Posts Tagged by Secular Humanism
|December 28, 2012||Posted by Anthony under Blog, Christianity and Culture, evolution, General, human rights, morality, philosophy, scientism, Secular Humanism|
For every successful mass slaughter there are dozens of attempts. So it is, so it will always be.
But understanding why this is the case is the critical issue. The real problem is spiritual. But many people do not believe we are spiritual, because they do not believe in spirits. And if they do not believe in spirits, they will not believe that we are spirits in rebellion. But that is what we are. Everyone of us.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Or, What is the proper response to killing newborn children because they are a burden to a family… or society?
|March 1, 2012||Posted by Anthony under abortion, apologetics, atheism, Blog, Christianity and Culture, End Times, eugenics, family, General, Holocaust, human rights, morality, Obama, original sin, pro-life, science, scientism, Secular Humanism, taxation|
authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that the same arguments that justify abortion of the fetus on demand likewise apply to the newly born. Here is the abstract:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
|January 1, 2012||Posted by Anthony under abortion, Blog, eugenics, General, Global Warming, Obama, politics, science, scientism, Secular Humanism|
This series began as a reflection of the contents of the Jaffe Memo, a Planned Parenthood document from 1969 that discussed ideas for handling the ‘population’ crisis. This memo succinctly lays bear an agenda that has been in play since before the Civil War, and as I have demonstrated in previous parts of this series […]
|December 22, 2011||Posted by Anthony under Blog, General|
The last part ended with a question that this part shall now answer. Why? Because ‘religious’ views are just one example of a ‘world view.’ I asked earlier, “Ought not our attitudes and behaviors in political society be driven by our views about the world? If not our own views about the world, then whose […]
|May 24, 2011||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, evolution, family, General, homosexuality, human rights, Love, morality, pro-life, Secular Humanism|
That’s really what you have going on here… you know, the old “A rose by any other name is still a rose” thing… a boy is still a boy by any other name, and likewise a girl… but you have some people who think that by throwing off definitions you can obliterate, change, or deny the underlying reality. Are there sometimes when definitions can be unhelpful? Sure, I can buy that. But there are limits to that observation. This is secularism: taking an observation into account but jettisoning the limits or notion of limits.
|March 1, 2011||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, Christianity and Culture, General, Jesus, literary apologetics, scientism, Secular Humanism|
Over the last three hundred years unbounded skepticism has been applied to religion and Christianity especially. Atheist philosopher David Hume was one of the prominent voices calling for stringent criteria in evaluating miracle claims, and the like. Not everyone thought very highly of this criteria. One such person was the Reverend Richard Whately, who skewers Hume’s reasoning by showing how if it were applied consistently, one could not be reasonably certain that Napoleon existed- a public figure that was said to be alive and roaming Europe even as he spoke!
This playful little book is not a treatise by any means, but it provides a glimpse into the conversations of the 1800s and challenges the ‘enlightened’ skeptics to decide: If they won’t apply their principles thoroughly and consistently, but choose only to apply them to certain claims (and how did they choose which ones?), are those principles worth their salt?
|April 28, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, Blog, Christianity and Culture, eugenics, Love, Malthusians, philosophy, politics, Secular Humanism|
I was reading CS Lewis’s The Four Loves and came across the quote below. Obviously, Lewis is not specifically addressing universal health care or liberalism or the question of using the government to administer love. Even Christians can be found thinking that it is a noble expression of a loving society to have the government do the loving… and this with no apparent thought to the actual effect that this ‘loving’ will have on the people ‘loved’ and the attitude it fuels in the people-government doing the ‘loving.’ The most important thing seems to be that, well, people’s intentions are good, and it’s better to do something rather than nothing. Here is the quote:
This [is] Gift-love, but one that needs to give; therefore needs to be needed. But the proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs our gift. We feed children in order that they may soon be able to feed themselves; we teach them in order that they may soon not need our teaching. Thus a heavy task is laid upon this Gift-love. It must work towards its own abdication. We must aim at making ourselves superfluous. The hour when we can say “They need me no longer” shall be our reward. But the instinct, simply in its own nature, has no power to fulfil this law. The instinct desires the good of its object, but not simply; only the good it can itself give. A much higher love- a love which desires the good of the object as such, from whatever source that good comes- must step in and help or tame the instinct before it can make the abdication. And of course it often does. But where it does not, the ravenous need to be needed will gratify itself either by keeping its objects needy or by inventing for them imaginary needs. It will do this all the more ruthlessly because it thinks (in one sense truly) that it is a Gift-love and therefore regards itself as “unselfish.” (pgs 50-51)