Monday, April 25, 2011

Rationalism, Passions, and the Cloak of Intellectualism Farce

I was watching the video that Jon Rowe linked below about George Washington and reading his post about David Barton a few minutes ago. Both inspired a comment that I think, once again, I should share on the main page:

I think all on this site agree that Barton has outlived his usefulness in the "Christian Nation" discussion. With that said, I have to agree with Tom that most of what he, and others that work with him, have written is correct and at worst debatable. He has harmed his own cause by clinging on to irrelevant nonsense that has been soundly refuted. It seems that he is in a pissing contest with his critics and we all know that no one wins a pissing contest.


BUTTTTTTTT

I will have to continue to point out that the pot is calling the kettle black in that a group of supposed rationalists seem to be just as blinded by their passions and have turned from truly intellectual discussion and resorted to spewing venom and activism as well. Ben states that Barton is an activist not a Historian. I agree. However, I would add that the rationalist crowd are activists not intellectuals. In other words, they need to stop cloaking themselves in the intellectual garb that they feel allows them to dismiss the "idiot" Christians.

For the most part they take on the chaff of Barton's argument and ignore the wheat. It is honestly pathetic. My hope is that they live up to what they claim to be and begin to tackle the wheat. That is to say at the very least. I will lose my sincere disappointment in otherwise brilliant people(not the rabble that worships them but really do not have a clue) when they tackle the best of the Christian World like Brian Tierney, not the low hanging fruit.

The anti-Barton movement needs to watch the video Jon posted on George Washington. He, and other founders, were very leery of men whose passions overruled their reason. It all starts with the man in the mirror and I know I have allowed my passions to override my reason at inappropriate times and have discredited myself in some ways as well. Here is to all of us committing to raise the level of discussion. That is if we really want to get to the bottom of this whole American Creation thing?

5 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

Not bad. It would be good to correct the spacing and fix the misspelling in the title. [Then delete this.]

Jonathan Rowe said...

Glad you like the Jeff Morrison video; I saw it had only 5 views on YouTube and I felt I had to post it.

I plan on responding to this stuff, but slowly as the week goes on. Swamped at work. Have more time on the weekends (as I do this stuff for fun & leisure).

Joe Winpisinger said...

"Not bad. It would be good to correct the spacing and fix the misspelling in the title. [Then delete this.]"

Why would I want to delete it?

Joe Winpisinger said...

Jon,

At your leisure.

Jonathan Rowe said...

A passing observation: Like the stuff on the passions. Seneca was a good source of "Stoic self help." The FFs used Providential theism and Stoicism to sustain them. Something has to sustain you when facing death on the battlefield or deaths of young children from infectious diseases.

I have, for personal reasons, concluded that acting or reacting in emotional states -- the fight or flight states, states of intimidation or anger -- gets us into trouble and is the wrong way to live. (Reacting in anger is more likely to get you into trouble; reacting in intimidation is problematic for other reasons; it doesn't get you into trouble as much but stunts your potential.) If everyone does this, it's a universal failure of human nature (like original sin), not a universal excuse.