CRITICAL THINKING [Kevin Miller]
2/18/2008
about "critical thinking"?
I'm inclined to agree that people throw the expression around too often, without really thinking through exactly what it's supposed to mean - and also that people are far too willing to pit the need for "critical thinking" against the need for mastering (including memorizing - as well as understanding) content.
"I'm a lucky lady. I owe it to the grace of God."...: "'I'm a lucky lady. I owe it to the grace of God.'
Brain-dead women wakes from coma.
(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)
Populist scrutiny: "Fr. George Rutler's 'acerbic' review of Archbishop Marini's new book, a nostalgic treatment of the heady days of liturgical experimentation in the aftermath of Vatican II, has been making the rounds on St. Blog's:
Considerable erudition was at work in those years, but too often did its populism overrule the people. It was like Le Corbusier sketching a new metallic Paris. Marini complains about ' a certain nostalgia for the old rites. ' In doing so he contradicts Pope Benedict's distinction between rites and uses, but he also fails to explain why nostalgia for the 1560's is inferior to nostalgia for the 1960's, except for dentistry. This book's editors want to 'keep alive' the 'vision' of the Consilium, but their diction is a voice in the bunker embittered by many ungrateful people. If an organism is truly healthy, it does not need a life support system. In his preface to 'The Reform of the Roman Liturgy' by Klaus Gamber, Cardinal Ratzinger said plainly: 'We abandoned the organic living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.' In consequence, the fragile construction must be pumped up by multiple Gnostic-Docetic innovations such as dancing, referred to in a prescriptive text as 'pious undulations.' Hula dancers at the beatification of Father Damien in 1995 hardly gave a sense of verisimilitude in Brussels. Having eliminated the papal flabella and burning flax as the detritus of imperial Rome, it was even more anachronistic to trumpet the Great Jubilee in modern Rome with costumed men affecting familiarity with the art of blowing elephant tusks.
(Via Ten Reasons.)
Today at the Design of Life blog: "Did math really evolve? Or is it just us connecting to the universe?"
(Via Post-Darwinist.)
WITH VALENTINE'S DAY COMING UP, THIS SEEMS WORTH LINKING [Kevin Miller]
From today's WP: "The Differences in Gender -- Sealed With a Kiss"
A kiss, it turns out, is definitely not always just a kiss.
As Valentine's Day approaches, research has begun shedding light on that most basic of all human expressions of love -- the smooch -- which has received surprisingly little scientific scrutiny. ...
The Exquisite Timing of Lourdes: Confronting the Skeptics by John F. Kippley
The timing of the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Lourdes beginning on February... >>read more
Fetal Pain: Another Sign of Personhood: "Here is the link to a fascinating article in the Sunday N.Y. Times Magazine entitled 'The First Ache.' The article starts with a pediatrician-researcher who asserts that the evidence indicates that the fetus feels pain at '20 weeks gestation (halfway through a full-term pregnancy) and possibly earlier.' The bottom-line is that no one really knows when the fetus first begins to experience pain, but the evidence is now very clear that the fetus does feel pain at least halfway through a full-term pregnancy.
The article is fascinating in the way science--common sense science--confirms the humanity of the fetus. After all, as one priest I admire put it, the word 'fetus' is merely Latin for 'offspring.' The pediatrician introduced in the beginning of the article is a pioneer in the field of infant and fetal pain and first began his inquiry into their experience of pain when he noticed years ago how infants who were routinely denied anesthesia during surgical operations were in 'terrible shape' after their operations. This particular pediatrician did what a good scientist does and tested if the poor post-surgical condition was due to the stress of being operated on without anesthesia. You guessed it: those infants given anesthesia during surgery came out in extraordinarily better shape. Yet, it was routine, accepted medical practice twenty-five years ago to deny anesthesia to newborn infants because doctors 'were convinced that newborns' nervous systems were too immature to sense pain, and that the dangers of anesthesia exceeded any potential benefits' (p. 46).
The old rationale for denying surgical anesthesia to newborns reminds me of the cavalier way in which neurologists averred that Terri Schiavo could not feel the pain of her lengthy, court-ordered starvation and dehydration. Doctors commonly make knee-jerk and off-the-cuff analyses that need to be tested by the more scientifically minded. If medicine is a science and not just a collection of customary, convenient practices at any given moment, then the off-the-cuff assumptions must be rigorously questioned.
The article is full of good quotes and insights. I will pick one to share here. The scientifically curious pediatrician described above is a Dr. Sunny Anand, whose work led to abandoning the assumption that newborns don't feel pain (by the way, how could anyone have bought into that assumption when newborn boys cry loudly when circumcised in the hospital?). Here is Dr. Anand's scientific view of the fetus:
The fetus is not 'a little adult,' Anand says, and we shouldn't expect it to look or act like one. Rather, it's a singular being with a life of the senses that is different, but no less real, than our own.
'The First Ache,' at p. 47.
Anand's statement gets to the crux of the primitive and unjust discrimination against the unborn: you are too different to merit personhood and its protections. Our society uses the same primitive reasoning to exclude people like Terri Schiavo from the protections given to persons. The same reasoning is extended to unborn children with Down's Syndrome who are being aborted at alarming rates. 'You are too different to merit personhood'--Hitler would have agreed with that sort of reasoning."
(Via Catholic Analysis.)
Of Note: "The Science of Fetal Pain (NY Times Magazine)"
(Via First Things.)
Steynianism 48.0: "Mark Milke wonders what about treason? …. (rjjago.wordpress.com, canada.com)"
(Via Free Mark Steyn!.)
ProWomanProLife » Who’s laughing now?: "
Feb
08
2008
Who’s laughing now?
Published by Brigitte Pellerin at 3:15 pm under Feminism, Policy, Politics, Women's rights
Hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous marriages — some with a harem of wives — are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say.
Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Law Act, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.
“Polygamy is a regular part of life for many Muslims,” Ali said yesterday. “Ontario recognizes religious marriages for Muslims and others.”
[…]
However, city and provincial officials said legally a welfare applicant can claim only one spouse. Other adults living in the same household can apply for welfare independently.
(Via ProWomanProLife.)
Consciousness: Recent public squabble between philosophers of mind rates better than most sitcoms: "Better even than a Britcom, which it actually is.
A hilarious public feud between two philosophers - Ted Honderich and Colin McGinn over consciousness (as recounted by Stuart Jeffries in The Guardian Unlimited), mainly shows how little is known of the subject:
The row started decades ago over a girl (well, that's the claim, anyway) and culminated with a damning review of yet another book on consciousness:
'Is there anything of merit in On Consciousness? Honderich does occasionally show glimmers of understanding that the problem of consciousness is difficult and that most of our ideas about it fall short of the mark. His instincts, at least, are not always wrong. It is a pity that his own efforts here are so shoddy, inept, and disastrous (to use a term he is fond of applying to the views of others).'
What does the man on the receiving end think of this review? 'It is a cold, calculated attempt to murder a philosopher's reputation,' says Honderich. The review has reignited a feud between the two philosophers that shows how bitter, unforgiving and (to outsiders) unwittingly hilarious academic disputes can be. It certainly makes the bear pit that is journalism seem like sunshine and lollipops by comparison.
(Via Mindful Hack.)
New atheists vs. the ex-atheist: "Marvin Olasky muses on the recent popularity of 'new atheist' books:
Atheistic authors see themselves as avant-garde, but they merely are echoing the riffs of 19th-century scoffers who predicted the imminent demise of Christianity. Gilded Age orator Robert Ingersoll, for example, said that when Christians dominate schools and media, it is hard to mount an attack on concepts of revelation and miracles, but 'now that religion's monopoly has been broken, it is within the compass of any human being to see those evidences and proofs as the feeble-minded inventions that they are.'
So what happened? Why are many churches in the U.S. booming? Why is Christianity expanding so rapidly in Africa and China? To begin to answer that, we should let our imaginations run wild: What if in the 20th century, in the biggest country by land area and also in the biggest country by population, leaders had required the teaching of atheism in all schools? Freed of 'feeble-minded inventions,' wouldn't the world be a better place?
Oh, you say we don't have to imagine? You say the Soviet Union and China did establish atheism and the results were not pretty?
(Via Mindful Hack.)
Thought for the day: Can everyone be wise?: "David Warren comments on perennial philosophy:
While reading recently the third edition of After Virtue by the great living philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, I was struck once again by the notion of the 'philosophia perennis.' This is the notion that there is one, and only one, recurring and inevitable set of mutually dependent universal truths on the nature of man, and of the world in which he appears -- one and only one convincing view of what we can mean by the good, the true, and the beautiful. This view is accessible to all men who can summon the intellectual and moral resources to be wise, which include the patience to deeply consider the alternatives and reject all those that ultimately contradict themselves.Mario Beauregard, my lead author on The Spiritual Brain, is a perennialist, and Warren's take is interesting."
MacIntyre is not a philosopher with whom I feel entirely at home. ...
(Via Mindful Hack.)
Quo Vadis?: "
Icon at Nearby Byzantine Church...: "Icon at Nearby Byzantine Church
"
Medici philosopher’s mystery death is solved: "
From the Telegraph: Medici philosopher’s mystery death is solved.
After 500 years, one of Renaissance Italy’s most enduring murder mysteries has been solved by forensic scientists.
Ever since Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, a mystical and mercurial philosopher at the court of Lorenzo de’ Medici, suddenly became sick and died in 1494, it has been rumoured that foul play was involved.
Pico’s fame has faded, but he was a celebrated figure at the Medici court.
He gained notoriety when, at the age of 23, [continue]
(Via Mirabilis.ca.)
In other Episcopal Spine News... Bishop Fred Henry and...: "In other Episcopal Spine News...
Bishop Fred Henry and various other Catholics are battling the soft tyranny of the Canadian Human Rights Commission attempts to crush free speech."
(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)
Canadian Federation of Students’ Dangerous Waters: "
Due to recent scandals in which student unions across the country have begun usurping the freedoms of expression and from discrimination, it was only a matter of time before the CFS decided to comment on this issue. Now, I’m not sure on how correct Warren Kinsella is when threatening people every time he feels offended by their blog posts, but if his latest threat to a blogger who implied that he was a Nazi has any merit, the following comment might be trouble for the CFS:
When asked whether Ryerson students should be exposed to both sides of the abortion issue, Hudson said allowing an anti-choice group would be like allowing a white supremacist group on campus.
If there’s a lawyer out there that can share some insight on this, I’d be most grateful. More as it develops…
"Hang or stuff: "Consider printing and hanging this excellent 'Guide to Lent' poster from Our Sunday Visitor in your parish vestibule. You could also ask that it be included as a bulletin stuffer. As a last resort, tack it to your 'fridge."
(Via Ten Reasons.)
An Acceptable Time: "
We begin the 'joyful season' of Lent today. That description usually sounds a little hollow in our ears, I suspect. Prayer, fasting and almsgiving usually don't make the top ten list of ways of expressing joy. Perhaps that in itself is evidence that our lives are a bit our of kilter.
When Jesus is asked by a scribe to name the greatest commandment (a serious question for the first century Jew who was encouraged to keep all the commandments with equal energy), Jesus replies,
You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.' Mt 22:37-40.Prayer, fasting and almsgiving are practices meant to help us fulfill these two commandments. Our natural tendency is to focus on ourselves - to love and care for ourselves first, then our neighbor, and to place God last. Of course, the neighbor we tend to care for is the one who is like us, or who has demonstrated some love for us first. And while God's expectations of us are clear in the Scriptures, He doesn't seem to force them - or Himself - upon us from day to day.
Is this the manner of fasting I wish, of keeping a day of penance: That a man bow his head like a reed, and lie in sackcloth and ashes? Do you call this a fast, a day acceptable to the LORD?Again, we see that almsgiving also focuses our attention away from ourselves. The 'fast' Isaiah describes requires us to see the needs of the oppressed, the imprisoned, the hungry, naked, and homeless. It demands that we expand our understanding of 'our own' beyond the narrow confines of family and friends.
This, rather, is the fasting that I wish: releasing those bound unjustly, untying the thongs of the yoke; Setting free the oppressed, breaking every yoke; Sharing your bread with the hungry, sheltering the oppressed and the homeless; Clothing the naked when you see them, and not turning your back on your own. Isaiah 58:5-7
(Via Intentional Disciples.)
(Via Heart, Mind & Strength.)
Bulit-in fuzziness: "You'll recall that last month I fisked an egregious Catholic Update written by Xavier University's Ken Oberberg, S.J., that the Franciscans at American Catholic posted to their web page devoted to the 2008 National Prayer Vigil for Life.
Diogenes looks at the same piece and finds a 'built-in fuzziness.' (And take note of John Finnis's clarifying explanation of the operation of moral norms.)
To repeat: consistency in one's ethical commitments is a good thing, and recent popes have given us excellent guidance in defending human life across the board. But too often the 'consistent ethic' language is employed to smother pro-life action even as it pretends to incite it. Far too many progressivist Christians keep mum about abortion and euthanasia for forty month stretches, and then when there's an election underway cram the 'life issue' full of Leftist entitlements in order to stuff it down our throat like a sock. As one specimen among many, here's a forward-thinking Christian ethicist, coaching us in consistency:"If we are consistent, we must speak and act concerning abortion and euthanasia but also concerning welfare and immigration, sexism and racism, cloning and health-care reform, trade agreements and sweatshops, the buying and selling of women for prostitution, genocide and many other issues. Based on our ancient Scriptures and attentive to contemporary experiences, the consistent ethic of life provides an ethical framework for confronting the moral dilemmas of a new millennium. It helps us to promote the full flourishing of all life.
All the key distinctions are blurred here. The built-in fuzziness helps to camouflage the truth that, by their nature, absolute moral norms have priority over moral norms that are not absolute. Moral absolutes, as John Finnis writesare negative norms (praecepta negativa) which hold good always and on every occasion (semper et ad semper), whereas the many other essential and affirmative moral principles and norms (praecepta affirmativa) hold good semper sed non ad semper -- are always somehow relevant but leave it to your moral judgment to discern the times, places, and other circumstances of their directiveness.
(Via Ten Reasons.)
Fun sendup and straight talk about evolutionary psychology - why does anyone take it seriously?: "Columnist Mike Adams, whose spoofs regularly outrage odd, tax-funded people at universities, was last seen fronting the 'Journal of Genetic Rationalization', whose research projects include the following:
The Tardy Gene. Attention seeking has been a common explanation for chronic lateness. Television star and psychologist Dr. Phil has advised – to Brittany Spears and others he is unqualified to counsel – that such strategies often backfire. A person will often make late appearances at social gatherings in order to draw attention without realizing that the attention she draws is significantly more negative than she had expected. Since it is assumed that people are not likely to make choices that bring about adverse consequences – even when those adverse consequences were unforeseen – the existence of a tardiness gene is assumed. Researchers are encouraged to begin the search for evidence of a tardiness gene before it is too late.
A recent article in Psychology Today (July/August 2007) avers that men prefer women with big breasts because the man can see whether the woman’s breasts sag, which indicates reduced fertility.
Really? Isn't the general human preference for the anticipated pleasure of abundance over scarcity a better explanation - and a wee bit simpler too? But to think that way is to be out of step with the whole point of evolutionary psychology, which derives from a materialist view of human nature. To say that men prefer abundance to scarcity is to say that they have minds and that - to their minds - abundance seems better than scarcity.
But to an evolutionary psychologist, framing the preference that way is simply not acceptable. Evolutionary psychology looks for a program in the genes that governs what men like. Its practitioners are entirely convinced that such a program exists. The program must exist because the mind does not cause anything to happen. Men do not know what they like until their selfish genes act on their neurons, creating the appropriate buzz. The man himself has no preferences, but his genes do.
(Via Post-Darwinist.)
Who Cares?: "Dinesh D'Souza explains the argument from morality to prove the existence of God. This is the one that really did it for me during my 'Ayn Rand phase.' Watching hardcore objectivists use tortured logic to explain why, to use D'Souza's examples, a gentleman vacates his seat for an old lady or a Franciscan gives his life for a stranger, led me to believe that the simpler explanation was the better one.
This entire framework of Darwinian analysis does not even come close to explaining morality. It confines itself to explaining altruism, and at best it explains 'low altruism.' But humans also engage in 'high altruism' which may be defined as behavior that confers no reciprocal or genetic advantage. A man stands up to give his seat on the bus to an older woman. She is nothing to him, and he is certainly not thinking that there may be a future occasion when she will give him her seat. He does it because he's a nice guy. There's no Darwinian rationale that can account for his behavior."
Consider the true story of the Catholic priest Maximilian Kolbe, who was imprisoned in a German concentration camp for his anti-Nazi activities. Each day the Nazis would choose one person from the group for execution. One of the first persons they selected was a man who pleaded for his life, saying he had a wife and children who were dependent on him and he needed to live in order to look after them. Just as the Nazis were about to drag him from the room, the priest stood up and said, 'Take me in his place.' The Nazis were baffled and refused, but the priest insisted. The man was equally uncomprehending, so the priest told him, 'I don't have a family, I am old and won't be missed like you will.' The Nazis finally agreed, and the priest went to his death. The man whose place he took survived the war and returned to his family.
Now what is the Darwinian explanation for Kolbe's behavior? It does not exist. Ernest Mayr, a leading evolutionary biologist, admits that 'altruism toward strangers is behavior not supported by natural selection.' Richard Dawkins concedes that Darwinism cannot even explain why people donate blood, an action he puts down to 'pure disinterested altruism.' I enjoy reading Pinker, Trivers and the others, but I don't think that the Darwin Cleanup Crew is going to come up with a comprehensive account of morality. The simple reason is that the evolutionary project is necessarily confined to the domain of survival and reproductive advantage — in other words, to the domain of self-interest — while it is the essence of morality to operate against self-interest. The whole point of morality is to do what you ought to do, not what you are inclined to do or what it is in your interest to do.
(Via Ten Reasons.)
Belief in free will keeps us honest, study finds: "Apparently, believing we have free will keeps us more honest. . In a recent study by psychologists Kathleen Vohs of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler of the University of British Columbia,
The psychologists gave college students a mathematics exam. The math problems appeared on a computer screen, and the subjects were told that a computer glitch would cause the answers to appear on the screen as well. To prevent the answers from showing up, the students had to hit the space bar as soon as the problems appeared.
In fact, the scientists were observing to see if the participants surreptitiously used the answers instead of solving the problems honestly on their own. Prior to the math test, Vohs and Schooler used a well-established method to prime the subjects' beliefs regarding free will: some of the students were taught that science disproves the notion of free will and that the illusion of free will was a mere artifact of the brain's biochemistry whereas others got no such indoctrination.
The results were clear: those with weaker convictions about their power to control their own destiny were more apt to cheat when given the opportunity as compared to those whose beliefs about controlling their own lives were left untouched.
(Via Mindful Hack.)
Power to the Bloggers; MSM Lock Busted: "
Well, if you can’t even count on the Globe & Mail to come to your rescue, you know things are bad for the ‘perpetually-a-victim, my-FEELINGS-NOTHING-MORE-THAN-FEELINGS!-are-really-really-hurt’ crowd.
Hey Shirley! Yo Laurie! Time to start looking for a new gig.
There comes a time that belonging to a pariah organization - even if it is sponsored by the gov’ment - is still not that great for one’s own reputation.
When this ship finally sinks, we need to have a party, man.
Still, it is a positive sign that the Left is split on this issue. It means that they are thinking outside of the gulag they helped to create these past forty years. Maybe it will mean more critical examination of the other foolish dogmas they try to enforce on the sheep in Canada.
The MSM tried to protect their lock on our reality by virtually ignoring this story for three weeks. Only when Keith Martin started making some political movements did they start to wake up, but even then, they attempted to warp the coverage into some kind of ‘white supremacist’ cause. How thoroughly bankrupt and pathetic they are.
Power to the Bloggers and YouTube for once again showing the utter irrelevancy of the MSM. People saw Ezra’s ‘Braveheart’ performance 500,000 times before the MSM finally rolled out of their beds. Wake up guys, you’re three weeks late and are taking up airwaves. Message to the MSM: ‘Why don’t you step aside and let real reporters do the job that you refuse to do?’
The thing about free speech that we all have learned through this whole debacle is this: IF YOU DON’T USE IT, YOU’LL LOSE IT. If Ezra had not published those cartoons, we’d still be sinking further and further into the socialist, islamic gulag without even knowing it. Sometimes, you need some shock treatment and, boy, did Ezra ever push the right button.
During the last Ontario provincial election, there was a record low 52.6% turnout. That kind of gives you an indication what Canadians think of exercising their free speech. Materialism and self gratification leave little room for pushing back a tyrannical kangaroo kourt abetted by decades of socialist group-think legislation when you’re on the dole and your biggest complaint in life is not getting a clear signal on the dish.
"(Via SoCon Or Bust.)
Is It Time For Keith Martin To Return His Original Team?: "
I’m a little surprised as I read around the blogsphere to find that many Blogging Tories who are giving Liberal MP Keith Martin his due praise haven’t been making mention of his past history and drawing up some obvious questions that his new landmark human rights legislation are putting in my head. Namely, is it time for Keith Martin to come back to his natural party?
Martin, you see, is the lesser known defector to the Liberal Party in December, 2003 after the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties ratified a merger agreement, the other being former every-party leadership contender and cabinet minister Scott Brison. I think a lot of history’s forgetfulness of Martin stems from the fact that Brison hailed from the PC Party (and was therefore considered ‘moderate), which Martin came from the Alliance benches. In fact, I’m still puzzled as to why Martin joined the Liberals to this day since, unlike Brison, he was never offered a cabinet position in Paul Martin’s government and has largely faded into the woodwork of a caucus that supports initiatives that Keith Martin, the dark horse Canadian Alliance leadership candidate of 2000 would be cringing over.
News that Stephane Dion’s office will now ask Martin to withdraw his human rights motion for fear of upsetting the ever-restless Liberal base might trigger Martin to examine whether he should be sticking it out with the Liberal caucus or not. Again, I’m not sure what led an MP to leave a then-leaderless party but it appears that Martin’s attitudes haven’t chanced that much from when he was a CA MP and hence, he’d find more friends in the government caucus these days than he would among his current colleagues.
"Steynianism 40.0: "~ STEYN: ‘RIGHTS COMMISSIONS ARE STIFLING OUR RIGHTS’: The Montreal Gazette speaks up …. (montrealgazette)"
(Via Free Mark Steyn!.)
I remember the first time I sat in a figure drawing class and worked
from a real, live, nekkid model. I was a little nervous before, as were
probably a lot of us wet-eared art undergrads. I don't know how
everyone else responded when the young lady dropped her bathrobe, but I
expect their experience wasn't too different from my own; there were a
few moments of awkward ogling, a few moments of stern and studied
pretense at ignoring the obvious, and then - something else. I began to
think about how I could wring a good drawing out of the pose. As I
started to draw, my brain began to break the model down into her
component elements... line and form, light and shadow, muscle and bone.
Within a minute, and for the remainder of the class, she registered no
more on my libido-meter than a clay pot or a fern. And I was not nearly
such a paragon of virtue and restraint as I am now.
Not everyone has had the benefit of such a class, of course, but it
did demonstrate to me in unmistakable terms the very real difference
between appreciating the beauty of the human form and what might be
called the Look of Lust. I had the great privilege of having my view of
the female form somewhat redeemed and baptized long before I knew
anything of John Paul II's Theology of the Body. In this work, he makes
brilliantly clear that the mere repression of lustful thoughts is not
enough, and may even be unhealthy in the long run. We must learn -
through the help of the Holy Spirit, the teaching of the Church, the
sacraments and prayer - to change the way we perceive the human body.
We must have our thoughts redeemed. We should work toward being able to
thank God for the breathtaking beauty of the human body, and through
giving thanks and praise to the Creator, disarm and disable Lust.
The idea is not to cage our lust, but to drag it out into the light where it can be transformed by the Holy Spirit.
Not that nudity is something to be treated lightly. We are fallen,
after all. There is nudity - even under the pretext of art - that is
wholly inappropriate. If it is intended to excite lust, or if it in
fact does so, then it is unhealthy.
How do we tell the difference? Obviously, this is a matter of
judgment. For one aware of his own weakness, one sincerely committed to
trying to please God in everything, one familiar with Original Sin, one
who has been trained to respect the dictates of conscience... a
certain' amount of confidence in personal judgment is possible, and can
be developed. In the words of St. Augustine, 'Love God and do as you
please'.
For one lacking these things, it may be impossible, though I believe
that even based only on natural law one can tell the difference between
a painting that is basically an act of praise and homage, and one in
which the body is displayed like a piece of meat in a butcher shop
window. In the first case, the viewer's response is 'Yes, that is
beautiful - God does great work'. In the latter case, the viewer's
response is 'I want that'.
In short, if you are truly concerned about lust in regard to viewing
nude figures in art, then the battle is half won already. Trust your
judgment, and be watchful of your own thoughts. Where truly great,
classical, historically significant art is involved, I don't think even
children need be' cocooned and shielded as much as one might think.
Most children likely have a much saner and simpler response to these
things than we give them credit for. If you have concerns for kids,
look things over for yourself first, but don't get too wound up over
them seeing this or that body part, in the right context.
(Via JIMMY AKIN.ORG.)
Rowan Williams has been a ninny for a long time......: "Rowan Williams has been a ninny for a long time...
But now his ninnyhood threatens free speech in Britain. He wants a law against 'thoughtless and ... cruel styles of speaking and acting.' From the well-meaning attempts of fools to legislate virtue, dear Lord, deliver us."
(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)
Everyone’s hip to the times but the baby killers: "
And yet, beneath the veneer of tribal sisterly celebration, I did manage to detect a strain of underlying tension. It came out on those few occasions when one of the speakers made oblique allusion to that taboo question in the pro-choice camp: How late is too late?This should be a question of special interest to anyone who’s managed to escape the tribal polarization of the abortion debate. Squeezed between the two tribes are a few of us (including me) who think a woman should have a broad right to abort her fetus when it is an insentient bundle of cells, but are appalled by the fact that Canada — alone among industrialized nations — permits ‘socially motivated’ abortion in the second and even third trimesters. Yet in a full day of presentations purporting to comprehensively evaluate the state of abortion in this country, no one at this symposium took on this one disturbing, and truly unique, feature of our country’s legal landscape.Even in the Q&A, the issue came up only twice — and then, only obliquely. The first came when an audience member bemoaned the fact that most doctors in Western nations wouldn’t perform abortions after 24 weeks — and asked, with apparently genuine curiosity, why this was so. The panelist who answered, National Abortion Federation director Dawn Fowler, refused to supply a reason, merely demurring that ‘It will be interesting to have the physicians appearing later today [as speakers] comment on that.’ (None did.) A few hours later, a male student rose during the Q&A to broach the issue indirectly with legendary Canadian abortion doctor Garson Romalis. The student asked whether late-term unborn children should be supplied pain-killers as part of the abortion procedure. Romalis (who, by way of background, has survived two murder attempts by pro-life fanatics) dismissed any evidence that aborted fetuses feel pain, and with it the entire issue, in a single sentence. And that was it. The interesting thing is that several of the symposium speakers — most notably, University of Toronto Law School professor Joanna Erdman — vigorously assured the audience that very few abortions take place in Canada ‘for social reasons’ beyond 20 weeks, and none beyond 24 weeks. No doubt, the data show this to be true. But why was this fact so important as to deserve emphasis? Similarly, why did Gavigan take such pains to dismiss anecdotes of women having abortions for capricious reasons (e.g., looking good in a bikini on an upcoming vacation) as ‘preposterous misogynistic fables.’ If it is really true that ‘the unborn child and the pregnant mother speak with one voice,’ then presumably they have the right to assume a voice that is selfish and vain. If the ‘dominant ideology of the unborn child’ is nothing but a misogynistic construct invented by patriarchal moralists, why does it matter if that so-called unborn child weighs one pound — or five? Why strike such defensive postures against a issue that no one in the room would even discuss? (National Post)
We are living in amazing times in Canada. I would never have believed that, in 2008, abortion would be back on the front burner as a legitimate social and moral question. But, reading the news reports and columns, it is clear that there is a definite shift in blindly accepting the feminist dogmas of yesteryear. This isn’t your typical ‘choice’ culture anymore. People have gathered their collective minds and are starting to ask: ‘Um…choice? Choice to do what?’
The pro-aborts tried to convince Canadians that the issue was ‘settled’. After all, didn’t Jean Chretien and Paul Martin tell us that? Henry Morgentaller and his shills has been telling us that for the past 20 years. Maybe it’s just me and my personal sensitivities on this issue, but it seems to me that they are telling us that more frequently and much louder in the last year or so. It’s like they have to raise their voices because they sense, quite correctly and understandably, that they are starting to lose influence and slowly losing the debate. It reminds me of the old Communists under the thumb of Josef Stalin. When uncle Joe would laugh, he would look around the table to be sure that everyone was laughing too. Rumors had it that if you were the last to laugh, you would be on a train to Siberia the next day. It’s kind of like that with the abortionists and the Death and Dismemberment Department of Reproductive Health. After blathering on about the supreme euphemism of ‘choice’, they look around the audience to ensure that smiley happy, faces stare back at them, knowing that today’s audiences are more discriminating, thoughtful, and informed about the development of the unborn child.
They are also not buying the refusal of the abortion lobby to answer the question of late term abortions. The pro-aborts aren’t talking about that one, understandably. Or, if they are, they are saying that it doesn’t exist. Of course, that is a lie just like abortion is a lie. A few years back Margaret Sommerville cited a Stats Can statistic of there being 230 or so late term abortions in Canada. When I ran in the last provincial election, I was able to get my hands on some information on late-term abortions. Not only are we doing them here in this country, we are paying the United States to do it when we cannot. Here is the blog entry from my campaign log with the relevant links:
Our provincial government does that sort of thing for about 60 women a year in this province at a cost of $400K (click here). Tiller would have done the job and Ontario taxpayers would have picked up the tab. It would have spared the champagne liberals across the province a lot of discomfort in explaining how this situation is all that different from the hundreds of late-term abortions that occur every year in this country (click here). I believe we are at a point in this culture where our opponents have really and truly lost their collective minds. I sincerely doubt that there would be much outcry at all if we were to legalize infanticide — provided, of course, that we did it within say, 30 days after birth. I think that’s a reasonable compromise, don’t you?
The jig is up for the abortion propagandists in Canada. Their days are numbered one way or another. They are getting old (like Morgentaller who is 84 years old), they are losing the arguments, they are being undermined by the stark reality of the unborn child that science is clearly demonstrating, and they have fewer and fewer recruits. Oh yes, one more factor. While pro-lifers have been popping them out like like-minded rabbits these past 20 years, the pro-aborts have been skinning and disposing of their own. One need not a crystal ball to see the future, just an ability to count and read the signs of the times. Everyone is beginning to read the writing on the wall, except the pro-aborts and their ideological buddies of a bygone era. And, like the past anti-life comrads, they’ll suffer the same fate and the full judgement of history.
"(Via SoCon Or Bust.)
This video would have had me in stitches ...: "
... were I not'already in stitches. Ha!
The 'Tale of Two Brains''— male vs. female'— arrived in my e-mail today from a priest. Be careful not to watch it while eating or drinking anything that may damage your computer screen.
"
(Via The Dawn Patrol.)
Rubbish: "
Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobodys system of philosophy has really corresponded to everybodys sense of reality: to what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense.
"(Via New Advent World Watch.)
Picked up some kind of bug and have been feeling (in the words of my 4yo daughter Treesie) ‘Gwoss.’ Even with such minor discomfort, a Christian’s thoughts naturally turn to the cross. And it seems more and more likely that it’s always been that way. Consider the recent discoveries:
* In Syria, archeologists have found two cruciform cemeteries from the third century (here and here).
* In the Basque region, archeologists unearthed a town that had been covered by a third-century landslide; and in one home they found a crudely drawn crucifix, complete with corpus.
* Scholars have begun to reconsider the dating of some gems engraved with the crucifix, placing them, too, in the third century.
* Larry Hurtado has catalogued the occurrences of staurograms and other crypto-crosses in manuscripts as far back as the early second century. He says that the staurogram — usually an embellished rendering of the Greek letters tau or chi or the Coptic ankh — ‘obviously refers to the crucifixion/cross of Jesus, and so (along with the abundant textual evidence) reflects an importance given to Jesus’ crucifixion in Christian faith/piety, from at least as early as the late second century.’
All this, of course, runs counter to what I learned in school, and probably to what most people learn in school today. It has, for generations, been commonplace to say that there were no crosses before Constantine. The standard current textbook in Christian archeology states flatly that there was ‘no place in the third century for a crucified Christ, or a symbol of divine death.’
If cruciform figures appeared in digs, they were dismissed as random scratches, mere geometric ornamentation, or later ‘contaminations’ in early strata. The argument followed a circular logic:
1. We know there were no crosses before 300 because we’ve never found any.
2. When we seem to find crosses, we know they’re late or not really crosses, because of course there WERE no crosses before 300.
3. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Hurtado points out that preachers and letter-writers in those early years often refer to the cross of Christ. Other scholars point to this very early anti-Christian graffito, which portrays a donkey hanging on a cross. It’s unlikely that bigots would seize upon that symbol unless it had already been widely used and cherished by the Christians.
My money’s with the vanguard in this controversy. It seems that when we suffer and we survey that wondrous cross, we’re very likely doing what the earliest Christians did.
"(Via New Advent World Watch.)
A Winning Argument on Cloning?: "
‘Farming cloned livestock should be banned because the animals suffer too much, EU ethics experts said last night.’
Meanwhile, in the USA, there is no restriction-at all-on human cloning, be it for so-called ‘therapeutic’ purposes (i.e. where a human being is cloned and then the clone is dismembered for parts) or for reproductive purposes (that is, in America it’s A-OK to clone-for-babies). But maybe once we see that the animals suffer too much we’ll do something about the humans-we wouldn’t want to be speciesists, after all.
"(Via First Things.)
Peter Kreeft debated abortion...: "
... at the University of Colorado with Dr. David Boonin this past Friday. Catholic News Agency reports on the well-attended event:
A Catholic-sponsored debate about the ethics of abortion packed hundreds into an auditorium on the University of Colorado campus in Boulder, CO this past Friday night. The debate featured two prominent philosophy professors—Drs. Peter Kreeft and David Boonin—who defended their views on the ethics of abortion.
Listeners filled all 288 seats of the auditorium, while others sat in the aisles.' Still more sat in the overflow seating in the basement hallway, and even crowded the stairs leading up from the basement, a total audience easily surpassing 400 in number.
The debate, sponsored by the Thomas Aquinas Institute for Catholic Thought, addressed the question 'Is abortion morally justifiable?'' Dr. Peter Kreeft, of Boston College, answered that it could never be while Dr. David Boonin of the University of Colorado argued that abortion was sometimes a moral choice.' Both professors offered many reasons and
counterarguments defending their position.
The professors are both prominent in their field and in the public eye.' Kreeft has authored more than 45 books dedicated to defending Christian beliefs and understanding suffering, morality, philosophy, life, and God.' Dr. Boonin’s 2003 book ‘A Defense of Abortion’ won an honorable mention from the American Philosophical Association.' Boonin is also the chair of the University of Colorado's philosophy department.
• Introduction to Three Approaches to Abortion | Peter Kreeft
• Ignatius Insight author page for Peter Kreeft
Neuroscientist: Most opposition to new science ideas comes from fundamentalism within science: "Well, another non-materialist neuroscientist has just been sighted.
Edward F. Kelly, lead author of Irreducible Mind, writes at the Rowman blog (sponsored by publishers Rowman and Littlefield),
The word ‘fundamentalism’ probably evokes for most of us only images of bomb-wielding Islamic terrorists and other examples of religious extremism, but fundamentalism exists within science as well. When scientific opinion hardens into dogma it becomes scientism, which is essentially a secular faith and no longer science. Galileo was persecuted by the Inquisition, but in modern times the main opposition to new scientific ideas has derived not from religious orthodoxies but from other scientists for whom contemporary opinion established the limits of the possible.
Consider in this light the question of post-mortem survival. The notion that aspects of mind and personality survive bodily death is central to the world’s great religions yet scorned as impossible by present-day establishment science. But few participants in this contentious debate have any inkling that there exists a large scientific literature collectively suggesting that at least some of us, under largely unknown conditions and for some unknown period of time, do in fact survive. The primary threat to this interpretation, ironically, has nothing to do with the quality of the evidence—problems of fraud, credulity, errors of observation or memory, and the like—but with the difficulty of excluding non-survivalist interpretations based solely upon supernormal (‘psi’-based or parapsychological) processes involving living persons. The voluminous evidence for such processes includes both spontaneous cases and experimental studies, and in my opinion has long since passed the threshold where competent persons who take the trouble to study it in depth and with an open mind will routinely conclude that these things exist as facts of nature. Indeed, future generations of historians, philosophers, and sociologists will undoubtedly make a good living trying to understand why it took so long for scientists in general to accept this conclusion.
(Via Mindful Hack.)
Roe v Wade: 35 years of legal baby killing: "
'In short, I am moderately 'pro-choice.''
I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view. Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go as far as supporting mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even non-judgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist. I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity--not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately 'pro-choice.'
[Dr. Robert P. George is George McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, a graduate of Harvard Law School, and earned his doctorate in philosophy of law at Oxford University. He currently sits on the President's Council of Bioethics and is author of numerous books on constitutional law and jurisprudence. Just in case anyone is still wondering, the foregoing statement is not intended to be taken at face value, but as a parody and reductio ad absurdum refutation of the fallacious reasoning employed pervasively by proponents of a 'pro-choice' position favoring 'abortion rights.' I offer this explanation not to insult the reader's intelligence, but only because of having learned the importance of covering one's bases: several years ago, I heard that when the faculty, staff, and students of a Lutheran college received emails containing George's quotation, a President's cabinet meeting was called to address the issue, and, the dean of students, frantic to ensure the institution's political correctness, sent out a follow-up message indicating that the views of the original email did not reflect the views of the institution and that the college did not endorse the killing of abortionists! Well guess what? Neither do I or Bobby George! This isn't rocket science.]
by Mario Beauregard, Ph.D. & Denyse O'Leary. Excellent! Hope to finish it tonight so I can get back to studying. Cimabue, Giotto and van Eyck are waiting for me.
Human Rights vs. Free Speech: "
David Warren at Real Clear Politics has a very good article on Canada’s ‘human rights commissions,’ which put people on trial for saying things that these human rights commissions dislike. That’s a bit glib, but only a bit. Ezra Levant published the Danish cartoons on the Prophet Mohammed to show his readers that all the fuss was overblown. He is now on trial before an Alberta human rights tribunal. Catholic Insight, a monthly magazine published in Toronto, is being prosecuted by a man in Edmonton for upholding the Church’s teaching on marriage and homosexual behavior. Even if he differs with the content or tone of such publications, an American can be grateful for the freedom of speech. Not so for Canadians, it would appear. Warren describes the situation as follows:
There are other meandering cases in the works, or that were in the works, often against Internet website owners or the contributors to their online forums. It is almost impossible to get clear information about these. In the notification process, the recipient of a human rights complaint need not be told who the complainant is, or what he is alleging. The recipient is just left to guess for a while, as the bureaucratic machinery of quasi-legal ‘justice’ proceeds at its glacial pace. Truth and rumours become hard to distinguish in this kafkaesque environment.
These human rights commissions are worth keeping an eye on. Though a healthy respect for the freedom of speech exists in most of America, let us hope that these ‘human rights’ commissions can be quarantined and eliminated in Canada lest they spread south.
"(Via First Things.)
that I was vaguely remembering was the tv version. P.D. James is a brilliant writer. I'm glad I read this one.
Communion and Liberation on Sapienza's Cretinous Move to Shout Down Benedict in...: "Communion and Liberation on Sapienza's Cretinous Move to Shout Down Benedict in the Name of Freedom of Thought
It's' best that the nice people at CL write these things, cuz I would just issue a press release titled 'Academic Black Shirts on the March!', call them a bunch of goose-stepping fascistic maroons, and be done with it."
(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)
Biggest story breaks, Media no where to be seen: "
It’s been a busy few days since my ‘human rights’ interrogation on Friday afternoon. As of yesterday, the video clips I uploaded were viewed nearly 200,000 times, making them the 5th most watched ‘channel’ on YouTube. I’d like to thank the blogosphere for covering a story that has been under-reported by the mainstream media, and I’d like to thank generous visitors for their financial support for our legal defence via PayPal. (Ezra Levant.com)
Yet another shining example of how useless and irrelevant the mainstream media is given their ‘coverage’ of it. All I have to say is thank the Lord for the internet. It’s a sobering thought to think where freedom loving people would be without it. It’s not surprising that the Commission sought to restrict Ezra’s video postings of their steroid pumped, Rodney King like ‘can’t-we-all-just-get-along’ court.
Yet another disaster and embarassment for these chumps. Why do they even bother calling themselves journalists? After a while the label gets a little tiring and hard to believe.
"(Via SoCon Or Bust.)
by Anne Perry is set in Victorian England with some characters from her other murder mysteries set in that era. The protagonist, a cantankerous Grandmama, solves the mystery and grows a not a little in doing so. by Martha Grimes also uses an established character, Richard Jury of Scotland Yard. Several murders over the snow-bound days leading to Christmas are solved by Jury and his friend Melrose Plant. by P.D. James, my favourite mystery writer. Unfortunately, I have the distinct feeling of dèjá vu reading this. Either this is the second time around or there was a tv adaptation. Never mind, I can't remember who did it or how it was solved. Old age has it's compensations...
Posts
All Comments
"Thinking with the Church begins with thinking"
Father Richard Neuhaus
