Dec 11, 2015
Whenever I see pictures of billboards from atheistic organizations or other advertisements from them, I tend to snicker a little to myself. It is not at the beliefs of atheists because some atheists are sincere in their objections towards God and the Christian faith (besides other religions), which actually helps me to be rational about what it is that I actually believe and hold to be the Truth. Now, although I have admired, in some instances, the 'work ethic' of some atheist activists (if I may refer to them in that manner), I still feel as though they put too much energy (in my humble opinion, of course) in encouraging naturalistic ideals in every aspect of society. I am sure that many of them feel that it is of the utmost importance to destroy any hint of religious ideology in the public square, especially when it comes to education and policy-making on Capitol Hill. Though I can understand the call to activism when one feels that their beliefs are just (as I believe that I have been called to live out and share the Gospel message of Jesus the Christ), I feel that when the odds are stacked in your favor by the push of pop culture philosophies, why work so hard to push your agenda.
If we look at secular entertainment to see how much the Christian impacts it, then the atheist should notice that Christians do not impact it much, if at all. Now, yes, Christian artists and Christian moviemakers can still be successful in these postmodern times and possibly hold some influence (i.e. Christian Hip-Hop artist Lecrae), but art created by Christians typically seem to be relegated as for the "religious" crowd and not as worthy as more secular works when the time for accolades is handed out.
Musicians and movie stars have carved out a nice little niche for themselves as influencers to young people. Entertainment channels, like MTV, VH1, and BET, invite stars with songs about partying and doing drugs. Besides initial backlash and controversy for allowing it, they continue to invite these artists back and praise them for their "artistry," if what and how they perform can actually be considered art.
I honestly believe that certain popular acts do way more damage to Christian ideals than some arguments levied against Christianity by irreligious types. Way more young people will accept the ideas from a Miley Cyrus or a Taylor Swift than knowing the beliefs of a Dr. Richard Dawkins or a Sam Harris any day. More young people will follow the direction of the elite of Hollywood than the scientism of the well-known New Atheists with their Oxford and ivy league school backgrounds. One may imagine that it is easier to get a philosophy over to young minds in a 3-minute song and a flashy video than it is by way of a 40-minute lecture and an opinion-filled tome.
This is not meant to be condescending, but it seems to me that the New Atheists forget to take delight in the irreligious-ness of the famous crowd. They are doing way more for the kingdom of humanism than their skeptic counterparts seem to be.
Dec 2, 2015
[This is a book review on ABORTING ARISTOTLE written by Dave Sterrett (of Disruptive Truth).]
This book is very helpful in understanding the prolife position of the abortion debate. What makes it worth reading is that it doesn't just pile on some religious rhetoric for why babies should be valued, but Sterrett does an excellent job of taking the very words of prochoice advocates and showing the lack of solid foundations to many of their arguments. There is nothing like taking the very arguments of your opponent and deconstructing them until there is a pile of ethically-bankrupted ideas laid bare for all to behold and flee from. If a major aspect of philosophy is to think well, then Sterrett shows why it is of the utmost importance to think well before making a decision on the abortion debate. It is true that ideas have consequences, therefore, any idea accepted in public, be that in a place of law or a doctor's office, should be evaluated for its reasonableness.
Unfortunately, the rationality of an idea is sometimes not fully thought through or cared about in contrast with what ranks highest on an imaginary scale of what makes some people happy or satisfied, as opposed to seeking to do what is ethically right. Also, new ideas tend to push aside older, more traditional ways of thinking when the newer ideas seem to go with the mood of modern times, but as Sterrett explores in this book, that is not always a good thing. Especially when it comes to the philosophical work done by thinkers, such as Aristotle and Aquinas, it is ultimately a crime to adapt to just push aside the groundwork they have done in the realm of metaphysics and ethics. Although science has come a long way since the time of Aristotle, it has not necessarily done away with his thinking on what is rational and what is virtuous to society. Therefore, if empirical data shows that there is life beginning at the formation of a zygote in the study of embryology, then why does it seem to be irrational to many that others consider abortion to be morally wrong?
Mr. Sterrett points out that for many, on both sides of the aisle, life begins at conception. Peter Singer, an ethicist and a defender of abortion, was to have written: "...there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being. (p. 2 - in the Introduction)" So, if Singer can see and science can show when life starts, the problem is not a matter of what is physical, but what is metaphysical. We now get into reasons behind thinking of human beings as persons or if there are distinctions to be made about 'personhood' that the pro-abortion thinkers may believe are not intrinsic to unborn children. In this book, particularly in the 8th chapter, we see how personhood may be viewed by those who oppose the views of prolifers, but have a hard time giving a time when human beings 'develop' their personhood or what personhood entails inside of a pro-choice ethicist's ontological viewpoint.
This book was a great read and a helpful one at that. If a person (like myself) is a bit if a novice at some of the philosophical language, you may have to get a good dictionary or not be afraid to do some reach on the Internet. Besides possibly struggling with some concepts out of a lack of knowledge of them, there is plenty of information in these pages that encourage some rational reflection on Aristotle and others and their thinking on what it means to be human and the value in being human, whether fully aware of one's self or not. Sterrett's work should be given to every pro-life advocate to strengthen their arguments and convictions about life; it should also be given to those of the pro-choice movement to help them thoroughly know if reason is on their side. I believe their eyes would be open to the truth that reason and truth are with the opposing team.