Out for Memorial Day

If you are reading this....knock it off and enjoy today.  Seriously.  What I write is not important enough for you to waste your day off reading it.  Go outside.

Happy Memorial Day!

Sincerely,
The Management

Quick note

I have turned moderation back on not because of evil comments but I can't find a way to get notification about when a comment is posted.  Until I do I would like to know when someone comments on this blog.  Feel fee to comment provided that the comment matches the criteria in the sidebar.

Thanks,
The Management

Why be good?

This question seems to confuse a number of material atheists I've encountered during my online forays.  A more complete question would be, "What is the purpose of doing good?  Why not be evil?"  Most of the time I encounter one of three responses:

1. Doing good helps society
2. The atheist would feel bad doing evil
3. The atheist responds with snark, as if doing evil is for some reason not even a consideration

For the first this simply kicks the question down the road.  Why help society, which is simply a rehash of the "doing good" question?  Doing good for goodness sake may sound admirable, but really doesn't make sense when one thinks about it.

I would be remiss if I did not mention at least one continuation of this first response.  Usually the response is that benefiting society in return benefits the individual.  It amounts to a mutual benefit relationship with society at large.  There is more to say about this response.  But in fairness I put it out there.

The second actually raises more questions than provides answers.  Why would one feel bad about doing "wrong?"  How do we know our feelings correspond to right and wrong?  One can feel bad about doing something good, and conversely feed good about doing something bad.  Other questions such as "why not embrace misery?" and "what about sociopaths, who have no trouble doing wrong or feeling about doing wrong?" show that simply feeling bad is insufficient for a compelling moral ethic.

The third one is usually an indication that the other person is not (at the moment) capable of rationally examining his moral viewpoint.  This is actually the most dangerous place for a mind to be.  It illustrates not only an arbitrary stance regarding moral principles but also an inability to see beyond one's own moral precepts.  In such a state, the mind is impervious to correction.  

What all of these responses illustrate though is that there is a considerable lack of a coherent and consistent moral philosophy for the materialist atheist.  But this only makes sense, as the materialist atheist holds that there really isn't anything special about the human person.  Which is why morality becomes little more than one's personal preferences.

This is not to say that atheist materialists are not moralists as well.  Anyone can read Richard Dawkins condemnations of Christianity (he would say religion, but there really is only one he attacks) to see that atheists are just as judgmental as the average Bible-Thumper.  But the thing is that there isn't anything behind the curtain of moral outrage.  The moral condemnations are based off of principles that have no real grounding beyond what the critic holds at a given moment.

In order to have a coherent moral philosophy we must have a proper understanding of the human person.  In a future post we will look at the Catholic viewpoint and how though the view of the moral person we arrive at a consistent and coherent moral outlook.

Wow!

Totally forgot to post my article from IGNITUM TODAY!

I blame my new laptop.   My wonderful, beautiful laptop.

IGNITUM Wednesday

once again.  Check this space tomorrow for my article.

Thanks,
The Management

Breaking...

looks like Catholic America is suing the Obama Administration.

Internet Citations

One of the more irritating aspects of the internet is that it encourages laziness.  The particular symptom of this laziness which I'm about to go on a rant is the non-citation citation.  Or the linking without citation.

Normally when linking on a blog post, comment, or forum; citations are often important as the link may be to a general article of which only a specific section of said link is actually relevant to the discussion at hand.  The article may be interesting in and of itself, but also contains much information that specifically speaking is not pertinent to the discussion.

 I love internet debates as much as the next obsessive/compulsive arguer.  It's a wonder my wife hasn't divorced me yet for all the times I argue with her. I enjoy information exchange through contrast.

But I'm a busy guy.  I have things that I have to do and things I want to do.  Others are in the same camp.  The internet is a wonderful tool, but we still have to be sure that we respect the time of others.

For example, I recently participated in a discussion where the subject came up about homosexuality's supposed permanence.  Yet this was the link I was given.  A wall of text.  Now it MIGHT support the idea of homosexuality as a permanent condition, but who knows?  The link is so broad that it may or may not even touch the subject.  (And as a not so minor note, I trust Wikipedia for controversial topics about as far as I can throw my apartment complex).  The interlocutor might as well have linked here for all the good it does his argument.

Links are great, but do not an argument make.  Proper citation is what is needed.  Blockquote the relevant information from the article, with a link to the source.  It really isn't hard.

The citations are important for two reasons:

1. It helps to support the actual argument
2. It demonstrates that the linked source is actual relevant to the discussion

Citations show a control over content.  It presents a focused mind and the ability to provide relevant information to the discussion at hand.  This is especially important in internet discussions, as linking is so easy and information is so accessible.  But making sure that information is relevant and showing that the information is being processed properly is just as important.

So the next time you link an article, do the world a favor and quote some relevant portion.  Saves quite a bit of time and frustration.