A Pew survey has some interesting results. When asked what most influenced their morality, 57% of Catholics answered 'practical experience and common sense'. The poster at 'Gene Expression' concluded that 'right and wrong is not about religion'. I beg to differ.
Firstly, someone's ignorance of right and wrong doesn't influence WHAT IS right and wrong.
Secondly, taking Catholics as an example, I would conclude that a person's ignorance of right and wrong is greatly influenced by their environment. Isn't that where we gain our 'practical experience and common sense'?
Badly formed Catholics have different ideas of what 'morality' even means, whether 'truth' even exists. and what it even means to be human. Those brought up in faithful, Christ centered homes have a totally different 'practical experience' from those brought up in dissident parishes with failing or non-existent Catholic schools. Its not surprising that a percentage of nominally Catholic people are secular humanists in reality, and base most of their choices, moral or not, on self-centered 'reasoning'.
Another factor which likely made an impact on the survey results, is the social attitude towards religion today, where 'common knowledge' tells us that religion is unreasonable. Asked whether religion or common sense guides our morality, some religious people may have opted for seeming reasonable, since the survey itself put religion in opposition to reason.
Also, if a Catholic person's 'practical experience' is a truly Catholic experience, and their 'common sense' is informed by their faithful Catholic upbringing, then religion IS influencing their morality!
What is the purpose of a survey? To make individual interpretation of 'not really facts' seem somewhat legitimate?
Showing posts with label reason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reason. Show all posts
12/29/08
"40 Weeks vs A Lifetime"
David Dominguez makes a good point about what's in the balance, when discussing the 'rubrik of human value' - woman vs child.
I don't get it either. Sacrifice, no matter how definitively limited, is not taught as a 'good' in today's society. It is taught as something to be avoided at all costs...including the cost of a life altering and traumatic 'procedure' such as an abortion. There's a lack of reason involved.
Is this the same 'lack' that denies the existence of God?
I know, I know. I'm a man, not a woman. I don't understand what pregnancy is like, and I never will. I'm not claiming I do, nor minimizing the drama and trauma a woman endures in a normal pregnancy and delivery, let alone a childbirth complicated by medical issues. Pregnancy and delivery involve a lot more than watching 40 weeks pass. Of course, an abortion involves a lot more than a mere removal of tissue, to be sure, although few abortion advocates want to talk about this.
The fact is, a pregnant woman faces mental and physical trauma either way, whether she delivers her baby or has an abortion.
Another fact is that a pregnant woman who does not wish to raise her baby has no obligation to do so, and never has. With countless couples longing to adopt a child, even an unhealthy one, it's amazing to me that any woman sees no option but to abort an unwanted baby.
Isn't it funny how different people are when they have to account for their actions face to face, rather than being able to do what they want without explanation? I have found that the "toughest" person, by this world's standards, often becomes nervous, vague, and shifty when faced with an eyeball to eyeball reckoning for his actions. The tough talk in front of his peers disappears in an instant before even the most unassuming and non-threatening questioner.
How different would the abortion debate be if someone choosing an abortion had to explain the choice to the baby, or more intimidating still, to the adult that baby would eventually grow into? Or, even, to the preschooler that baby would be in just a few years?
How would you explain to someone that, for the sake of 40 weeks out of my adult life, you can't have any life at all? (And, no, the fact that I freely received my own mother's 40 weeks makes no difference...)
Who would make such a claim to someone who could respond?
Who would accept the short end of such a trade-off, in any area of life?
For that matter, how many abortion advocates would accept the short end of that stick? I daresay they would run for relief to the same court that gave them Roe v. Wade.
40 weeks vs. a lifetime.
I just don't get it.
I don't get it either. Sacrifice, no matter how definitively limited, is not taught as a 'good' in today's society. It is taught as something to be avoided at all costs...including the cost of a life altering and traumatic 'procedure' such as an abortion. There's a lack of reason involved.
Is this the same 'lack' that denies the existence of God?
11/19/08
One For Free Speech
France's Court of Appeals overturned a 'homophobic speech' conviction in a ruling that has put the homosexual community up in arms:(LifeSiteNews)
....Deputy Christian Vanneste was convicted in 2006 of "homophobic" speech after stating in 2004 that "homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality. If it were universalized it would be dangerous for humanity." He also called the behavior of homosexuals "bigoted."
The French Court of Appeals overturned the lower court ruling, remarking that "if the disputed remarks were able to hurt the feelings of certain homosexual people, their contents do not go beyond the limits of freedom of expression."
The negation of the lower court's $4,000 fine for Vanneste's remarks was denounced by homosexualist organizations across the country.
"This decision of the Court of Appeals will unfortunately lead homophobes to believe that they can express their hate with complete impunity," complained the French organization "Gaylib" on their website. "This is precisely what the (anti-homophobia) law of 2004 sought by the government of Jean Pierre Raffarin was meant to fight."
"This decision could harm fragile gains" made by the homosexual movement, remarked representatives of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Center of Paris. The organization lamented that "the struggle against homophobia is floundering."
France's "ACT UP" claimed that "the legislature gave the means to prosecute offenses based on sexual orientation precisely because society has begun to realize the impact of homophobia. The decision of the appeals court put all of that in doubt."
"The communication tactics of the gay lobby are habitual," said Vanneste in an interview with the Evangelical Protestant Committee for Human Dignity. "They've been effective, and they're not going to stop using them."
"They consist in victimization, and distortions made in bad faith every time they meet an obstacle. The Court of Appeals seeks to say very clearly that I have expressed perfectly acceptable opinions within a framework of normal democratic debate," Vanneste continued. "I would like to add that they are founded on good sense, and they are shared by the majority. They consist in particular in saying that one can obviously judge behavior on a moral level."
In his defense, Vanneste's attorney brought forth philosophical, theological, and legal arguments in favor of his client, and called two philosophy professors and a pastor to the stand to testify.
"I made an exaggerated statement based on the categorical imperative of Kant," Vanneste said during the trial. "There are concepts that one can universalize and others that one can't. The first are the greater. That is a justification for the foundation of morality."
Vanneste also quoted Augustine's dictum that one must "love the sinner but hate the sin," and added that "homosexuality is morally inferior, according to the Christian concept of the family and matrimony."
No doubt Bash Back is buying their transcontinental flights right now. Close the borders!
In Canada, it wouldn't have been in court. It would have been a 'Human Rights' complaint, the victim (Vanneste) would have had to pay his own legal bills while the gov't agency usurped his rights to even a fair hearing. He would have been found guilty with no appeal to a 'higher' court, and a penalty would have been exacted. Like 'never speaking in public again' and perhaps apologizing for expressing Christian beliefs and paying a fine to be used for the sponsorship of Gay Marriage cocktail hour.
10/22/08
We Must Guard Against Scientific Arrogance
ZENIT:
The (Faith and Reason) conference, which gathered philosophers, theologians and scientists, is the fruit of collaboration between the Lateran University, the Pontifical Academies of Science and Social Science and the Global Conference of Catholic University Institutes of Philosophy. It touched on topics in anthropology, ethics and politics, science, metaphysics and interreligious discussion.
The Bishop of Rome observed that over the course of time there has been a shift from "predominantly speculative thought to one that is much more experiential," which has led to a divide between faith and reason.
"Research," he said, "has turned above all to the observation of nature in the attempt to discover its secrets. The desire to know nature has transformed itself into the will to reproduce it. The scientific and technological conquest […] has marginalized the reason that pursued the ultimate truth of things to make way for a reason that is satisfied with discovering the contingent truth of the laws of nature."
The Holy Father clarified that faith has no fear of the "progress of science and the developments that its conquests lead to, when these aim at benefiting man, his well-being and the progress of all humanity."
But, he said, "scientific research does not always have these as its ends."
"Easy gain or, worse still, the arrogance of taking the place of the Creator, at times play a decisive role," the Pope affirmed, emphasizing the threat that such mentalities can pose for humanity.
"But science is not competent to elaborate ethical principles; it can only accept them in themselves and recognize them as necessary for overcoming [science's] possible pathologies," he continued.
Benedict XVI affirmed that science could derive much fruit from a constructive dialogue with philosophy and theology.
"This would not at all aim at limiting scientific research or at preventing technology from producing instruments of development," he explained. "It would aim rather at keeping alive the sense of responsibility that reason and faith have for science so that science would continue to carry out its work in the service of man.
"The truth of revelation does not superimpose itself on the truth discovered by reason; rather, it purifies reason and elevates it, permitting it thus to expand its own sphere and insert itself into a field of research that is as unfathomable as the mystery itself."
"Credulity and Skepticism"
BY Mark Shea
"The devil, so the saying goes, is the ape of God. And so one of his standard methods for deceiving is to create parodies of good things and send them into the world in pairs.
Why parodies? Because he cannot make, he can only mock. So instead of love, he offers lust. Instead of justice, he offers merciless vengeance. Instead of dignity, he offers pride. Instead of contentment with the world’s goods, he offers greed.
Why does he send errors into the world in pairs? So that, in fleeing one lie, you will embrace the opposite lie. And so, for instance, he ignores the Church’s ancient affirmation of both faith and reason and instead foments credulity and skepticism, which are to faith and reason as carob is to fine Belgian chocolate.
Halloween is an especially good time for the devil, for it annually introduces into our national conversation a good solid dose of both credulity and skepticism, while encouraging us to overlook both faith and reason.
Credulity encourages us to believe without thinking, and skepticism encourages us to disbelieve without thinking. Both are folly.
The credulous person accepts tales of the supernatural without bothering to find out if they are a) true or b) from God.
The skeptic reflexively rejects the supernatural, not on the basis of the evidence, but on the basis of a personal dogma that rules out the supernatural in advance of and in the teeth of whatever evidence there may be.
Neither approach is the way of the Catholic faith. The Church is open to the reality that God made the world to be orderly and discoverable by reason. This fundamental faith statement is the basis of all the sciences.
Without the basic (and scientifically unprovable) faith that the mind can grasp reality there would be no science.
The dogmatic skeptic who believes that everything you cannot prove with reason should be rejected is sawing off the branch he is sitting on, because you cannot prove with reason that reason is reliable. We take that assumption on faith. A thorough commitment to skepticism means the end, not just of faith, but of reason.
Conversely, the credulous person who sees the miraculous at work everywhere and is ready to declare every water stain on a freeway underpass an apparition of the Blessed Virgin is also acting against both faith and reason.
Credulity will often race ahead of the Church to embrace loony seers and visionaries who announce all manner of non-Catholic rubbish. It will often cower in fear before such seers in anticipation of some terrible divine judgment or demonic spectacle. That kind of credulity is also frequently ready to see demons at work in every head cold or hangnail — with the result that the dogmatic skeptic feels vindicated in sneering at the supernatural.
The Catholic way is wedded to common sense. With respect to credulity, Catholic common sense says, “Chances are the water stain is just a water stain and not a miraculous apparition. Chances are the cold is just a cold and not a manifestation of demonic power.” With respect to dogmatic skepticism, Catholic common sense says, “If a person with nothing to gain and a lot to lose reports seeing a miracle, odds are he is at least being honest. If that honest person’s report of a miracle has solid evidence backing it, then the sensible thing to do is praise God for a miracle.”
So when the apostles and 500 witnesses report seeing the risen Christ and live lives of suffering and martyrdom for it, the most reasonable (and faithful) thing to do is acknowledge that the thing happened. After all, nothing in science or the Catholic faith really makes it impossible since God, under carefully controlled laboratory conditions, can do whatever he likes.
Both faith and reason are grounded in truth: the truth God has revealed about himself, and the truth he has built into creation.
Both credulity and skepticism are grounded in personal prejudice: a person’s will to believe or disbelieve something based, not on the truth, but on one’s own personal preference imposed on the evidence. Both the credulous person and the skeptic are driven to arrive at conclusions that fit their personal prejudices.
The Catholic is free to follow the evidence where it leads and even, when necessary, leave a mystery mysterious.
A Catholic can look at the odd things of this world and say, “I don’t know what it means, so I will think about it and, God willing, form a conclusion based on the evidence.”
The credulous person and the skeptic are committed by their philosophies to not think about it and leap to their conclusions. They must pretend they have knowledge and understanding, when really they only have a prejudice."
(Mark Shea is senior content editor
for CatholicExchange.com.)
"The devil, so the saying goes, is the ape of God. And so one of his standard methods for deceiving is to create parodies of good things and send them into the world in pairs.
Why parodies? Because he cannot make, he can only mock. So instead of love, he offers lust. Instead of justice, he offers merciless vengeance. Instead of dignity, he offers pride. Instead of contentment with the world’s goods, he offers greed.
Why does he send errors into the world in pairs? So that, in fleeing one lie, you will embrace the opposite lie. And so, for instance, he ignores the Church’s ancient affirmation of both faith and reason and instead foments credulity and skepticism, which are to faith and reason as carob is to fine Belgian chocolate.
Halloween is an especially good time for the devil, for it annually introduces into our national conversation a good solid dose of both credulity and skepticism, while encouraging us to overlook both faith and reason.
Credulity encourages us to believe without thinking, and skepticism encourages us to disbelieve without thinking. Both are folly.
The credulous person accepts tales of the supernatural without bothering to find out if they are a) true or b) from God.
The skeptic reflexively rejects the supernatural, not on the basis of the evidence, but on the basis of a personal dogma that rules out the supernatural in advance of and in the teeth of whatever evidence there may be.
Neither approach is the way of the Catholic faith. The Church is open to the reality that God made the world to be orderly and discoverable by reason. This fundamental faith statement is the basis of all the sciences.
Without the basic (and scientifically unprovable) faith that the mind can grasp reality there would be no science.
The dogmatic skeptic who believes that everything you cannot prove with reason should be rejected is sawing off the branch he is sitting on, because you cannot prove with reason that reason is reliable. We take that assumption on faith. A thorough commitment to skepticism means the end, not just of faith, but of reason.
Conversely, the credulous person who sees the miraculous at work everywhere and is ready to declare every water stain on a freeway underpass an apparition of the Blessed Virgin is also acting against both faith and reason.
Credulity will often race ahead of the Church to embrace loony seers and visionaries who announce all manner of non-Catholic rubbish. It will often cower in fear before such seers in anticipation of some terrible divine judgment or demonic spectacle. That kind of credulity is also frequently ready to see demons at work in every head cold or hangnail — with the result that the dogmatic skeptic feels vindicated in sneering at the supernatural.
The Catholic way is wedded to common sense. With respect to credulity, Catholic common sense says, “Chances are the water stain is just a water stain and not a miraculous apparition. Chances are the cold is just a cold and not a manifestation of demonic power.” With respect to dogmatic skepticism, Catholic common sense says, “If a person with nothing to gain and a lot to lose reports seeing a miracle, odds are he is at least being honest. If that honest person’s report of a miracle has solid evidence backing it, then the sensible thing to do is praise God for a miracle.”
So when the apostles and 500 witnesses report seeing the risen Christ and live lives of suffering and martyrdom for it, the most reasonable (and faithful) thing to do is acknowledge that the thing happened. After all, nothing in science or the Catholic faith really makes it impossible since God, under carefully controlled laboratory conditions, can do whatever he likes.
Both faith and reason are grounded in truth: the truth God has revealed about himself, and the truth he has built into creation.
Both credulity and skepticism are grounded in personal prejudice: a person’s will to believe or disbelieve something based, not on the truth, but on one’s own personal preference imposed on the evidence. Both the credulous person and the skeptic are driven to arrive at conclusions that fit their personal prejudices.
The Catholic is free to follow the evidence where it leads and even, when necessary, leave a mystery mysterious.
A Catholic can look at the odd things of this world and say, “I don’t know what it means, so I will think about it and, God willing, form a conclusion based on the evidence.”
The credulous person and the skeptic are committed by their philosophies to not think about it and leap to their conclusions. They must pretend they have knowledge and understanding, when really they only have a prejudice."
(Mark Shea is senior content editor
for CatholicExchange.com.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)