To me it outlines wishful thinking on behalf of the followers of modern atheists who champion "new morality," the subjectivity of Truth, the sexual revolution, and absurdity in thinking everything material.
The human mind, or what small percentage we use of it, is incapable of imagining the size of the universe, its origin, or even where it is.
There was a time the human mind could not conceive of higher math, either. And some minds (like mine) still aren't terribly good at it. It doesn't mean that we should shrink back from trying.
It simply isn't logical to believe that science is capable of unlocking every mystery in the unviverse and of understanding everything in a pure material way.
Sure it is. What's illogical about it? And remember, the word is "illogical," not "intimidating" or "overwhelming." Because I understand that the massive amount of things we do not know can be overwhelming. But so?
There are certain things we were not meant to understand...are not capable of understanding.
That's what people say when what they want to do is make a space for faith, and say that through faith we can "know." Well, if we can't "know" then we can't "know" and "knowing through faith" would still be "knowing," according to your worldview. Wouldn't it?
I do not think her choices were faith or apathy alone, as Motes demonstrates rebellion. I wouldn't call faith self-protective either. I would call it a love affair .
I wasn't going to bring this up, but religion is definitely a love affair with the self, in a very unhealthy way. How can I describe this... let me start with this: a world view that holds that humans are the one creature with a spiritual existance that will go on forever, specially created by a god so enamoured of them that he slaughtered his own son so that he could love their flaws and still respect himself in the morning (as long as they acknowledged the sacrifice it meant) has no business calling "arrogant" the atheist world view that we are just another animal and when we die, we rot. It's the religious world view that has an arrogant and inflated view of man.
BUT the religious view of man is still a cruelly unhealthy one. It reminds me of a relative I have who is nothing but one hard luck story after another. This person always has something wrong with them, one injury and illness after another, their life is a saga of jobs lost because the boss was a jerk, friends who betrayed them, relatives who hurt their feelings, unjust landlords and conniving authorities, all scheming to injure the already-set-upon victim who is always hunting for a fresh audience to sit and listen attentively to their extremely lengthy tales of woe.
You may wonder where I'm going with this. It's just this: this person is actually utterly self-absorbed. The evil stacked against them as well as the betrayal of their own weak and defective flesh fascinate them to no end. They are the never-ending heros of a never-ending drama. In conversation they bore their captives because they have no capacity to consider that the story of their life is NOT the riveting drama they think it is, and they cannot read restless body language. It's all about them, as the cosmic good-n-evil story is all about man.
But they have no pride. They lay their sores out for all to see. See me! Pity me! Commiserate with me! Listen while I run through my long list of grievances and agree with me that my luck is worse than most peoples, my hardships more plentiful!
If they had any strength and self respect they would not wallow in this litany of lamentations. But they don't have self-respect. They have self-love of the most pitiful yet obsessive variety. So no, I'm not rolling my eyes at the statement that religion is a love affair. It most certainly is.
What I like most about Flannery is that she shows how mankind has lost its natural religious instinct to respect something greater than ourselves.
That's another thing. Why do you suppose this is? What is the first few months of every human life like? Think about it.
She shows the continual drumbeat of western thought of divinizating man-- the religion of man as the new God.
Well, if you are making the point that what she is doing is pointing out the differences between Catholicism and Communism, that's fine. I considered saying that myself when I said that she offers the false choice of religion vs apathy but I was mentally saying "communism" where I put apathy. I refrained for fear it would sound paranoid, but since you've said it for me I'll go ahead and say sure: but those are not our only two choices. It's a false choice like "Coke, or Pepsi?" Neither! I want water!
To me it outlines wishful thinking on behalf of the followers of modern atheists who champion "new morality," the subjectivity of Truth, the sexual revolution, and absurdity in thinking everything material.
Again, there is another option. There is an atheist stance that is respectful of objective truth.