Punditry

When D.G.D. Davidson does get around to updating his blog the Sci Fi Catholic it is usually worth waiting for. His latest post Science Fiction and Religion is a case in point.

Over at Grasping for the Wind, Steve Davidson, who may or may not be my evil twin (or maybe I’m his evil twin, bwahaha) has an essay entitled “Science Fiction and Religion, a Marriage NOT Made in Heaven, Nor Even the Laboratory.” That title could lose at least four or five words without harm, but never mind that. Davidson’s argument is that science fiction absolutely must be written by atheists, and must either ignore religion or attack it, or it is not science fiction.

Ah yes the Atheist-Puritans. Don’t want any foul theists polluting the genre. While it is certainly true that so many of the Grand Masters in SF have been atheists or at least secularists it is hard to imagine the number of great books in the genre that would have to be excluded by this definition of science fiction. I guess we should blacklist those who do not conform to this standard and cull the Hugo awardees that dared to be theists and write SF.  It would be equally ridiculous if I decided to read only SF and other books if they were written by theists. I would miss out on so much great storytelling if I did such a foolish thing.  When I read fiction it does not mean that I have to buy into any of the underlying philosophy and I can enjoy a well-written story even as I note those errors. But the Atheist-Puritans or the so-called new atheists demand a ritual purity when it comes to religion – unclean – unclean.  Isaac Asimov was quite upfront about his atheism, but he was no jerk about it.  I think ole Asimov who was my first love as a reader would have also found such blog posts quite odd.  The more I think about the term Atheist-Puritans the more apt I think my term is – that is if somebody else hasn’t already coined it.  To upend the quote of another atheist H. L. Mencken:

Athiestic-Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy being a theist.

The Atheist-Puritan goes through life being offended at roadside crosses, religious symbols in government seals, Christmas Trees, and any decoration or ornament that points to belief in God. And with SF being the scriptures for some atheists of course doctrinal purity must be maintained.

Anyway just go and read  post Science Fiction and Religion.

Atheist trolls are so perceptive.

Earlier today I tweeted “TGIF, Though I thank God for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday Also!”

In reply someone tweeted “why not thank the tooth fairy instead?”

I really appreciate the fact that someone out there is scrubbing Twitter in search of references to God and replying to individuals they don’t know with such important information.

Wow, I never before made the connection between mythical creatures and belief in God. I am devastated – I will have to totally rethink this belief in God thing. After 40 years of atheism how did I miss that connection when I became Catholic. If only he could have tweeted that then and saved me so much annoyances like repenting and all that. After all throughout history people have had equal belief in both God and the Tooth Fairy. Earlier hunter-gatherers after they made up “god” to explain everything followed this up by also inventing the tooth fairy to explain away what to do with children’s teeth. It is a little know fact that after St. Thomas Aquinas went on to to describe five ways of knowing God in the Summa Theologica he then wrote about the  ways of knowing about the existence of Tooth Fairies.

Objection 1. It seems that the Tooth Fairy does not exist because no one has ever seen one and it is quite an improbable creature.

Objection 2. There is inequality in the amount that children receive in monetary compensation for placing their baby teeth underneath their pillow.

On the contrary, The Tooth Fairy exists.

I answer that, Since I already believe in God than subsequently I must believe in all mythical creatures equally with no degrees of discernment whatsoever.

Over at John C. Wright’s blog “A reader I hope is young and not being serious asks:”

Let me get this straight: you, a presumably rational individual who writes science fiction stories for a living, sincerely believes that the creator of our 13.7 billion year-old universe of 70 sextillion stars magically impregnated a human female about 2000 years ago – a woman who then gave birth to a son named Jesus who performed miracles, rose from the dead and served as the creator’s messenger to humanity?

This might make for a mildly interesting, if outlandish, science fiction story, but the source of your belief system? If you’re going to base your life philosophy on absurd myths, why not choose something a bit more interesting? Why not master the Dark Side of the Force or the Golden Path, becoming a Sith Lord or a God-Emperor and strive to rule a Galaxy? Why choose something as ridiculous and wretched as Christianity? I must admit I am rather perplexed…

John C. Wright replies to him in much less snarky tones than would be my initial response to a question put that way. He describes how his conversion from atheism involved a miracle and that of course the response from his atheist friends was basically “Since miracles can’t occur because my philosophy tells me so, no evidence to the contrary be be entertained.”

I then discovered that the Christian world view makes sense of much that the atheistic or agnostic worldview cannot make sense of, and even on its own philosophical terms, is a more robust explanation of the cosmos and man’s place in it, answering many questions successfully that atheists both claim cannot be answered, and then, without admitting it, act in their lives as if the question were answered, such as how to account for the rational faculties of man, the universality of moral principles, the order of the cosmos, how best to live, etc.

At one time I would have used the same level of sarcasm and perplexity about any atheist who became a Christian. My reaction in regards to believers was to pity them for not living a life of reason as I did. The fact that my worldview undermined reason and that I unreasonably expected intelligibility in my atheistic philosophy had not yet occurred to me. My later investigation into Christianity and ultimately the truth of the Catholic Church came first off from the gift of faith which subsequently opened up my intellect to confirm what the gift of faith had given me.

After decades of atheism my newborn faith in God both filled me with joy and  seriously scared me. You might say it scared the hell into me since previously I believed in no such thing. Faith for a lifetime atheist is a scary thing. For one thing you are always testing the claims of faith or at least this was so in much case. I constantly asked myself “am I deceiving myself”? How can I put aside a lifetime of belief for something I could not prove by empirical means? The roller coaster of both faith and having to wait for your intellect to catch up is unnerving to say the least. So I read everything I could get my hands on both to grow in faith and perhaps to find that fatal flaw to faith so I could go back to my old ways. I only wish religion was a crutch and an opiate. Actually acknowledging and repenting of your sins is no fun at all. Each day you wake up and know that repentance is not a one time action and requires growing in virtue and avoiding the occasion of sin. Not exactly my idea of an opiate. As Julie of Happy Catholic quoted in her book “Drinking beer is easy. Trashing your hotel room is easy. But being a Christian, that’s a tough call. That’s rebellion.” – Alice Cooper. If I was going to have faith why couldn’t it be a religion where I believed in some mythical creature and didn’t have to change any aspect of my life?

That roller coaster of both faith and serious difficulties in understanding my faith was thankfully relatively short lived. “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.” – Blessed John Henry Newman. As I started to read more philosophy and apologetics these difficulties via the use of reason diminished. I will always be thankful for the “Handbook of Christian Apologetics” by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald K. Tacelli in that I first really found that not only was the Christian faith reasonable, but that reason itself was not something you left behind. I came more and more to see the symphonic nature of truth in how it multiples itself in every aspect and what seemed to be congruent truths were weaved together in a coherent tapestry for me to investigate. In the last 13 years I have rejoiced in exploring that complex tapestry and to see more details in those threads. This does not mean you never again have difficulties and questions since both the believer and the nonbeliever will always have a tension in the thought “what if I am mistaken?”. Only total arrogance can eliminate such a tension.

So while ultimately atheism is not a coherent philosophy, people are more than the philosophy they might believe. I once pitied believers, but as far as atheists go I only pray that they receive at the minimum the gifts I have received and that they are much less hard-headed than I was.

If I have one regret (leaving aside a thousand failings as a person, husband, grandfather, great-grandfather and friend — and my lazy, slapdash, selfish attitude as an actor) it would be that I didn’t take the decision to become a Catholic in my early twenties. That would have sorted out a lot of my life and sweetened it. (p. 560) — Alec Guinness: The Authorised Biography

WASHINGTON — Health-insurance plans must provide birth control and surgical sterilization as “preventive care” for women, with no co-pays, according to a directive issued Monday by the Department of Health and Human Services.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, pro-life groups and religious-freedom advocates immediately criticized the Aug. 1 decision, expressing alarm about its narrow exemptions for religious groups, and calling on supporters to back a bill before Congress that would strengthen exemptions for employers who oppose surgical sterilizations and contraception.
“Although this new rule gives the agency the discretion to authorize a ‘religious’ exemption, it is so narrow as to exclude most Catholic social-service agencies and health-care providers,” said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, archbishop of Galveston-Houston and chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities. [Source]

Plus of course there is no religious exemption for the individual Catholic who objects to this. With this directive being issued this will pretty much wipe out any health insurance plans that doesn’t yet have this paid for as an option. So much for people being able to shop around for a plan that suit their needs.

As a military retiree in the Tricare system it doesn’t change anything for me since unfortunately the military was already providing pretty much any form of birth control to active duty members along with surgical sterilization’s. Amazing what the taxpayer gets a bill for.

Iv’e seen headlines about “free” contraceptives showing once again the economic ignorance of many. Do people really think that plans that don’t yet pay for this are just going to absorb the coverage? No once again the Obama administration is finding more ways to mandate coverage and force increases to health care costs. If I was a cynic I would think they were doing this on purpose to make people more open to socialist medicine – oh wait I am a cynic.

Though it is a rather safe political move since while some conservatives will object on big government grounds, there is not much actual opposition to contraception and sterilization. Of course even among Catholics that is unfortunately accurate.

Good thing that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is a Catholic – oh wait.

Case in point, Gov. Rick Perry on New York’s same-sex marriage law.

Perry, who is considering running for president, at a forum in Colorado on Friday called himself an “unapologetic social conservative” and said he opposes gay marriage — but that he’s also a firm believer in the 10th Amendment, the Associated Press reported.

“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me,” he said to applause from several hundred GOP donors in Aspen, the AP reported.

“That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.” [Source]

An argument that was also used when it came to slavery. While generally the concept is correct when it comes to state right’s it does not mean that a state has license to pass what they may. An unjust law is no law at all and New York’s law can be objected to based on the natural law. These types of distinctions are very important and I would have serious reservations about anybody who could not make the correct distinction here. Though to tell the truth I already has serious reservations about Gov. Perry and in fact the whole slate of president wannabes. If New York instituted a form of Romneycare, Obamacare, etc than certainly that would be the state’s right. Redefining marriage is not within the prerogative of any state.

Finally got to watch this movie last night on Blu-Ray via Netflix.

This is a French movie based on a true story of a monastery in Algiers and the men of the monastery and their working with the local Muslim village.  This movie is based on John Kiser’s prize winning book, The Monks of Tibhirine: Faith, Love and Terror in Algeria ( St Martin’s Press)

I had read great reviews of this movie and was not disappointed in any way.  Just pitch perfect – maybe the best movie addressing Catholic themes ever.  The pace of the story in not forced and it gradually unfolds as you see the day to day life of the monks and their interactions in caring for the local folks.  Ora et Labora (Pray and Work) has never been illustrated this well outside of the documentary “Into Great Silence.”

The intrusion of Radical Islam into their lives is what sets the counterbalance to their lives.  Their silence is interrupted by the gong of violence.  There are so many wonderful scenes that illustrate this as first a disquiet is found in the monastery which is later replaced by the Peace of Christ.  One scene which is an obvious parallel to the Last Supper is just superb and not overdone.  A story of martyrdom in the St. Thomas More vein since neither More or these monks looked for martyrdom, but just wanted to be faithful.

The acting was excellent and each monk was a character of his own – especially the elderly monk.  This is just filming at its finest with all the art of the professional.  If only Christian filmmaking could learn a lesson from this film and it should make many Christian filmmakers blush in comparison.  When I see the phrase “From the producers of Fireproof” I cringe knowing that here comes another movie with good intentions, Christian worldview, and horrible art.

I do wonder how this movie ever got made and the force behind it.  The movie was just profound on several levels and a great presentation of the Catholic faith that got so many things right and certainly induced a tear to two from me.

Bravo!

Review from Decentfilms.com

There are many words and phrases I have come to despise or at least dislike to some degree.  Some phrases though have a rather pleasant exterior but not always the best of consequences.

The phrase lately to have annoyed me is “Soul Mates.”  This is rather a nicely romantic term and on the surface not much more than that.  A term used by a lot of people, though it does tickle my metaphysical funny bone when atheists talk of soul mates.  This is also a term used within Catholic circles and I am certainly not condemning those who use it.

What annoys me about the term is the thinking behind it.  When taken as sort of a romantic idea it certainly has it’s appeal.  It is just amazing that so many people find their soul mates within distance of where they work, go out, etc.  Luckily for us our soul mates seems to be rarely on the other side of the world from us. It also seems to me to have a bit of Calvinistic tinge to it in predetermination of people who are to be  soul mates.  God outside of time  who sees time as the eternal now sees who our spouses are to be, but we still have total free will as to that.

But what if you are married and are having difficulties and buy the idea of soul mates.  Do you then go in searching for your soul mate since things haven’t worked out?  Or go through a string of marriages in pursuit of that soul mate?  We already have a culture of when things get difficult, try and try again – but with somebody else of course.  Or what if your soul mate dies?  Can you have multiple soul mates?

Maybe what annoys me most is that love is an act of the will not some predestined bonding.  There are certainly issues concerning compatibility and other points,  But even romantic love is an act of the will, an act of the will that must be repeated.  Nobody really falls out of love,  they have fallen in their will to love.  For those with a vocation to marriage who they marry will be determined by multiple factors including accidental ones along with things like personality, etc.

On the other hand at least soul mate includes an understanding beyond just materialism that we indeed do have a soul.  The term also signals the exclusivity of the natural law understanding of marriage.  The term as a romantic idea and not metaphysical one  is probably harmless – but thinking the idea through just annoys me.  Maybe also the idea of soul mates annoys me since after my grandfather died my grandmother later remarried to another good man.  Her second husband was one of her high school boyfriends and she often joked about getting to marry both of her high school sweethearts.  Wow two soul mates in one high school class. Again though, I am probably overacting and people just use the term in the romantic sense – but as a blogger I am duty-bound to write out my annoyances.  Just part of the contract.

Sometime you just got to let a story breath first before commenting.

A new and intriguing prospect for the Crystal Cathedral emerged Wednesday when the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange said it was considering buying the bankrupt church in Garden Grove and converting it to a Catholic cathedral.

The announcement by Orange Bishop Tod Brown came one day after Chapman University made a $46-million bid for the 40-acre site. The Crystal Cathedral had earlier reached a tentative agreement for a sale and lease-back deal with a real estate developer, subject to approval by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Kwan. [Source]

Obviously Bishop Tod Brown in his last year as bishop has wondered just what he could get for the incoming bishop.  Though I can imagine the incoming bishop saying “Thank you, but you shouldn’t have. I mean you really shouldn’t have”  I guess Bishop Brown was just having crystal envy from Oakland’s Cathedral.  Though pursuing Robert Shuller sounds more like an idea conceived using crystal meth.

The Cathedral of Christ the Light come under the direction of Bishop John Cummins and dedicated under Bishop Vigneron and I really feel for Bishop Salvatore J. Cordileone who is stuck with it today.

Though I guess there is an upside if the they acquire the Crystal Cathedral.  There could advertise hour blocks of Eucharistic Adoration as  the “Hour of Power” – well maybe not.   It does though have one of the largest piper organs in the world – which I am sure the bishop would strip out and replace with a piano.

I have it on good authority that the Crystal Cathedral is not the only building they are pursuing to use as a Cathedral.  In fact I hear there are talks with Superman to acquire the Fortress of Solitude if it happens to be within the geographical bounds of the Diocese of Orange California.

Oh well, as a palette cleanser look at the propose new Cathedral of Pristina – now that is more like it.

I believe Mark Shea has said in the past something to the effect that for now the Church is (rightly) attacked for cover up of pedophiles and later she will be attacked for condemning pedophilia.

Well in the first step of normalizing pedophilia.

Torchwood: Miracle Day will include a pedophile character whom audiences are supposed to like.

No, I am not kidding.

Yes, we should tar and feather every BBC writer and executive and actor who goes along with this. And I don’t mean that figuratively, since they apparently think they should literally rape our childhoods and our children. [Via Aliens in this World]

I’ve been meaning to post this video having seen it around and most recently at Happy Catholic.

It would have been more enjoyable without the vulgar language.

The Pertinacious Papist had commented on this.

The most telling thing, of course, is how little either of them actually seem to know about Catholicism, sad to say. For example, Jack White says at one point that person conceived in the Immaculate Conception was Jesus, and Colbert says at another point that the Virgin Mary’s mother was Elizabeth. Ah well … all in the name of entertainment.

And I would add Colbert got the question on instances of Papal Infallibility wrong also. It has not only happened twice, it also happens with canonization of saints. Though many get this wrong.

Now I am a fan of Jack White, musically at least, owning everything he has done – White Stripes, The Raconteurs, The Dead Weather. But cultural Catholicism doesn’t much impress me.