In Defense of “Ceremonial Deism”
The Raving Atheist recently posted here and here:
Another problem with your blanket attack on atheism is the fact that you are all yourselves atheists with respect to every god but your own. Unless you’re pandering, multiculturalism relativists, you certainly don’t believe that Jesus, Allah, Ganesh, Zeus or the Wizard of Oz co-exist—you reject most of them as fairy-tale deities. And you certainly don’t believe in the “ceremonial deism” of the United States Supreme Court, i.e., that “we all worship the same God.” Quite plainly, if two Gods hold opposing views on abortion, capital punishment, and social welfare, they can’t possibly be the same God.If I think George Orwell would have approved of the current Iraq War and somebody else thinks George Orwell would not have approves of the current Iraq War, that doesn't mean we're talking about different persons.
4 Comments:
Isn't "Raving Atheist" kind of redundant?
Agnostics are another matter.
This Raving Atheist is anti-abortion so he's raving in the right direction some of the time.
One of the signal fatuities of militant atheists is that they insist on proof of the existence of God. One can no more prove the existence of God in a rigorous way than one could prove His non-existence, because He exceeds all attempts at definition. (To define is to limit.) It's like that with transcendent Beings.
Why faith should disturb so many folks will forever remain a mystery to me.
Faith is one of the oldest mechanisms we have for dealing with imperfect data.
Its antiquity alone seems to be reason enough for many intellectuals to regard it as suspect.
Its vulgarity (no great intelligence is required to have faith) is another reason for intellectuals to dislike it.
But the real rub is that it is a constant reminder that our data is imperfect -- which is most annoying to most intellectuals.
Post a Comment
<< Home