Thursday, March 4, 2010

Response to Anonymous.

Wow, I feel like there is A LOT to clarify! This is an anonymous comment from my entry "Kant, Kierkegard, Hume and Diderot." Feb, 2010. The original comments is cut and pasted, highlighted in green. My response remains in white.
Again, I am amazed at the limitations of human communication! There are many legitimate thoughts and questions in the following comment, and also a few (in my humble opinion) critical and unfair judgments. But most of all, there is giant helping of misunderstanding.
Anonymous said...
You dramatically state, "Kant, Kierkegard, Hume and Diderot." Intellectuals, more brilliant minds than myself. All these men attempted to find a basis for ethics and morality apart from God. They have not succeeded." You're right about one thing. They were smart, you are not.

After reviewing alternative sources, I continue to stand by my comment. I will clarify that I do not think those great thinkers were wrong about everything, I simply do not agree with them specifically regarding the idea that you can have real authority in ethics and morality apart from God. Sure anyone can make up a list of rules, but having the AUTHORITY to make those rules for EVERYONE is a very different matter. Did the above mentioned great thinkers think there could be a 'basis for ethics and morality apart from God.'? That is the only question I was commenting on. And I find the answer to be 'YES' for all four, to which I still say 'NO.'

Kant, Hume and Kierkegard were all philosophers that integrated religion into their work, especially vis a vis Christianity and ethics/morality. Anyone who read their work would know that. You obviously haven't. Which means that you spoke on their behalf without actually reading what they said.

I recognize that some of them had 'Christian' backgrounds and even believed in God! But that does not mean I agree with them on everything! And again, I am only arguing a specific belief that the four men held in common. For those interested in more of the specific philosophical argument, a link is provided below about a man named Alasdair MacIntyre, who on this specific topic I find a much more compelling argument for this discussion. http://www.answers.com/topic/alasdair-macintyre

That makes you dishonest. It also means that you don't know what you are talking about. But it seems that doesn't bother you. Because you have "faith". However, if your highly problematic statements (that you make without any training, background, or humility) are any indication of your general thinking practices I doubt you even know what "faith" means.

Even those with the greatest intelligence and IQ, are not always correct. The Truth, if you believe in it, can be known by both the the simple and great of mind. Absolute Truth, does not require credentials to be discovered. The smallest child can understand the true nature of love arguably better than the most intelligent despot. Philosophy, science, mathematics...all academic fields are useful and beneficial to a degree, but not all are necessary or even capable of answering the most basic questions of life or the heart.
And the worst part about this whole mess is that you don't even feel guilty about it!

Not that you have reason to believe me, but I don't feel guilty because I did nothing out of malice. Making a mistake or being wrong about something is not in itself evil. It is human. We are all constantly in a process of learning. I am genuinely seeking the truth. And the entire point of sharing my thoughts and feelings is so that people like you can agree or disagree (constructively) and help me understand life better or more completely. I am willing to ask any question, and uncover any doubt or consider any comment. It is actually hard to be completely honest (which I think I have been) because that means when people make judgments and accusations against me, it hits very close to home.
And then you talk about holocaust survivors and Nazism?!

I think it is a fair analogy pertinent to the discussion.

You enlist Jews for your evangelical and Christian purposes?

I am after the truth. I believe in God, and what he did through Jesus. Does that exclude me from the possibility of acting out of goodwill for humankind? Is everything I say or do with some hidden nefarious agenda?
I'm Jewish so I find that somewhat hilariously ironic!

Out of curiosity, are you Jewish in the cultural sense? or the religious? both? Is it reasonable for me to conclude that because you identify as being a Jew that everything you say is to enlist your Hasidic and Jewish purpose? (sounds silly doesn't it?) Got ya! :)

Believe me Mr or Mrs Anonymous, I know that I am asking questions and talking about emotionally charged topics. But I really believe they are important topics to discuss. I believe that in order to discern the truth from the lies, we need to both feel safe, respected and valued. I know I am wrong sometimes, and I consider it a gift when people help me to see where I am wrong. If you truly desire the truth, please give me the same understanding and grace that you would want in return if someone was showing you the error of your ways.

The truth is lost when surrounded by accusations, judgments and insults. To have real discussion, we must be willing to admit our own limitations and set aside our pride. We must believe that the other person, no matter how different their beliefs, is of same worth and goodwill as ourselves.

You don't know what you are talking about. But you don't care. You never did. That's because your form of belief is cheap. But I can tell from your writing: you already knew that anyway.
Grow up.

For your knowledge...from Can Man Live Without God? by Ravi Zacharias. Hand typed out of goodwill and in pursuit of truth :)

It is not difficult to see why this so-called Enlightenment experiment in ethics failed. It failed because one by one the basic presupposition of its propagators was uncovered. And that presupposition was this: In every instance, the purpose of life was presupposed before there was a postulation of ethics, and a purpose of life apart from God makes the ethical battleground a free-for-all. Time and again it was proven that it is not possible to establish a reasonable and coherent ethical theory without first establishing the telos, i.e. the purpose and destiny of human life. Even Kant concluded that without telos it all got wrongheaded. If life itself is purposeless, ethics falls into disarray. As Dostoevski said, if God is dead, everything is justifiable.


God Bless you. I pray that the truth be revealed to all of us who seek it. I mean it.

1 comment: