The rise of neo-paganism (No, this one is NOT SATIRE)

National Review Online ^ | 27th September 1999 | Roger Scruton

[hinckley buzzard]

I believe what Chesterton actually said was "If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything."

You obviously have fallen for the familiar and banal notion that it is not important to believe in something greater than yourself.

Alas, Chesterton's epigram applies to you more fully than to most people--because you have fallen for the oldest cop-out in human history.

[Dimensio]

"That's quite a leap in reasoning. I have a number of reasons for caring about persons other than myself..."

Ah, but every single example you have given me is from a purely selfish viewpoint...which proves my point.

I never claimed otherwise. It still disproves your assertion that lack of belief in a transcendent God leads to a lack of concern for other people and even a desire to cause them harm.

"Then there's the matter of human empathy."

If you are counting on human empathy when the chips are down, completely separate from faith in Christ, you are setting yourself up for a huge disappointment.

I never claimed that human empathy was a universal trait, only that it is a non-divine reason that humans will look after one another.

"What you've described isn't atheism, it's sociopathy."

Atheism ends in sociopathy...always has, and always will.

Unsupported generalization.

[EternalVigilance]

Self-worship aka selfishness is the world's oldest and perenially most popular religion. "Ye shall be as gods!"

Every religion except true Christianity (which really isn't a 'religion'), if you dig down to the core, is man-centered; and leads to futility, emptiness and darkness.

Do I expect to convince you? Nope.

Why? Because even though the evidence is all around you; in history, in nature, in reason, in the testimony of untold millions of people who have experienced the salvation described in the New Testament; you will call all of it unsupported generalizations.

But I will pray for you.

EV

[F16Fighter]

"No...'deistic religions' would be tolerated."

As long as IT were by State imposed decree; IT's authority superceded all others; and there weren't too many "pesky" conditions to abide by.

"Where is our focus?"

Our "focus" is on this political/cultural/religious obsession with "inclusivity" and "tolerance" -- afterall, NO religion is anymore valid then any other -- including Wicca, Scientology, Satanism. And as Al Gore once reminded us, everyone essentially prays and worships a "higher power" in the final analysis afterall, don't we? ;-)

[F16Fighter]

BUMP

[RnMomof7]

I believe what Chesterton actually said was "If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything."

I thought it was my dad that always said that:>)) It was part of his parental wisdom

[mhking]

As long as neither neo-paganism nor any other "belief system" infringes on my person or property, I don't give a rat's @ss what people believe/preach/practice/etc.

Exactly. As long as the prostelizing doesn't infringe on me and mine, they can do what they want.

[steve-b]

Moral: Don't eat mushrooms before writing unless you've checked and double-checked their identification.

[steve-b]

Chesterton was engaging in the fallacy of accretion. The fact that (the aggregate of) people who do not agree with Chesterton's religious doctrines believe (individually) all sorts of different things does not in any way imply that any given individual is torn by conflicting notions. (It is true that some individuals are so torn, but a much larger number of others are not.)

[steve-b]

Rubbish. Chesterton said that if people don't believe in God they believe in anything. He was not talking about me or himself. He was talking about everyone. Now either he was right or he was wrong, but he was making general claims.

Since it is a general claim, it is refuted by a single counterexample. Once one finds a single individual who does not believe in God and also does not believe any old notion that is presented to him, Chesterton's claim falls. It is quite easy to find such individuals (the late Isaac Asimov is the first example that comes to mind). QED.

[steve-b]

Surely you agree that Christianity must be supreme above pagan, immoral superstition?

As a supporter the American Constitutional Republic, I obviously cannot believe any such thing.

[berned]

Good post.

Almost none of the old denominations retains any centralized authority that can control the doctrine, liturgy, or membership of its peripheral congregations

The Bible is the check and balance on this. You read your Bible. If the church you belong to veers away from what's taught in the Bible, you get a new church.

[steve-b]

Your comment IS the satire, right?

What satire? Msg#9 is solid historical presentation -- the Puritans went to Holland, were unhappy there because they had to live with non-Puritan neighbors (and, though the post doesn't mention this point, because their children were exposed to the Dutch culture and non-Puritan religious viewpoints), so they left to establish a community from which "heretics" could be excluded completely.

[steve-b]

"Love thy neighbor" is a much better moral foundation.

This is a principle that has never been universally applied, because as a practical matter it cannot be universally applied. If Osama bin Laden moved next door to me, I would not love him; I would call the FBI and warn my other neighbors to get out of the crossfire.

[steve-b]

Islam, Wicca, and even Secularism Humanism for that matter, operate and worship under the good graces and tolerance of a Christian taught and inspired "tolerance"

Nonsense. Christians began to be tolerant because the political results of sectarian warfare stripped from them the power to persecute. There is no credit in do good because you lack the power to do evil.

[steve-b]

In fact, many of the founders of the original colonies (most notably the Puritans) set off for freedom to practice their religion -- and to make damn sure that everyone within the community practiced it too whether they liked it or not.

The mutual warfare of Christian sects in the two centuries after that fellow tacked his list onto a church door forced them to come to a modus vivendi of toleration, which was gradually extended to religions generally. This is not a result of "Christian morality"; it is a result of the political circumstances in which Christians found themselves after fighting one another to a standstill.

[steve-b]

Put it more simply still. To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent....

Here, we have a switch between two different definitions of "good". Existence, intelligence, and will are "good" in the sense of "desirable" or "beneficial"; the distinction between the two powers posited by dualism depends on "good" in the sense of "morally upright". The two concepts can exist independently of one another -- one need only cite an example of a real, intelligent, and/or strong-willed advocate of an evil cause (e.g. Josef Stalin), or a fictional, stupid, and/or easily distracted advocate of a good cause (e.g. Inspector Clouseau).

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Here, we have a switch between two different definitions of "good". Existence, intelligence, and will are "good" in the sense of "desirable" or "beneficial"; the distinction between the two powers posited by dualism depends on "good" in the sense of "morally upright".

No, the switch wasn't her. Perhaps you missed it. Lewis made the switch further up and explains the distinction. At this point of your criticism, Lewis was presenting what we may conclude.

Have you read Lewis' The Abolition of Man at all? I ask because Lewis demonstrates there too why he expects your question.

[Jerry_M]

Keep me BUMPED. I am slowly cathcing up, but too busy to participate fully at this time. Are you aware that The Days of Vengeance is available for reading on the internet, either in HTML or PDF?