| |  
Food for the Poor Godspy.com: Faith at the Edge


Fr. Larry Gearhart

Fr. Larry Gearhart | 0 posts | Member since 09.15.08


RE: Tom Wolfe and a cognitive neuroscientist discuss status, free will, and the human condition
Both Wolfe and Gazzaniga are materialists. As such, they acknowledge to each other that the classical notion of free will, in the context of which it makes sense to discuss moral praise or blame, does not make sense. It's hard for non-technical people to appreciate this developing consensus among materialists. They're always looking for technical explanations of free will. Since all of our experience of science and technology, and their explanations, is based upon observable, controllable and repeatable phenomena, we can't begin to touch things like God and free will with our "explanations." If both the materialists and the non-materialists could understand this problem better, it might help us to appreciate our differences more fully, and we might begin to understand just how much of our civilization is predicated upon non-materialist assumptions, and how "Brave New World" our civilization would become if those assumptions were overthrown by consensus.

RE: For This Documentary Tells Me So
It's understandable that devout Christians and devout Jews would have a problem with a homosexual child choosing to adopt a gay or lesbian lifestyle. Both the Torah and the Christian Bible declare this behavior to be an abomination. Naturally, that doesn't give pause to people like Bishop Robinson, who have endless tools for redaction. This doesn't help the general conversation between GLBTQ folks and people who believe this behavior is bad. Most people who believe the behavior is bad do so because of the unremitting condemnation of it in the Judeo-Christian tradition. They do so, however, largely without reflection on what is bad about it. That's where natural law considerations come in. Unfortunately, natural law is the neglected science of our age, and if truth be told, it never a developed a scientific foundation. As a result, we have a dialog which is not really a dialog.

RE: David Brooks explains the Republican Party’s Catholic problem
I agree whole heartedly with your thesis, Shawn. Democrats are for radical individualism in the moral sphere. Republicans are for radical individualism in the economic sphere. (Many independents are for both.) Both, thus far, appear to be invincibly ignorant because they fail to recognize the illusory underpinnings of their own thought. Thus, a Democrat will argue that you can't legislate morality, when all he/she really means is you'd better not legislate his/her morality, as he/she fails to recognize that all legislation touches on morality. In the same way, a Republican will argue that government should stay off the backs of the people, particularly when he/she sees an opportunity to exploit someone else's ignorance or naivete, like the vendors of sub-prime mortgages or the vendors of paycheck "advances," or the executives that bail out using a golden parachute when their leadership wrecked the company, or the economy as a whole, as he/she fails to recognize the responsibility of all leaders to the public good. What's particularly sad about this is that even David Brooks fails to fully appreciate the implications of this line of thinking. Then again, he did come to a deeper understanding of foreign policy when the Iraq War failed to turn out the way he planned. Who knows, maybe he'll come to appreciate the folly of "gay marriage."

RE: David Brooks explains the Republican Party’s Catholic problem
Sorry, my bad. I meant "I agree whole heartedly with your thesis, Angelo."

Faith at the Edge Traces