Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Serious Blog Debate

Jeremy at Crescat Sententia has another good philosophical post up. A couple of quotes:
Questioning whether Christianity is more than a Christian ethic seems to be a common theme these days (lv: The American Scene). Perhaps it is the Christmas Season, or perhaps it is because of the continuing (and continuingly tiresome) framing of the Intelligent Design debate as a conflict between Science and Faith, but whatever the cause, the retread of this question produces few points of interest or edification. It is probably because the typical debate participant accepts its shoddy frame, meaning that we poor spectators peer through a fogged windowpane only to see quite a few Biblical "literalists" take arms against a sea of militant material monists, and by opposing, bore them. . . .

Still, that distressingly long piece in this months Harper's illustrates an insecurity at the basis of the liberal consensus. Whence our principles? By containing Jesus, by making Christianity a historical-ethical tradition alone, secular moralists are able to have their cake and eat it too. They are able to locate their groundless ground within a historically effected moral hermeneutic (the weight, the authority of Christ), but they are able also to pick and choose a set of values by denying the fixedness of the very authority they cite. Upon this rock, which is not really rock, I will build my welfare state. . . .

I'm going to need time to fully digest this before responding, but read the rest.

No comments: