Read the article here.
Let me begin by saying I'm not surprised to see an article come out on this subject and to come out so soon, for people realize that when there's a fire in one's own kitchen, you better try to put it out quick. Atheism 3.0 is a division within the atheist camp (over whether religion is the enemy New Atheism touts it be, or not) and the last thing atheists want to division within their ranks, the need to have to defend their positions even against their own, and for the platform where they have kept their high horse to be taken from them and controlled by others.
This being said, let me simply address the issue Dacy raises in his post under the header "A secular conversation-starter". He states "I don't go after God. Why go after God when you can come before him? I argue that the free individual conscience comes first, before God, before society. Conscience cannot be found in duty to God, for it is conscience that must judge where one's duty lies. The commitment to the free conscience, and to the open society that makes space for it--this is secularism." In response, I point out that by asserting that conscience comes before God, Dacey falsely presumes that man is not subject to God to begin with. While one might argue either way, let examine Dacey's claim. If man's conscience is "free" as Dacey puts it, then 1) Man could be free to "do anything", 2) Society would be wrong to condemn man if indeed his conscience comes "before society", 3) Man should not be subject to consequences (though he is), 4) There's no need for secularism to be committed to standing for the "free conscience" if indeed the conscience is free. Besides this, is the conscience equipped with it's own irrefutable and unquestionable foundation and basis for morality and ethics? If not, then one must follow the line of questioning of where such a standard comes from, and where that comes from, etc. It seems, Dacey makes the same mistake of others in the past who falsely suggest that man is in a position to be the ultimate arbiter of truth and morality and who want men to live and do as he sees fit in his own eyes.
It's a good thing secularists are not the ones running the bookstore, or you might find the philosophy and science sections trying to be their own bookstore(s)which stand on their own, but soon being found to be bankrupt!
Let me begin by saying I'm not surprised to see an article come out on this subject and to come out so soon, for people realize that when there's a fire in one's own kitchen, you better try to put it out quick. Atheism 3.0 is a division within the atheist camp (over whether religion is the enemy New Atheism touts it be, or not) and the last thing atheists want to division within their ranks, the need to have to defend their positions even against their own, and for the platform where they have kept their high horse to be taken from them and controlled by others.
This being said, let me simply address the issue Dacy raises in his post under the header "A secular conversation-starter". He states "I don't go after God. Why go after God when you can come before him? I argue that the free individual conscience comes first, before God, before society. Conscience cannot be found in duty to God, for it is conscience that must judge where one's duty lies. The commitment to the free conscience, and to the open society that makes space for it--this is secularism." In response, I point out that by asserting that conscience comes before God, Dacey falsely presumes that man is not subject to God to begin with. While one might argue either way, let examine Dacey's claim. If man's conscience is "free" as Dacey puts it, then 1) Man could be free to "do anything", 2) Society would be wrong to condemn man if indeed his conscience comes "before society", 3) Man should not be subject to consequences (though he is), 4) There's no need for secularism to be committed to standing for the "free conscience" if indeed the conscience is free. Besides this, is the conscience equipped with it's own irrefutable and unquestionable foundation and basis for morality and ethics? If not, then one must follow the line of questioning of where such a standard comes from, and where that comes from, etc. It seems, Dacey makes the same mistake of others in the past who falsely suggest that man is in a position to be the ultimate arbiter of truth and morality and who want men to live and do as he sees fit in his own eyes.
It's a good thing secularists are not the ones running the bookstore, or you might find the philosophy and science sections trying to be their own bookstore(s)which stand on their own, but soon being found to be bankrupt!
Comments
Post a Comment