Visionaries,
Finally! Someone understands! Of course, it is my son who understands, one who knows my quirks, like believing in right and wrong, not in mostly right and kinda wrong, but nevertheless I am encouraged to persevere.
Cordially,
Douglas Wilson
At 10:58 PM 8/19/2003 Nate wrote:
In my years on this mortal coil, there is only one person whom I have known to have the patience of Job. It’s a handy trait in any walk of life, but is especially helpful for such a locally-loved pastor. For the last year or so, or however long its been that my father has been sticking his oar in this particular puddle of vision, I have continued to be amazed, once again, at my father’s patience. It’s not as if he profits from any of this, but for some reason he continues his interaction, covering the same philosophical ground repeatedly, and somehow still enjoying you all, and the interaction. I grow impatient much more quickly, am surprised at the continual fog that passes for secular orthodoxy, and leave despairing. He expects the fog, and does not despair. He laughs and answers the same questions over again, only to have his answers once again dismissed with such deadly repartees as “Logic? I think not.” or equivalent responses. Folks that he somehow still finds amusing, and manages to enjoy, then poo-poo him because that’s what they’re supposed to do. I wonder to myself “Are any of these people thinking?” (Note to Mr. Courtney: Could you provide a graph with projected cognitive ability among visionaries? Is there a correlation with government education? A pie chart would be nice.) and yet he is patient.
I don’t think anyone has taken more abuse in this little arena than my father, and I don’t think anyone could be less affected by it. And so we come to the latest lap in the same old race: Philosophical foundations of morality, specifically in regard to homosexuals. I happen to watch, again, as my father wrote in a basic question about moral epistemology, only using much smaller words, and received the same old responses that pass for interaction in these circles. And I can’t help it, I have to try. “Maybe this time they will see it,” I tell myself. My Eeyore heart says otherwise, but I will try regardless. I will speak louder and slower, like an American in Paris, in the hopes that something, be it ever so small, might sink in. Of course I run a great risk attempting this. I might be told that it is hot outside, and mommy doesn’t have time for me. That’s always a dangerous rebuttal. Others will chose other ways to attempt to dismiss me. They might try to pat me on my wee head, compare me to a dog, and ask if I have other tricks. That one’s used a lot in Philosophy of Religion departments around the country, originally credited to Plantinga of course. These are all dangers that I am willing to risk, and I need to learn patience. This, simple, well-ennunciated foreign language explanation is about personal betterment, striving after patience, etc. Not that it will help.
My father is against murder. Also racism, rape, torture, unlawful wars, etc. The funny thing is. . . he knows why he’s against them. He has faith in an ultimate and absolute Goodness. To simplify: these things are bad because God made the world, He is good, and He hates these things. They are against His nature, contrary to His will, and thus, these things will sicken any faithful Christian. Now anyone can feel free to get all excited here, scoot to the front of their desk chair and twiddle their fingers in the air in the hopes of asking a sticky question about the Problem of Evil (PoE). Despite the fact that the discussion would be awfully interesting and highly intelligent, that’s not what this is about. The point is this: When my father says something is evil, it means more than personal dislike. The Christian believes that the murder of a Wyoming homosexual is wicked, not as a matter of his own likes or dislikes. It is wicked because an authoritative, all-good, Creator God hates it. How primitive. Rape is bad because God said so. “Who’s He think He is?” you ask. Well, God. He did make the place.
But before those of you who want to giggle snicker too much, let’s move on to the relativistic (secular orthodoxy) paradigm. This, if I say so myself, is one dumb worldview. There can be no absolutes in this world. Absolutes are against the rules. All of them. Absolutely all absolutes are fallacious. But I digress already. People who are moral relativists are in a bind. Murdering homosexuals is bad. Killing your English teacher, shooting classmates, etc. These are all off limits. But here’s the kicker. . . why? Is it because anyone in authority said so? Or is your morality based on nothing more than what you personally are comfortable with? Ah, society has spoken has it? You want to go with Kant and the old greatest good for the greatest number bit? That’s the ethics of gang rape, and all the picking on minorities that filled our yesteryears. If you can’t say why a thing is wrong, then you have no right to say anything more than “I don’t personally like it,” and the rapist can say “Who the hell are you?” Epistemological foundations are necessary. As depressing as that might be.
Well, I’m off to paint the baseboards before my next my second offshoot gets borned (due 9-11). No doubt the next forty-five minutes of labor will reap greater fruit than the last. But remember, it was all about me, and personal betterment. Perhaps now I’m a little more patient, a little more like Pooh. Cheers.
NDW
Apologetics in the Void” are repostings from an on-going electronic discussion and debate I had some time ago with members of our local community, whose names I have changed. The list serve is called Vision 20/20, and hence the name “visionaries.” Reading just these posts probably feels like listening to one half of a phone conversation, but I don’t feel at liberty to publish what others have written. But I have been editing these posts (lightly) with intelligibility in mind.