Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Commentary on Thoughts on Thoughts on Mere Christianity

My intriguing and eloquent friend Brandon has commented on my thoughts on Mere Christianity. Interesting commentary follows. Brandon is, so far as I can tell, dead-on in what he says, but none of it leads me to revise anything I've said.

With his post, a taxing two-front war has been commenced. On the east, as an atheist, I'm going up against Lewis's ardent Christianity (but his apology is, even if wrong, quite enjoyable. His arguments are inventive and cheerfully presented.) But on the other front, I'm defending Lewis's belief in objective morality, since I agree with it. Now, bloggers for Catallarchy were selected, among other variables, for their degree of moral skepticism, and thus, their skepticism of objective morality and an apparatus for comprehending it. A lot of people were sick of Rothbardian natural rights arguments. As was I, so I got selected--but I ended up changing my mind on the whole myth of natural rights, which pits me against a number of my co-bloggers. Which is cool.

Tangentially, one reason for the popularity of 24 might be that people hate LA and enjoy seeing bits of it blown up on a weekly basis.

2 comments:

Brandon Berg said...

You forgot handsome. I'm intriguing, eloquent, and handsome.

Now, bloggers for Catallarchy were selected, among other variables, for their degree of moral skepticism...

Except for Patri, who I'm told was selected solely on the basis of his ability to stick twenty french fries up his nose without sneezing.

Freddy Mars said...

I suppose I was chosen early enough to predate the system of choosing people for their degree or moral skepticism. I don't like to debate it too much, but one day I'll have a convincing argument for objective morality.

And boy, will you know it!

- RM