Thursday, 15 May 2014

Adolescent-ification of Our Culture


Here is an interesting post from Mark Steyne, most of whose posts I find interesting.

It struck me, as I pondered his points regarding this picture, that our entire culture is undergoing a process of "adolescent-ification". What do I mean by this? I think an entire book could be written on this concept, and perhaps I will write it some day. I will call it, "What's Wrong With Everything," and it will be a compilation of all my curmudgeonly thoughts and opinions.

It seems to me that this picture typifies an adolescent attitude - that holding such a sign, or tweeting such a tweet, or protesting that somebody should Do Something™ will somehow have an effect. That just because we draw attention to what someone should do, that we can somehow shame or pressure them into actually doing it. I think it is the basis for online bullying. And immature people think that because we can bully a young girl into suicide, we can bully Boko Haram into letting these girls go. In other words, holding up a sign to Create Awarenessreplaces having to actually do something about a problem. This is at a high school level, intellectually, and that is not to insult high school students; it's just a fact of reality. Bill Cosby had it right years ago when he opined that children's brains were not yet fully developed.





A variation on this theme of online action, which is really almost complete inaction, is that people will attack those they see as online bullies with completely venomous attacks themselves. They think it is acceptable to give bullies their own medicine, but by that they become just what they disapprove of. But they don't think it through. They don't see themselves as bullies.
I believe the adolescent-ification I'm talking about today is also seen in the intolerance of the so-called tolerant. No one is so intolerant as those who self-righteously see themselves as tolerant. Adolescent thinking sees only itself; selfishly sees only its own opinion and doesn't extend the same tolerance it demands to allow others their own differing opinions. It doesn't see the logical inconsistency of its own position.

Just my thoughts, and perhaps not as well expressed as they could be, but I reserve the right to edit.



Take Care


PS: I also should apologize for getting off the, "Faith" theme of this blog, but I see much of what's happening in today's society as ramifications of our abandoning of our Christian faith and heritage, and its accompanying servant attitudes.

Tuesday, 6 May 2014

Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism

From here


Hardly definitive, but an interesting take on why atheism may be, at least in part, a result of psychological and not strictly intellectual factors.
The bulk of the book is spent examining the biographies of many of the most influential atheists (and a few deists), including Nietzsche, Hume, Sartre, Schopenhauer, Freud, H. G. Wells, and Richard Dawkins. This group is contrasted with a representative “control group” of prominent theists such as Pascal, Kierkegaard, Wilberforce, Chesterton, Bonhoeffer, and Newman. Vitz makes a strong argument, for in nearly every case, the atheists had abusive, weak, distant, absent or otherwise defective fathers, while the theists had positive relationships with their fathers, or, in some cases, with caring father-figures.
Again, it is difficult to draw a one-to-one correlation, but an interesting concept nonetheless.


Take Care

Thursday, 1 May 2014

Make Up Your Mind, Mr. Dawkins

A couple of quotes from Richard Dawkins:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion    

So?... What's your problem, Mr. Dawkins, because you also said...


The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (emphasis mine)
If you believe there is no evil, then what is the point of your first rant quoted above? If there is no evil, then your description of God is completely meaningless and irrelevant. All the adjectives you used in your description of Him are, at best, completely neutral, or, in your own wording, indifferent.


Right?


Take Care