Posted on 04/05/2016 7:51:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
The most profound thinkers in America are conservative. There are, of course, bright liberal and leftist thinkers, but I can't think of one who approaches the depth and wisdom of the best conservative writers and thinkers. What liberal historian, for example, approaches the understanding of life and history that author Paul Johnson has exhibited in his many works of history? Who on the left matches psychiatrist/writer Theodore Dalrymple's insight into the underclass? What left-wing columnists understand human nature, the state of mankind, or contemporary America as do George Will, Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Sowell, or many of the leading columnists at publications such as National Review, City Journal, Commentary Magazine or the Wall Street Journal?
I write this to make it clear that my admiration for the leading conservative writers, columnists and thinkers is deep and abiding.
There is, however, a "but."
The vast majority of leading conservative writers, just like their liberal colleagues, have a secular outlook on life. With few exceptions, the conservative political and intellectual worlds are oblivious to the consequences of secularism. They are unaware of the disaster that godlessness in the West has led to.
Most leading Republicans and most of the wealthy donors to the Republican Party -- in addition to virtually all libertarian politicians and think tank scholars -- are either uninterested in the death of Judeo-Christian religions and values in America and the West, or they're OK with it. They think that America can survive the death of God and religion, that fiscal and other forms of conservatism without social conservatism can preserve America.
It shows how effective the secular indoctrination in our schools and media has been, that even the majority of conservative thinkers are not only secular themselves, but seem to have no idea how much of the American civilization rests on religious foundations.
They don't seem to understand that the only solution to many -- perhaps most -- of the social problems ailing America and the West is some expression of Judeo-Christian faith. Do the inner-city kids who study the Bible and go to church each week lead wasted lives, join gangs, bear children out of wedlock or commit murder? Other than a religious revival, what do conservatives, with all their superb critiques of disastrous left-wing policies, think will uplift inner-city youths?
And why do secular conservatives think so many affluent and well-educated Americans have adopted left-wing dogmas, such as feminism, socialism, environmentalism and egalitarianism as their religions? Because people want to -- have to -- believe in something. And if it's not God and Christianity or Judaism, it's going to be some form of Leftism. Why are evangelical Protestants, theologically conservative Catholics, Orthodox Jews and practicing Mormons almost all conservative? Because they already have a religion and therefore don't need the alternate gods of leftist faiths, and also because Judeo-Christian religions have different values than leftist religions.
When these conservatives -- people who revere the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence -- read the founders' assertion that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," do they believe what the founders wrote? Or were they just echoing the irrational religious beliefs of their time, as people on the left believe?
When these conservatives see the components of what I call the American Trinity -- the words "liberty," "In God We Trust" and "e pluribus unum" inscribed on every American coin -- do they regard "In God We Trust" as no longer necessary?
President John Adams warned: "Because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion ... our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Do secular conservatives think he was right or wrong?
The problem is not that most leading conservative thinkers are secular; it is that they don't seem to understand that a godless and Judeo-Christian-free America means the end of America, just as a godless and Judeo-Christian-free Europe has meant the end of Europe.
One of those gods has a Son.
One of those gods does NOT have a son.
Different beings.
Morality has to come from somewhere. You can't trust it to "majority rule." Those who pride themselves on being moral exist within a culture that has already determined what is moral and what is not. The fact that Islamic morality differs by 180 degrees from JudeoChristian morality on many vital points indicates that morality is not relative. It is learned, and is taught and modeled. It came from somewhere; and one of these systems logically has to be closer to accurate alignment with Nature than the other.
In the Western canon, morality came not from the point of a sword, as in Islam, but rather from the supernatural actions of a loving and communicative God. Those who witnessed the early miracles also were instructed to bring up their children and maintain their families and communities within the moral law of the God of Abraham. Many who still recognize this God still recognize new miracles in contemporary life.
At some point, a person wishing to have deep moral integrity must recognize the coherent Source Code for his/her morality and drive corruption out of his or her self-righteous, intellect-based morality, just as he or she would clean up his/her laptop so it can operate effectively, or at all. After all, most people did not design, build and develop his laptop — those who came before have brought forward a rich and complex stream of knowledge, based on principles of conductance and communication present in nature.
And Who designed Nature?
Rational people who recognize the exquisite detail of computers that automatically reject a data transmission if even one dot is out of place can also accept the probability that there is a master programmer for the orderly operation of the planetary universe, a SysOp who is massively capable of having built an organic intelligence technology into our DNA that records and operates everything; and that He can examine, augment, delete or change areas of this detailed code for His reasons, or at His pleasure.
City Journal is still pretty good.
Are you suggesting that God is a hacker? ;)
Begs the question; who designed the designer?
Tell me about nations founded on the principle of objectivism.
It’s like the joke.
Man goes to God and says, “We don’t need you anymore. We can create man from dirt just like you.”
God says, “Ok, go ahead, show me.”
The man picks up some dirt.
God says, “No....go make your own dirt.”
“I beg to differ. Islam is based on the same “God of Abraham” as Judaism and Christianity.”
Beg to differ all you want, you don’t know what you’re talking about. As I said the Koran borrows names from the Bible, Abraham being one. It also includes Jesus.
The morality and theology of Islam does not have anything in common with that of Christianity or Judaism.
Muslims believe that Mohammed was God's true prophet.
How is relevant to the efficacy of a philosophical system?
” Begs the question; who designed the designer?”
Aseity is part of the definition of God in Christian theology. This is basic stuff.
Don't be silly. You can walk around doing what you determine to be "good" and "moral" all you want.
You and your fellows can even draw up social contracts and do your best to abide by them, rather like a Homeowners Association.
But without a divine authority, without God, there is no morality.
God instructs the faithful as to what is good and what is evil.
Who instructs you? I mean it not as a challenge or a rebuke, but a genuine question: Who or what instructs you?
So objectivism actually has nothing to do with reality?
Aseity is a device to avoid the infinite regression of creators/designers.
Again, this assumes the conclusion.
Who instructs you? I mean it not as a challenge or a rebuke, but a genuine question: Who or what instructs you?
A system of ethics based on two simple, self-evident truths. That the universe exists and that I exist within it.
Just because no country has been created in the name of Objectivism doesn't mean it has nothing to do with reality.
How did you come to that conclusion?
You are waving around cliches as if that means something. It’s painfully obvious that you know next to nothing about how dramatically these religions differ.
It’s not uncommon for many people to have no interest in religion. But those who have little interest and even less knowledge probably shouldn’t pontificate on the subject.
What is the philosophic pedigree of objectivism?
There is no infinite regression involved when the subject by definition is self-existing. That’s not even theology, it’s basic logic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.