tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4633281582734103224..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Robert P. Hunt on Leo Strauss IIBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20491863615884408522010-08-11T11:07:33.842-06:002010-08-11T11:07:33.842-06:00"It is my understanding that secularism arous..."It is my understanding that secularism arouse out of the desire to discuss in a doctrine neutral language. Ironically, the more venomous "secularists" would go beyond language and apply the policy to thought. In hoping to purge the world of ignorance and fundamentalism, they join the fundamentalists in intolerance :-(<br /><br /><br />=<br /><br /><br />The Culture Wars<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Very well put Ben.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17184157373591255962010-08-11T07:50:54.962-06:002010-08-11T07:50:54.962-06:00Re: "I understand that for some Protestants t...Re: "<i>I understand that for some Protestants the concerns of the next world are paramount and faith alone saves, but if you want some input into this world, you gotta speak the other guy's language, not just yours.</i>"<br /><br />It is my understanding that <i>secularism</i> arouse out of the desire to discuss in a doctrine neutral language. Ironically, the more <i>venomous</i> "secularists" would go beyond <i>language</i> and apply the policy to <i>thought</i>. In hoping to purge the world of ignorance and fundamentalism, they join the fundamentalists in intolerance :-(<br /><br />I'm confident, in the long run, that constructive cooperation will win out over divisive rhetoric, and that both secular discussion / expression and religious conviction / inspiration will play necessary roles in that success.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53877709566954197582010-08-11T04:42:36.931-06:002010-08-11T04:42:36.931-06:00"I understand that for some Protestants the c..."I understand that for some Protestants the concerns of the next world are paramount and faith alone saves, but if you want some input into this world, you gotta speak the other guy's language, not just yours."<br /><br />That is what Aquinas did.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88885316972889609742010-08-10T20:46:33.088-06:002010-08-10T20:46:33.088-06:00"Oh, and King - thanks for the great posts&qu..."Oh, and King - thanks for the great posts"<br /><br />You should really thank Jon and Tom who have hashed this all out numerous times. I think I am finally starting to get it too. Strauss puts this discussion into a good frame. Though obviously I do not agree with some of his conclusions.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34994914227857218362010-08-10T18:08:57.499-06:002010-08-10T18:08:57.499-06:00I liked that riff from Eli too. What Mark Noll mu...I liked that riff from Eli too. What Mark Noll must mean by the "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind." [The argument being: there isn't one.]<br /><br />By abandoning "right reason" for fideism, they retreated from the marketplace of ideas.<br /><br />Hell, "because the Bible tells me so" doesn't even work with Christians who think the Bible tells us something different, and there are 34,000 varieties of Protestantism! Geez.<br /><br />I picked up Francis Schaeffer's "How Shall We Then Live" to get up to speed on Protestant thought. It was so fideistic and intellectually clumsy I was embarrassed for such a clearly intelligent man. I didn't learn a damn thing I couldn't learn from a televangelist.<br /><br />I understand that for some Protestants the concerns of the next world are paramount and faith alone saves, but if you want some input into this world, you gotta speak the other guy's language, not just yours.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68493186133599169422010-08-10T17:27:12.261-06:002010-08-10T17:27:12.261-06:00"Their sola scriptura has no concrete divine ..."Their sola scriptura has no concrete divine code in it. Having then rejected natural law, they left the rules and the rule-making to whoever else happened to show up. I guess I'm oversimplifying a bit, but still..."<br /><br />I tried to tell church people this for many years and they basically threw me out. Well put and true.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89310219729002745932010-08-09T16:13:01.783-06:002010-08-09T16:13:01.783-06:00Well we are getting far afield here, but if you as...Well we are getting far afield here, but if you ask *me*, all of Christianity (with the help of rabbinic Judaism, which is unfortunately stingy about this), in rejecting Torah Law for grace through faith, set themselves up for the fall. Their sola scriptura has no concrete divine code in it. Having then rejected natural law, they left the rules and the rule-making to whoever else happened to show up. I guess I'm oversimplifying a bit, but still...<br /><br />PS I've written David Gordon an email or two over the years... he wouldn't recognize me though. Too bad I can't be there with ya, sounds like fun.elinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77905125177788242082010-08-09T15:48:31.020-06:002010-08-09T15:48:31.020-06:00Clarence Thomas, of course, is the last natural la...Clarence Thomas, of course, is the last natural lawyer.<br /><br />But it does occur to me that the Protestant fideists, in rejecting natural law for sola scriptura, went all-or-nothing, and are ending up with nothing.<br /><br />Very few Americans could even tell you what natural law even is, although I think there's little disagreement around here that it was the Founding political theology.<br /><br />BTW, by the way, I'm having dinner with Rothbard biographer David Gordon soon, and he owes me an answer on how an atheist can be a supporter of natural law.<br /><br />But remember that Grotius and Suarez anticipated this 400 years ago, and said that natural law still works without God.<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/04/primer-on-natural-law.htmlTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20080610716955709102010-08-09T15:42:38.785-06:002010-08-09T15:42:38.785-06:00Remember the advice of Clarence Thomas: You can p...Remember the advice of Clarence Thomas: You can put up with it, or you can revolt. The logic of government dictates that ours will continue building on the Harvard Narrative.elinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55812567935819143932010-08-09T14:13:25.168-06:002010-08-09T14:13:25.168-06:00Well, the Supreme Court has already thrown natural...Well, the Supreme Court has already thrown natural law in the crapper.<br /><br />But if virtually every Founder---including Jefferson and Franklin--- believed that the God of Providence is a reality, and 70-80% of Americans still do, how did it come to pass that the Constitution demands we pretend He doesn't exist?<br /><br />Where does it say that in the 14th Amendment?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88794214749277542492010-08-09T12:00:45.291-06:002010-08-09T12:00:45.291-06:00Oh, and King - thanks for the great posts.Oh, and King - thanks for the great posts.elinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63191235562713823682010-08-09T11:38:52.893-06:002010-08-09T11:38:52.893-06:00I've had an epiphany finally due to this post ...I've had an epiphany finally due to this post and some recent dialogue we've had... finally I'm able to situate ideas into a better understanding of what is being talked about here. So - thanks Tom for your input!<br /><br /><i>So when people ask, why can't we have human rights without the God or Christian stuff, the reason is that "rights" becomes a different term in different people's mouths. In the end, we're not talking about the same thing at all: liberty becomes license; "rights" become entitlements; duties under natural law become nonexistent.</i><br /><br />That's why I hope Rothbard provides a valid way. We ought to at least be prepared for the possibility that secularism will continue to advance. It might be suicide to insist that natural law is valid only if God exists.elinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54170383426109373962010-08-09T00:04:17.176-06:002010-08-09T00:04:17.176-06:00Eli, it's gratifying---and a relief!---to see ...Eli, it's gratifying---and a relief!---to see someone agree so thoroughly with my own reading of Strauss. He even noted that Strauss placed Thomas Aquinas in the middle of the book, albeit on the "classic[al]" side. [Strauss was into stuff like that, and claimed the ancient writers did it too.]<br /><br />As for the pragmatism of the statesman, I think it's Thomas West who argues a closer reading of Thomas permits wisdom when inflexiblity with codes results in a greater evil. Natural law, contra Strauss, is not merely some code to be blindly followed.<br /><br />There is a good point in here, made by Kraynak and others, that following Jacques Maritain's neo-Thomist whirewashing natural law and human rights into some bland secular pabulum [Maritain was a driving force behind the UN Declaration of Rights] is inconsistent with Aquinas or true "Roman Catholic social science," which Strauss seems to think well of.<br /><br />So when people ask, why can't we have human rights without the God or Christian stuff, the reason is that "rights" becomes a different term in different people's mouths. In the end, we're not talking about the same thing atall: liberty becomes license; "rights" become entitlements; duties under natural law become nonexistent.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28117706304076572332010-08-08T22:56:13.517-06:002010-08-08T22:56:13.517-06:00Well gosh darn it, in *this* clip Hunt has reitera...Well gosh darn it, in *this* clip Hunt has reiterated everything I ever heard TvD say on the topic. And I still don't know what the tension between reason and revelation is. Clearly I don't have a copy of the secret code book and I don't know the handshakes.<br /><br />From this post I will assume that Hunt believes this tension to represent the state's latitude in carrying out its affairs. Less lattitude = natural law = limited by a divine code. More lattitude = natural right = influenced by the wisdom of the philosophers, with an ethical rule broken here or there as dictated by the needs of the situation. If nothing else, this is the realistic view of what is going to happen anyway.elinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19302323073433547452010-08-08T19:32:54.872-06:002010-08-08T19:32:54.872-06:00I saw the discussion on Leviathan down a bit after...I saw the discussion on Leviathan down a bit after I did the post but I think it germane to that discussion.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.com