A few good links
A few links I found interesting for one reason or another.
The first link to Edward Feser’s blog is a ‘must read’ and so if you don’t read any others do read this one.
Amercian Thinker – Russian Orthodox Leader Stands for Principle
Kiev Daily – Crisis of Eastern Christianity
The Philosophers’ Magazine – Is morality relative? Depends on your personality
Tags: Christianity, Church Life, Science & Medical, Theology Doctrine Philosophy
February 21st, 2011 at 11:14 am
I read the Ed Feser piece via M and M and I wasn’t impressed with it.
I think that the writer of the piece on Russian Orthodoxy could do with reading about Diggers and Levellers and the wide and wild panoply of faiths and non-faiths during the Commonwealth.
Why don’t you post some of this stuff on Premier ? It’s more interesting than some of the crap that gets a regular airing – all the more if it’s about a different brand of Christianity.
February 21st, 2011 at 4:53 pm
I, too, didn’t think much of Ed Feser’s piece. When the skeptic wrote ‘prove to me here and now that science is worth my time’, I’d have answered ‘look at the machine you’re typing on’. That is the killer argument for science – it produces measurable, repeatable undisputable results. No further reading needed.
Still, the comments suggest I read Aquinas. I suspect I’ll have to find a Dummy’s Guide, but I shall take a look.
February 21st, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Having read it, I didn’t think much Feser’s piece for the simple reason that he himself resorts to stereotype in order to reprimand “New Atheists”(tm) for stereotyping.
I mean, you’ve got to admire someone oblivious to third-order hypocrisy.
February 21st, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Isn’t it funny chaps I really enjoyed his piece and thought he articulated well some of the problems.
But on reflection perhaps you’re right Cabel to highlight the same problem is equally applicable in both camps.
This particular article spread far and wide in the Christian blogosphere, perhaps he articulated something we wanted to hear.
February 21st, 2011 at 6:23 pm
I’ve been pondering this “atheists resort to strawmen of religion” accusation quite a lot recently. I made a post on another board recently about it, so I figured I’d copypasta it here:
“I think it’s an unfair accusation – not that it’s a strawman itself in turn, more of an oversimplification. Religion is being predicated here on the basis of personal beliefs, which is fine in and of itself (though hardly proof of anything), but beyond that, what else is there that makes claims about a religion? The religious texts, which often have a whole medley of claims associated with them as well.
The problem is, one simply cannot take all the various permutations of interpretation into account when trying to discuss the Bible. So given that and perhaps that many atheists might be more disposed to argue from a precisely defined basis, that results in a tendency to take the Bible on face value for the sheer issue of practicality, if nothing else.
As I see it, if even the Bible is so ambiguous as to not even provide a satisfactory common basis on which to debate, never mind reach definitive conclusions, why bother to use it? And if the Bible is that inadequate, doesn’t that have some rather unfortunate implications for the belief system as a whole, as well as God? If the Bible is so flawed, what is the point of claiming to be a Christian? Would Christianity even persist if not for the Bible?
Now, admittedly there are some here who base their stance on their personal experiences – so then the question remains, why exactly should your claims which are based on nothing more than your own opinion and subjective experience have any real ability to explain reality?”
———-
I should probably give more context than that, but the issue for me is that no matter how one tries to approach Christianity, invariably you have someone throwing up their hands and claiming “but that’s not what it actually is!”
February 21st, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Erk, sorry, first two paragraphs of that quote are probably the ones actually relevant to the discussion in this thread, can disregard the rest!
February 21st, 2011 at 11:00 pm
@webmaster: I don’t like Feser’s piece because the scientist can knock down the skeptic at any stage. The quark does not come from Joyce, although the name does – physicists tend to whimsy when they run out of Greek letters. The actual origins of our realisation that quarks exist are explicable, but off-topic here. The skeptic is far too much of a caricature and the scientist effectively repeats ‘you are an idiot’ without bothering to defend his stance. Unwinding the allegory, if that is the position theologians take when challenged, it’s no wonder Dawkins dismisses them.
I suspect you are correct that this is something you want to hear. I (mostly) get that ‘Damn straight!’ feeling reading Dawkins, although I find his style grating to say the least. I put the ‘mostly’ in because I did find his dismissal of theological thinking a little glib. That is, essentially, why I’m around places like this. I’d like to know a little more before dismissing it as nonsense.