http://media.www.dailyillini
Fun stuff. I love how college students think they're so smart and novel. *grin*
Anyway, here's my brief response:
First, what I'm interested in in this article is that this is one of the few opinions I've read from a totally modernistic outlook in a long time. The celebration of science, reason and accomplishments for a positive and growing future are all very modernistic concepts that postmoderns, despite their own issues, have rejected as fallacious, empty, and failing to satisfy the deep longings of the human soul. I'm interested about the fact that he is celebrating a position which is quickly becoming a minority position.
Second, his big presupposition is that all religions are false. He makes unhistoric and untrue claims about Christianity, and interprets facts through his atheistic/naturalistic lens. (i.e. - tribal origins of monotheism to him means tribes made it up. To us it means that, well, duh, there is one God who's revelaed himself to different extents - of course monotheistic practice will be a reality.)
Third, because of his presupposition, he drives an unnecessary wedge between science (drawing conclusions from repeated, controlled observations) and religion (which says that whatever God says is of highest epistemological value.)
Fourth, this author, because of his naturalism, cannot define 'progress' or even what is 'good.' (Or logic for that matter.) But he employs those things, and thus assumes a Christian worldview though he decries Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment