were slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants, and if it were weaker all stars would be red dwarfs; in either case, intelligent life would be impossible. If the weak and strong nuclear forces were either stronger or weaker, intelligent life would be impossible. The existence of life also depends on the expansion/compression ratio of the expanding universe, so that if the universe were expanding any faster it would be too cold, and if it were expanding any slower, it would be too hot and collapse back in on itself; in either case, intelligent life would be impossible. Stephen Hawking concludes that life is possible only because the universe is expanding at just the rate required to avoid recollapse.
Dawkins tries to evade this evidence by suggesting that there are an infinite number of universes, with different combinations of distribution of values over the physical constants. First, there is no evidence for this, and second, very few would have viable combinations that would allow intelligent life to exist. His argument also doesn’t answer the question of why this particular universe in which we live is extremely fined tuned.
Dawkins tries to avoid the conclusions drawn from the argument from design by saying, “But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself… . To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer.” Thus he tries to reassert his original argument from complexity for the improbability of God.
However, if we were to land on an alien planet and discover sophisticated machines, we would instantly proclaim that some intelligent alien beings created those machines. If someone in the group argued that we hadn’t explained anything at all since any intelligent life that designed those machines must be at least as complex as they are, we would send him back to earth on the first available flight to enroll in Philosophy 101. Such an argument is meaningless and misses the point entirely. So, too, does Dawkins’ argument, which is sophomoric at best.
Theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for organized complexity but only organized complexity in general, to explain one specific manifestation of it (the universe). Even Dawkins’ arguments do not give an ultimate explanation for organized complexity. Explanations must come to an end somewhere on any view. Dawkins has merely tried to give a technical covering to the age old question, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” Such a question confuses categories since God is an eternal, self-existent, non-contingent, uncreated being.
Dawkins also fails to carry his arguments to their ultimate logical conclusion. If man is the product of unguided random evolution, then his brain is the product of the same process. Therefore, man can not be certain that his brain is functioning properly and that he is able to perceive reality accurately or reason about it accurately. Naturalism, then, is self-defeating since it is based on unreliable cognitive processes.
“he real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.”
Plantinga concludes:
“The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a "delusion." The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it.”
You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
Monday, March 19, 2007
Ender's Game (2)
I just finished the last book in the first series of Ender’s Game, Children of the Mind. This was the most philosophical of the whole series while Xenocide was the most religious. Orson Scott Card plans to write one more novel that will tie the first and second series together, most likely set mainly on the planet Lusitania where most of the action has taken place in the last three books. Lusitania is the planet where Ender Wiggin finally settled, got married, and died.
While it is unusual for the hero to die half way through a novel, Ender isn’t really dead, at least not fully. This is Card’s attempt to explain his philosophy of man’s nature. His views are interesting and thought-provoking and he deals with many of the major issues in this philosophical debate. Card sees man as possessing an immaterial soul that takes on a body at birth. Humans are not defined solely by their memories or their soul; rather, both memories and soul are essential to personhood.
Children of the Mind also tackles other major philosophical issues. One of the main themes is the human tendency to fear that which is different, leading humans to be quick to judge others. Humans tend to jump to conclusions about others without taking the time to really understand them. The whole series revolves around the issue of the fear of alien species which appear to pose a serious threat to the survival of the human race. Cards point is that we need to take the time to understand those who fear and seek to communicate fully instead of defending ourselves as a knee-jerk action. This principle is also applied to inter-human personal relationships.
This issue was also dealt with in great detail in The Hive Queen, Ender’s first book, where Ender tries to atone for his act of xenocide by seeking to understand the enemy he nearly annihilated. As a Speaker for the Dead, he seeks to communicate the history, culture and true intentions of the alien race that had attacked earth and which he nearly blew into oblivion in a preemptive strike on their home planet. By seeking to fully understand an alien species that nearly destroyed earth, Ender becomes the chief paradigm for empathy and love for those who are different and seemingly dangerous.
While the first book, Ender’s Game, is appealing to a wide audience, the later books in the series have a narrower appeal. Children of the Mind is probably the least appealing of the series since it has less action and more philosophizing and psychologizing. I also recommend that the first three books be read first, since much of the Children of the Mind depends on all that has happened in the first three books.
Here are the books in the Ender’s Game series with the books I have read marked with an (x):
ENDER’S GAME
FIRST SERIES:
Ender's Game (x)
Speaker for the Dead (x)
Xenocide (x)
Children of the Mind (x)
Ender in Exile: Ganges (working title)
SECOND SERIES:
Ender's Shadow (x)
Shadow of the Hegemon (x)
Shadow Puppets
Shadow of the Giant (x)
Shadows in Flight
Other:
First Meetings
While it is unusual for the hero to die half way through a novel, Ender isn’t really dead, at least not fully. This is Card’s attempt to explain his philosophy of man’s nature. His views are interesting and thought-provoking and he deals with many of the major issues in this philosophical debate. Card sees man as possessing an immaterial soul that takes on a body at birth. Humans are not defined solely by their memories or their soul; rather, both memories and soul are essential to personhood.
Children of the Mind also tackles other major philosophical issues. One of the main themes is the human tendency to fear that which is different, leading humans to be quick to judge others. Humans tend to jump to conclusions about others without taking the time to really understand them. The whole series revolves around the issue of the fear of alien species which appear to pose a serious threat to the survival of the human race. Cards point is that we need to take the time to understand those who fear and seek to communicate fully instead of defending ourselves as a knee-jerk action. This principle is also applied to inter-human personal relationships.
This issue was also dealt with in great detail in The Hive Queen, Ender’s first book, where Ender tries to atone for his act of xenocide by seeking to understand the enemy he nearly annihilated. As a Speaker for the Dead, he seeks to communicate the history, culture and true intentions of the alien race that had attacked earth and which he nearly blew into oblivion in a preemptive strike on their home planet. By seeking to fully understand an alien species that nearly destroyed earth, Ender becomes the chief paradigm for empathy and love for those who are different and seemingly dangerous.
While the first book, Ender’s Game, is appealing to a wide audience, the later books in the series have a narrower appeal. Children of the Mind is probably the least appealing of the series since it has less action and more philosophizing and psychologizing. I also recommend that the first three books be read first, since much of the Children of the Mind depends on all that has happened in the first three books.
Here are the books in the Ender’s Game series with the books I have read marked with an (x):
ENDER’S GAME
FIRST SERIES:
Ender's Game (x)
Speaker for the Dead (x)
Xenocide (x)
Children of the Mind (x)
Ender in Exile: Ganges (working title)
SECOND SERIES:
Ender's Shadow (x)
Shadow of the Hegemon (x)
Shadow Puppets
Shadow of the Giant (x)
Shadows in Flight
Other:
First Meetings
Thursday, January 18, 2007
What do you know?
I heard a few sayings today that I want to pass along:
“To know and not do is to not really know at all.”
“The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.”
“Learning is changed behavior.”
“The problem is not that people don’t know how to solve their problems, but rather the problem is the people don’t even know what their problems are.”
“You don’t know what you don’t know.”
Knowledge is not merely amassing a lot of facts and being able to spout them off at will. Knowledge is taking what you learn and applying it to your daily life. Learning facts and not acting on them leads to self-deception, so that you think you are wise when you really are a fool. Whenever you learn something, always ask yourself what you are going to do about what you learned. Find some small practical way that you can utilize the knowledge you have gained. Never leave the scene of learning without taking a small step forward in response to the knowledge gained. In this way, you will truly become a wise person.
Ignorance is not bliss; it can kill you, or at least keep you from experiencing life in all its fullness. One of the main reasons to study and gain knowledge is so that your ignorance and blind spots can be exposed. If you don’t even know what your problems are, there is no way that you will be able to solve them. Most people go through life thinking they know what is going on, but in reality, they are ignorant of the real issues. Constantly learn and expose yourself to new ideas, stretching yourself in many different directions, so that you become aware of your limitations, failures, mistakes; then you will begin to understand what your true problems are. Only then will you be able to begin to search for the solutions to your problems. If you don’t know what you don’t know, there is no way for you to even know what you need to learn in order to overcome your ignorance. So make life-long learning and growth an essential part of your life.
“To know and not do is to not really know at all.”
“The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.”
“Learning is changed behavior.”
“The problem is not that people don’t know how to solve their problems, but rather the problem is the people don’t even know what their problems are.”
“You don’t know what you don’t know.”
Knowledge is not merely amassing a lot of facts and being able to spout them off at will. Knowledge is taking what you learn and applying it to your daily life. Learning facts and not acting on them leads to self-deception, so that you think you are wise when you really are a fool. Whenever you learn something, always ask yourself what you are going to do about what you learned. Find some small practical way that you can utilize the knowledge you have gained. Never leave the scene of learning without taking a small step forward in response to the knowledge gained. In this way, you will truly become a wise person.
Ignorance is not bliss; it can kill you, or at least keep you from experiencing life in all its fullness. One of the main reasons to study and gain knowledge is so that your ignorance and blind spots can be exposed. If you don’t even know what your problems are, there is no way that you will be able to solve them. Most people go through life thinking they know what is going on, but in reality, they are ignorant of the real issues. Constantly learn and expose yourself to new ideas, stretching yourself in many different directions, so that you become aware of your limitations, failures, mistakes; then you will begin to understand what your true problems are. Only then will you be able to begin to search for the solutions to your problems. If you don’t know what you don’t know, there is no way for you to even know what you need to learn in order to overcome your ignorance. So make life-long learning and growth an essential part of your life.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Darwin’s Graveyards
I am reading an excellent article in Books & Culture, written by Edward T. Oakes, a professor at St. Mary’s in Mundelein. His article reviews Richard Weikart’s book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. It is an excellent illustration of how Charles Darwin’s ideas about evolution were not limited to biology, but he clearly taught the social implications as well.
Darwin’s evolutionary ideas, combined with Nietzsche’s nihilistic philosophy, shaped the culture and mindset of Germany in the early 20th century. When Hitler came to power, his publicly announced goals to turn Germany into a master race by eliminating all inferior races, along with the sick, weak, homosexuals and other undesirables, met with wide acceptance by every strata of German society, including Christians. Not only had Germany’s intellectual elite bought into the idea of killing off inferior races, but the common people supported these ideas as well. Hitler was not seen as a madman but as a true prophet whose heart beat in sync with the majority of the German populace.
Darwin’s theory of evolution gave them the foundation upon which to build the most horrific society the world has ever seen. The only difference between Hitler and his contemporaries was that he was willing to put his ideas into practice. And he put them into practice with all the zeal and energy he could muster.
Ideas have consequences, and Darwin’s ideas led to the death of six million Jews under Hitler’s reign of terror. Here are some quotes from the article clearly showing what Darwin, Nietzsche and many other Germans taught that led to Hitler’s diabolical plan to rid the earth of all inferior races:
Darwin:
Letter to William Graham: “I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
Descent of Man: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”
Origin of Species: “Let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
Nietzsche:
The biblical prohibition "Thou shalt not kill" is a piece of naïveté compared with the seriousness of Life's own "Thou shalt not" issued to decadence: "Thou shalt not procreate!" —Life itself recognizes no solidarity, no "equal right," between the healthy and the degenerate parts of an organism… . Sympathy for the decadents, equal rights for the ill-constituted—that would be the profoundest immorality, that would be anti-nature itself as morality!
“Far too many keep on living; they hang on their branches much too long. May a storm soon come, which shakes all this rotten and worm-eaten fruit from the tree!”
Hitler:
A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called "humaneness" of individuals, in order to make place for the true "humaneness of nature," which destroys the weak to make place for the strong.
Other Germans:
In a section of The Gay Science entitled "Holy Cruelty," a Nietzschean "saint" advises a father to kill his disabled child, rhetorically asking, "Isn't it crueler to allow it to live?" The Twilight of the Idols includes a section entitled "Morality for Physicians" that calls sick people "parasites" who have no right to life and advocates the "most ruthless suppression and pushing aside of degenerate life." And finally in his autobiography Ecce Homo, one of the last books he sent to the publisher before his collapse into insanity, he said: "If we cast a look a century ahead and assume that my assassination of two thousand years of opposition to nature and of dishonoring humans succeeds, then that new party of life [!] will take in hand the greatest of all tasks—the higher breeding of humanity, including the unsparing destruction of all degenerates and parasites."
It is important to remember that ideas have consequences. Many people are willing to hold onto unbiblical ideas but lack the guts to live consistently with them. But when enough people believe the lie, then all it takes is for someone with enough guts to come along and sweep the whole society along with him. No one will oppose him when he begins to act on the lie because everyone believes in the lie already and were secretly wishing for the opportunity to live it out. The leader who acts on the lie gives them the excuse they have been looking for, so they do not oppose the leader but eagerly support him. Unfortunately, millions who called themselves Christians also believed the lie and actually supported Hitler! Can it happen again?
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2006/006/15.35.html If this link doesn't work, click on the link for Books & Culture on the left sidebar and do a search for "Darwin."
Darwin’s evolutionary ideas, combined with Nietzsche’s nihilistic philosophy, shaped the culture and mindset of Germany in the early 20th century. When Hitler came to power, his publicly announced goals to turn Germany into a master race by eliminating all inferior races, along with the sick, weak, homosexuals and other undesirables, met with wide acceptance by every strata of German society, including Christians. Not only had Germany’s intellectual elite bought into the idea of killing off inferior races, but the common people supported these ideas as well. Hitler was not seen as a madman but as a true prophet whose heart beat in sync with the majority of the German populace.
Darwin’s theory of evolution gave them the foundation upon which to build the most horrific society the world has ever seen. The only difference between Hitler and his contemporaries was that he was willing to put his ideas into practice. And he put them into practice with all the zeal and energy he could muster.
Ideas have consequences, and Darwin’s ideas led to the death of six million Jews under Hitler’s reign of terror. Here are some quotes from the article clearly showing what Darwin, Nietzsche and many other Germans taught that led to Hitler’s diabolical plan to rid the earth of all inferior races:
Darwin:
Letter to William Graham: “I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
Descent of Man: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”
Origin of Species: “Let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
Nietzsche:
The biblical prohibition "Thou shalt not kill" is a piece of naïveté compared with the seriousness of Life's own "Thou shalt not" issued to decadence: "Thou shalt not procreate!" —Life itself recognizes no solidarity, no "equal right," between the healthy and the degenerate parts of an organism… . Sympathy for the decadents, equal rights for the ill-constituted—that would be the profoundest immorality, that would be anti-nature itself as morality!
“Far too many keep on living; they hang on their branches much too long. May a storm soon come, which shakes all this rotten and worm-eaten fruit from the tree!”
Hitler:
A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called "humaneness" of individuals, in order to make place for the true "humaneness of nature," which destroys the weak to make place for the strong.
Other Germans:
In a section of The Gay Science entitled "Holy Cruelty," a Nietzschean "saint" advises a father to kill his disabled child, rhetorically asking, "Isn't it crueler to allow it to live?" The Twilight of the Idols includes a section entitled "Morality for Physicians" that calls sick people "parasites" who have no right to life and advocates the "most ruthless suppression and pushing aside of degenerate life." And finally in his autobiography Ecce Homo, one of the last books he sent to the publisher before his collapse into insanity, he said: "If we cast a look a century ahead and assume that my assassination of two thousand years of opposition to nature and of dishonoring humans succeeds, then that new party of life [!] will take in hand the greatest of all tasks—the higher breeding of humanity, including the unsparing destruction of all degenerates and parasites."
It is important to remember that ideas have consequences. Many people are willing to hold onto unbiblical ideas but lack the guts to live consistently with them. But when enough people believe the lie, then all it takes is for someone with enough guts to come along and sweep the whole society along with him. No one will oppose him when he begins to act on the lie because everyone believes in the lie already and were secretly wishing for the opportunity to live it out. The leader who acts on the lie gives them the excuse they have been looking for, so they do not oppose the leader but eagerly support him. Unfortunately, millions who called themselves Christians also believed the lie and actually supported Hitler! Can it happen again?
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2006/006/15.35.html If this link doesn't work, click on the link for Books & Culture on the left sidebar and do a search for "Darwin."
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Children of Men
P.D. James’ novel plays well as a movie. Even though it is a British production, I thought it was a good movie. It is bleak, intense at times, and does an excellent job of portraying the hopelessness, despair and anger of a doomed earth. I was drawn into the gloom and despair, making the movie work for me.
I enjoyed the movie mainly for its philosophical message. The movie basically portrays how humans would respond if all hope was lost and the end of mankind was imminent. For some unknown reason, all women have become infertile and there hasn’t been a single birth on the whole planet for eighteen years. The end of the human race is inevitable and despair sets in.
P.D. James effectively portrays man’s response to hopelessness and inevitable doom. Most humans give in to despair while a few hold on to hope. Those few find hope in Christianity, calling for repentance. Most, however, reject religion and give in to hopelessness. Some choose to peacefully end their lives by committing suicide through a government program of self-poisoning. Others isolate themselves and find refuge in drugs and music. Many, however, are filled with rage and commit violent acts towards civilians or the government.
I feel the movie accurately portrayed the chaos, despair and violence that would run rampant if something like this really did happen. In fact, these responses are seen in societies where hopelessness reigns, such as in the inner city, war-ravaged regions and poverty-stricken areas. Without hope, there is very little reason to live; and if one does live, there is very little reason to live civilly.
In his book, Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl chronicles how Jews interred in Nazi concentration camps dealt with hopelessness and despair. Man cannot live a meaningful and prosperous life without hope. Take away hope, and man degenerates into violence, destruction and despair. This is why the Gospel is so powerful, because it gives man true hope, filling life with meaning and purpose. The Children of Men paints an accurate picture of what life is like without hope.
When a young girl is found pregnant, hope is injected into the story. The birth of the child brings new hope to mankind. It is hard to miss the analogy to Jesus, who brought new hope to the world when he was born. Christ is our only true hope, and when man discovers him and believes in him, life is transformed and infused with new power. Despair and destruction are replaced with hope and creativity as the new man is sent out into the world to be a redeeming influence in a hopeless world.
I enjoyed the movie mainly for its philosophical message. The movie basically portrays how humans would respond if all hope was lost and the end of mankind was imminent. For some unknown reason, all women have become infertile and there hasn’t been a single birth on the whole planet for eighteen years. The end of the human race is inevitable and despair sets in.
P.D. James effectively portrays man’s response to hopelessness and inevitable doom. Most humans give in to despair while a few hold on to hope. Those few find hope in Christianity, calling for repentance. Most, however, reject religion and give in to hopelessness. Some choose to peacefully end their lives by committing suicide through a government program of self-poisoning. Others isolate themselves and find refuge in drugs and music. Many, however, are filled with rage and commit violent acts towards civilians or the government.
I feel the movie accurately portrayed the chaos, despair and violence that would run rampant if something like this really did happen. In fact, these responses are seen in societies where hopelessness reigns, such as in the inner city, war-ravaged regions and poverty-stricken areas. Without hope, there is very little reason to live; and if one does live, there is very little reason to live civilly.
In his book, Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl chronicles how Jews interred in Nazi concentration camps dealt with hopelessness and despair. Man cannot live a meaningful and prosperous life without hope. Take away hope, and man degenerates into violence, destruction and despair. This is why the Gospel is so powerful, because it gives man true hope, filling life with meaning and purpose. The Children of Men paints an accurate picture of what life is like without hope.
When a young girl is found pregnant, hope is injected into the story. The birth of the child brings new hope to mankind. It is hard to miss the analogy to Jesus, who brought new hope to the world when he was born. Christ is our only true hope, and when man discovers him and believes in him, life is transformed and infused with new power. Despair and destruction are replaced with hope and creativity as the new man is sent out into the world to be a redeeming influence in a hopeless world.
Monday, January 15, 2007
The Suppliants by Euripides
One of my long-term goals is to finish reading all 54 volumes of the Great Books of the Western World. Right now I am reading the Greek plays of Euripides. While Euripides was not as popular as Aeschylus or Sophocles during his lifetime, his plays were in greater demand after his death, so that more than twice as many of his plays exist today than the others. Of the three, Sophocles is my favorite.
I just finished reading the Suppliants, a tragedy about the death of the seven valiant warriors of Argos who died trying to regain the Theban kingdom for Polyneices which was usurped by Creon after the death of Oedipus, Polyneices’ father. Creon refused to allow anyone to bury the dead warriors, forcing the aged king of Argos to plead for help from Thesseus, legendary king of Athens. Theseus agrees to help, moved by the Suppliants (mothers of the dead warriors) and Aethra, his wife, even though he is insulted and warned by Creon’s messenge not to interfere.
Theseus attacks Thebes, and in a fierce battle drives Creon back into the walled city and recovers the bodies of the seven warriors. The bodies are returned to Argos where they are burned and interred in a proper manner.
Several passages in the poem caught my attention. The first was the exchange between Theseus and the messenger from Creon. The messenger ridicules Athens for being ruled by a mob and Theseus counters with the travesties of a dictatorship. This is a classic debate between the two major Greek forms of government, democracy and monarchy. In this passage we get the major arguments for and against both forms of government.
The second passage is the eulogies pronounced by Adrastus, the aged king of Argos, for the seven warriors. It is moving how he portrays the character of each of the valiant men, emphasizing their courage, humility, and integrity. It causes one to pause and reflect on what one wishes to be at his or her own funeral.
I just finished reading the Suppliants, a tragedy about the death of the seven valiant warriors of Argos who died trying to regain the Theban kingdom for Polyneices which was usurped by Creon after the death of Oedipus, Polyneices’ father. Creon refused to allow anyone to bury the dead warriors, forcing the aged king of Argos to plead for help from Thesseus, legendary king of Athens. Theseus agrees to help, moved by the Suppliants (mothers of the dead warriors) and Aethra, his wife, even though he is insulted and warned by Creon’s messenge not to interfere.
Theseus attacks Thebes, and in a fierce battle drives Creon back into the walled city and recovers the bodies of the seven warriors. The bodies are returned to Argos where they are burned and interred in a proper manner.
Several passages in the poem caught my attention. The first was the exchange between Theseus and the messenger from Creon. The messenger ridicules Athens for being ruled by a mob and Theseus counters with the travesties of a dictatorship. This is a classic debate between the two major Greek forms of government, democracy and monarchy. In this passage we get the major arguments for and against both forms of government.
The second passage is the eulogies pronounced by Adrastus, the aged king of Argos, for the seven warriors. It is moving how he portrays the character of each of the valiant men, emphasizing their courage, humility, and integrity. It causes one to pause and reflect on what one wishes to be at his or her own funeral.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)