Tuesday, November 06, 2012
The God Thing
BABY PEE. So Brizoni is pissed off. Really pissed off.
In response to a comment of mine he has deployed an entire army of straw men to attack my God delusions. Only problem: he succeeds only in revealing his own shrunken perceptions of what faith consists of.
I don't know which to tackle first. His childish view of the Judeo-Christian tradition? Or the truly bizarre passion atheists exhibit when they assault those who believe in God?
Oh well. I'll start with the first one I mentioned. He posits the faithful as standing in the way of every rational achievement from tacking sailing vessels to Einsteinian physics. Along the way he even has the nerve to reference the term "straw man." He has the wit to try to deflect the obvious argument that expressly rational social systems kill people in large numbers, but his preferred example of Robespierre was a piker at mass murder compared to Stalin and Mao, whom he's not anxious to discuss. His escape clause is some sourceless principle of "morality" Robespierre and company failed to discern. Probably because that pillar of objective human compassion Ayn Rand hadn't been born yet.
Truthfully, his whole argument is absurd and grotesque. Why I tried to preempt it by warning him that he was "fucked." Which he is. Not because I can string together more pejorative adjectives than he can, but because his whole post is a preening display of the kind of historical and contextual ignorance I have repeatedly made a point of skewering here at my site. Which is called "Instapunk," not "Brizoni When He Feels Like It."
The whole thrust of his screed is that people of faith have stood in the way at every turn while rationalism was making breakthroughs in the practice of reason and science. Nonsense. The acknowledged father of modern science, and specifically the scientific method, was Isaac Newton, who believed the mission of science was to uncover and understand God's creation. (btw, B, Einstein believed in God too & Catholics didn't protest the innovations of the Pieta. Sorry.) The Age of Enlightenment that followed featured a powerful partnership between Christian principles and reason, which led, among other things, to the one unique political document in human history, the Declaration of Independence, which posited that human rights, including personal liberty, are derived not from government but from God and are therefore inalienable and outside the purview of would-be despots.
This is the most powerful limiting factor on the authority of the state ever articulated. Without it there is no United States of America, no exceptional sanctum of liberty anywhere on the globe, no puny chest-beating about liberty by the idiot-savant who worships reason without knowing how to use it. The rationalist who actually knows any history is forced to acknowledge this fact, even if Brizoni is not similarly burdened thanks to a philosophy education consisting entirely of Atlas Shrugged, but what better equipped atheists seek to do in rebuttal is depict religiously rooted morality as a transitional phase to the superior state of pure rationalism. Of course, this is an actually laughable rationalization.
Eliminating the divine source of human rights in favor of rational constructs is what led the human race into the catastrophic dalliance with Marxism which murdered well over a hundred million people in the twentieth century. The attack on Christianity being waged by so-called Progressives in our own country in this the twenty-first century employs the same Marxist rationale, supposedly moral as Brizoni seems to be using the word but transparent in its rational view of people as interchangeable, disposable units.
Odd indeed that Brizoni chooses to pick this particular fight on the eve of a life and death showdown between the rational Progressives and, uh, the benighted, deluded, irrational rest of us. Typical of the rational mentality that it can't even detect such rich ironies. They're just Spock raising an uncomprehending eyebrow; it is illogical.
Which brings me to Question 2: Why do atheists get so het up about the fact that even intelligent people believe in God?
Think about it. I mean, if they buy almost all the morality and law hammered out by Jews in the Torah and Talmud, why do they go nuclear over a sticking point -- abortion and the origin of life -- that can't possibly mean as much to them, who think it's just a delayed menstrual period for 'n' months, as it does to the Godsuckers, who see murder?
I can only think of two reasons for their hateful posturing. One, they actually DO have skin in the game; they've been party to an abortion. In which case, there's every reason under the sun to build an army of attack against believers. I have no further comment on this one.
The second reason is the bitterness of the bastard child. There was no such thing as atheism before the birth of Christ. There were lots of Gods and many of them had no morals whatever. But the idea of 'one god' changed all the rules, made religious concepts universal in impact. (Yeah, Christianity was an outgrowth of Judaism, not an iPhone in a landline universe.) it was the Age of Reason with its Christian empowerment of the individual mind that made it possible, even acceptable, to dare the hypothesis that there was no god at all.
And now all the disinherited, disenfranchised bastards are throwing a tantrum. They claim a superior understanding of a morality that simply wouldn't exist without the father who doesn't answer their letters and therefore post letter bombs that snipe furiously at particulars of his so-called hypocrisy. Even atheists should be able to accept this kind of psychological interpretation.
But why abortion? Why does this tip them into the realm of madness? Perhaps because it would be better not to have been born at all than endure a consciousness your posturing insists can have no meaning at all. Surely, that's the definition of pure despair. And reason enough to hate with all your soul those whose delusions free them from your tragically lonely existential prison.
Or it could be simpler. You read a book once, didn't understand it, and get a big kick out of imposing your misunderstanding on everyone else.
Welcome to Brizoni's world.