Posts Tagged “John C. Wright”
Kenneth Hynek • 5th Nov 2009 • Writing, Anchorverse, Religion, Catholicism • atheism, Christ, Enlightenment, faith, Islam, John C. Wright, Materialism, Middle Ages, multiverse, Narnia, Protestantism, Renaissance, Roman Empire, Sacraments, string theory, the Church
The notion of alternate universes (colloquially: “the multiverse”) is not a new one, though it has mostly been confined to the realm of speculative fiction…at least until recently. The multiverse concept has enjoyed more general recognition in the last few years, in its use by the New Atheists as an attempt to argue against those who maintain that our universe shows evidence of design (specifically: fine tuning). The atheistic argument, as I understand it, is that the apparent fine tuning of the cosmos is really just an illusion, a fortuitous coincidence. Our universe, the New Atheists maintain, is just one among many, and then the one in which things just happened to align in favour of the emergence of life as we know it.
Now, let’s separate the discussion a bit. I’ve no problem accepting the multiverse hypothesis, and I’ll even grant that various calculations support it, when done with certain assumptions. String theory touches on this matter, and evidently derives some value from it.
That’s all well and good, of course, but there’s a wee bit of a problem with how the New Atheists make use of the multiverse. Essentially, they assume too much, by which I mean that they step past the somewhat demonstrable existence of other universes and begin to speculate as to the nature, order, and operation of those universes.
These latter points are essentially unknowable by any means open to us, so it’s a bit odd that self-styled rational materialists make use of the hypothesis at all. Positing that other universes a) exist, b) are substantially different from our own, and c) show no evidence of design is a statement of conspicuously blind faith.
Or: it is equally reasonable to posit that any other extant universes a) are not radically dissimilar from our own, and b) show evidence of design, and then perhaps more obvious evidence than can be found in our own universe.
John C. Wright explored this idea somewhat, as I previously noted, albeit only tangentially; the principal point of his post focused more on the ruinous effects the expansion of Islam had on the course of human development:
Only in our timeline, where the southern half of Christendom was raped by the an obscurantist and legalistic heresy called Mohammedanism, the resources of the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Enlightenment was wasted in wars, resources that otherwise would have been used for civilization and progress. The amounts absorbed and lost in the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire cannot be calculated.
However, he did touch on the issue of how, in every universe in what he called the chronocosm, Christ was found to exist:
Historians are not merely shocked, they are angered, to discover that Christ exists in every timeline, including the Narnia-like world where lions rather than human beings are the dominant form of life.
Where Wright didn’t go, and where my own thoughts have tended to wander, is to the corollary of the above: if Christ is present in every other universe, then so too must be the Church. This is interesting for several reasons, not the least of which is that it would be as damaging to Protestantism as the discovery of Christ in other universes would be to atheism. Because where Christ is, His Church — his true Church — must necessarily follow, with her body of Sacred Tradition and her glorious sacraments.
What would the sacraments be like on other worlds, in other universes? I suppose that would depend on the nature of…well…everything, really. Sacraments are both outward signs of God’s grace and an actual means by which that grace is poured out on us; there is necessarily and always a natural component to them, in addition to the spiritual. So I suppose, in a sense, the sacraments we might find in other universes would depend explicitly upon the nature of those universes, on whether life in them is similar to or different from life in our own.
Which is a topic worthy of exploration, I think. That’s good: I need some practice with writing, not to mention an excuse to get the creative juices flowing again.
Kenneth Hynek • 15th Oct 2009 • Writing, Anchorverse, Religion, Catholicism, Religion, Christianity, History, Religion, Islam, Entertainment, Literature, Society, Men and Women, Entertainment, Science Fiction, The Sciences, Space, Stray Thoughts • Adam, Adam and Eve, Africa, AI, Carthage, China, Christ, Christianity, CIA, Earth, Eve, extraterrestrial, faith, Germany, God, Heaven, heresy, India, iPod Touch, Islam, John C. Wright, John Zmirak, KGB, Lucifer, marriage, Mars, Mary, Middle East, Mohammedanism, Narnia, National Catholic Reporter, New Orleans, New York, Orion drive, Outremere, Persia, pregnancy test, Roman Empire, Russia, sapience, sin, Space, Spain, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson, Tripoli, twitter, Vatican Observatory, Vienna
I miss writing.
Yes, I know, I know…why not just sit down and write something, then? I think I’m going to have to, even if I do so only by means of various text and document editors currently installed on my iPod Touch (one has precious little time for hammering out ideas when one gets home). Until just recently, I’ve found that there hasn’t been much in the way of inspiration; I’ve had only a single “good” (I use the term loosely) story framework to work from since…high school, basically…and even it seems somewhat threadbare and inadequate to me now.
Still, I can’t help but think (and I may have remarked on this elsewhere) that there’s some inspiration to be found in the recent writings of a pair of fellows I read, both of whom (suspiciously!) share the name John. First, there’s this bit from the always-enjoyable John C. Wright:
In a nearby parallel universe, one where the Middle East and North Africa remained Christian, those places are the seat of the latest industrial and high-tech revolutions in biotechnology and computer AI and Space travel.
The Archbishop of Mars, a colony settled by Jesuits, in this timeline is returning to Earth to attend the baptism of Heke Kohola, the first cetacean raised to sapience by uplift procedures: albeit some theologians question the validity of immersing a sea creature in water to wash away original sin.
Meanwhile, the newly-Christened Orion drive interstellar vessel, LANTERN OF BETHLEHEM, begins her main acceleration burn for 36 Ophiuchus, where intelligent extraterrestrial life has been discovered. The mission is funded by the Vatican Observatory and various ecumenical missionary groups, since no worldly reason exists to bear the expense of an expedition not to be culminated until our greatgrandchildren’s time. However, the monks and eremites of the voyage are not motivated by any worldly concerns.
Only in our timeline, where the southern half of Christendom was raped by the an obscurantist and legalistic heresy called Mohammedanism, the resources of the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Enlightenment was wasted in wars, resources that otherwise would have been used for civilization and progress. The amounts absorbed and lost in the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire cannot be calculated. As a hint, for those of you who forget, during the administration of Thomas Jefferson, some twenty percent of the federal budget was spent on payola to Tripoli. Who knows what would have happened had trade routes to India and China been kept open?
The names of all the inventors (a word that natively only exists in Latin languages), scholars and thinkers from that timeline, who, in our timeline, were harassed and killed in Spain and Carthage and Persia, and never studied in universities, and never published their results, are memorialized in the special wing of the Museum of Lost Eternities maintained by the Time Custodians, as an homage to opportunities for progress aborted here.
Naturally, knowledge of this timeline is a closely-guarded secret of the joint KGB-CIA project investigating the Marconi-Tesla moebius-coil alternative continuum engine, Project Timegate, since it would be an embarrassment to the Islamic world to discover that Christianity is the only mainspring of progress history has known, and an embarrassment to the secular powers to have it publicly known that attempts to engender progress on secular grounds merely end in holocaust, as in Germany, Russia and the Far East during the Bloodshed Century (as what we call the Twentieth Century is known in by comparative historians from our neighboring timelines), or in bankruptcy and supine indifference to one’s own self-destruction, as socialist Eurotopia is currently discovering.
The discovery of alternative realities is the biggest blow to the current secular powers ever known, since it invalidates and humiliates the popular theories of the forces driving history. The chronochosm seems to be unfairly Euro-centric, even racist, in a fashion that is not merely politically incorrect, but even insensitive. Historians are not merely shocked, they are angered, to discover that Christ exists in every timeline, including the Narnia-like world where lions rather than human beings are the dominant form of life.
The Museum of Lost Eternities, is, meanwhile, asking for an apology for the crusades, but in different terms. They are demanding we apologize to the Crusaders, who shed such blood and made such sacrifices in Outremere, only to have their dreams abandoned by Christian princes too concerned with local bloodshed to face the general enemies of the faith.
…which, coupled with this exploration of an idea from John Zmirak:
While our records are scant of human society before the Fall (St. Thomas Aquinas speculated that it happened in a matter of hours, even before Adam and Eve had the chance to consummate their marriage), authoritative tradition teaches that included in God‘s gift bag were:
- Immortality. We wouldn’t have tramped from golden youth through crapulous middle age to decrepitude, then dust. No wrinkles, sagging, sore joints, or colostomy bags. Had Eve showed more humility, and Adam more moral courage, man’s world would have been a vast but pious nudist colony that didn’t make you cringe, look away, and wish for “quality control.” No one knows how long we would have dwelt on Earth, but medieval theologians speculated that after a time, each embodied soul might have been assumed as Mary was — our only “test case” of a sinless human being who wasn’t also the incarnate Son of God. That’s why she was the only candidate considered for the Vatican Space Program.
- Impassibility. We wouldn’t have been subjected to mental or moral suffering, and our bodies would have been preserved from any serious pain — although one assumes that kids who stuck their hands into the fire would still have felt some urgency to pull them out eventually. Unless, of course, our bodies would have been immune from any destructive force — a viable reading of the doctrine. If so, then an unfallen Olympics might have included Volcano Diving, Alp Jumping, and Chainsaw Swallowing.
- Freedom from concupiscence. Our desires would never have exceeded what was appropriate for our needs, or goaded us into sin. No one would take “all you can eat” as a personal challenge, hog both lanes of a two-way country road, look longingly at someone else’s spouse, or gasp at the results of a pregnancy test. Each child would be a wanted child.
- Freedom from ignorance. Everything would be on a strictly need-to-know basis, and we’d know everything we needed. Our private theological opinions and the “common sense” that was prevalent in the culture would match up with the actual state of affairs in Heaven. Following our conscience would never entail heresy or dissent, and there’d be no call for papers like the National Catholic Reporter.
- Freedom from sin. We wouldn’t carry around inside our heads a tiny Miltonic Lucifer, ready to scream “Non serviam“ at the drop of a hat or one’s pants. While sin would be possible, it would seem to people strange — a deviation from the norm, like a dog walking on its hind legs, instead of going back to its vomit. Our wills would match our consciences, and when we did what we thought was right . . . it would be.
- Lordship over the earth. One hopes man would not have remained a naked, rural vegetarian but would have built wondrous cities. Imagine New York without the attitude, New Orleans without the crime, Vienna without the socialists. Our use of natural resources would never outstrip what was prudent or fair, so innocent third parties wouldn’t have to suffer from the waste we dumped in rivers, the filth we pumped into the air, or the nonsense we wrote on twitter. We would just know better than to do such things, and our mastery of the earth would be seamless and eco-friendly.
…leads me to think “hey, there’s a story idea here somewhere.”
Not that I’d be the man to write it, in all probability. But lately, I’ve been feeling that familiar tingle again, and I’m half of a mind to make the attempt anyhow.
I wonder if I can salvage any of my old ideas in the process? They weren’t all worn-out clichés, after all. At least, I don’t think…
Powered by ScribeFire.
Kenneth Hynek • 24th Aug 2009 • Religion, Catholicism, Religion, Christianity, History, Religion, Protestantism, Religion, Theology • atheism, Calvinism, Christ, DRB, exegesis, God, Jesus, John C. Wright, John Calvin, limited atonement, reason, resurrection, Sex, sexual revolution, the Church, Theology, US
Near the very end of John C. Wright‘s series of articles — in the final article, in fact — was buried a comment that made me reflect on a certain tenet of Calvinism: limited atonement.
Like most Calvinist teachings, limited atonement is bollocks, though not because it is patently false. Rather, it mixes truth and falsehood in some measure. Unlike some other Calvinist tenets, it’s not the sort of thing that’s nice in theory but not workable in reality; the errors with this doctrine are purely within the realms of Theology, exegesis, and reason.
And in fact, arguing against the tenet is quite easy. Far too many Protestants — including and perhaps especially those of a Calvinist bent — like to use John 3:16 as a forum or email signature. And while there’s nothing wrong with using Scripture in this capacity, there is a problem in that they often use this particular verse in ignorance of its complete meaning. This is especially the case for those who believe that false doctrine called limited atonement.
What does John 3:16 say, then? In the DRB, it is rendered thusly:
For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
For completeness, we should also consider the two verses that follow.
For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world: but that the world may be saved by him.
He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
One could exegete these three verses to assault another Calvinist tenet as well, but let’s table that matter for now and focus on two key points regarding atonement that the above verses teach, concerning its scope and the means by which man can attain its saving power.
John separates these two categories remarkably well. Concerning the first — atonement’s scope — he is explicit: “For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son…that the world may be saved by him.” Christ was sent into the world to save the world, not just an “elect” subset of the world. John makes no bones about this! The Gospel does not say that “God so loved his own, as to give his only begotten Son…that his regenerate may be saved by him.”
At this point, we could almost stop; noting only as much as we have already done is actually sufficient. Limited atonement — basically, that Christ’s death and resurrection only atoned for the sins of “regenerate” Christians — is obviously false, as Scripture itself indicates. Christ was sent to save all the world, and as such His death must necessarily have atoned for the sins of all the world.
So why does Calvinism teach limited atonement?
There was a recent incident in the US in which a deranged man shot up an exercise class at a gymnasium, before turning the gun on himself. On his blog, discovered some hours later, he detailed his reasons for killing…but also talked at length about his former pastor’s somewhat liberal stance on what Christ’s atonement meant. In his (errant) view, Jesus had already atoned for the sins he was about to commit, so he had to fear no eternal condemnation for either his pending murders or his present-day atheism.
Presumably, he received a rather rude awakening when he pulled the trigger for the final time.
Now, why do I mention this?
It is not, by any means, a new heresy, this teaching that since Christ atoned for the sins of all, all are saved regardless of their deeds or beliefs. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of the name of the relevant historical heresy that taught this…but I am fairly certain that such a heresy was seen in the earlier days of the Church.
I half-suspect that in inventing the doctrine of limited atonement, Calvin was attempting to argue against this heresy; that he was doing so in a way itself heretical is rather ironic. Oh, to be fair, the doctrine also proceeds, logically, from other Calvinist tenets — if one is going to believe that some people are born already, and then inexorably, damned, it’s not exactly a leap of great distance to likewise believe that Jesus did not die to atone for the sins of all mankind. It may be patent stupidity to believe as much, but it’s not illogical.
The problem, however, is that such a view isn’t really defensible from Scripture.
Oh, one could attempt to sneak the limitation in by the back door and argue that BELIEF (or disbelief) is predestined. This addresses the other category John talks about — how mankind accesses the salvation that flows out of Christ’s atonement for our sins. About this point, John is fairly specific: “…whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting…he that doth not believe is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John does leave it to later authors — Paul and James, especially — to expand upon what it means to believe in Christ, and Jesus himself gives plenty examples of what the full implications, obligations, and responsibilities of being a believer are.
And to be fair, one could get into a lengthy discussion about whether individual men and women are, in fact, predestined to believe, or predestined to eschew belief, in Christ.
But equally, so what? The issue is atonement, which we’ve already established cannot be limited, else Scripture be found to teach falsely. Even if some are predestined to never come to the faith necessary for access to the salvation that flows from that atonement (and I’m granting a very big “if” there*), this does not in any way mean that atonement itself is limited.
Now, I mentioned John C. Wright, and the good reader could be forgiven for wondering at this point just where he fits into the picture. As I noted previously, he said something that got this train of thought moving for me. Here, then, is his observation:
Christ bled and died for my enemies, the Leftists and the sexual revolutionaries, as well as for those tempted by sexual sins and lures. Not only must I pray for my enemies, I must do so even though that act or prayer holds me up to their derision. Since Christ died for them, I cannot hold these people up to the scorn they deserve, or mock their weaknesses, since those things are of secondary or even of no importance in the grand scheme of things.
What this statement got me thinking about was the implications of, especially, the first sentence if it were somehow proven that limited atonement was a valid and true doctrine. Do you see how the calculus would change, good reader? For, if Christ did NOT die for the sins of our enemies, if He did not bleed for them, then we need not pray for them…indeed, since they are inexorably damned, it would be a waste of breath and effort to do so! And since Christ did not die for “them,” there is no reason to spare them scorn, mockery, or derision for their weaknesses and sins.
One could even go so far as to argue that one’s enemies cannot be called “children of God,” and so need not even be thought of as brothers and sisters…which, in turn, means that one is free to pour out even hatred upon them, without fear of bring condemned as a murderer.
You laugh, good reader, but I’m not inventing anything here; I have heard such arguments before.
And indeed, we can see exactly such sentiments expressed in the writings and deeds of John Calvin, who once wrote that he would sooner murder — or see murdered — a good friend rather than see the man revert to being a ‘papist,’ and whose persecutions of Catholics were substantially more vicious and cruel than the persecutions Catholics are accused (rightly or wrongly) of carrying out against early Protestants.
Whatever spirit the man felt himself being led by, it was not the spirit of Jesus. And in like manner, whatever spirit gave rise to this doctrine of limited atonement was not the spirit of Christ.
One can only pray, then, that this alien spirit did not lead Calvin’s soul to ruin, just as one must pray that following his poisonous teachings will not lead millions more souls to ruin.
What else can one do? Christ died even for Calvin, and for those who continue to preach his bilgewater doctrines.
* * *
* I cannot state in strong enough terms how odious a doctrine Calvinist predestination is. If we were to abstract life as a swimming pool, in which those who come to know salvation are those able to tread water for a set time, Calvinist predestination would be the teaching that Jesus deliberately holds some people’s heads under the water and drowns them…”for the glory of God.”
It’s an ugly teaching, and a temptation I struggle to resist (and then more often than I care to admit) is the temptation to hope that it is a damnable teaching.
Powered by the iPod Touch.
Kenneth Hynek • 20th Aug 2009 • Health, Aberrant Sexuality, Religion, Atheism, Religion, Catholicism, Religion, Christianity, Society, Men and Women, Health, Reproduction, Health, Sex • atheism, Catholicism, faith, fornication, homosexual, John C. Wright, marriage, natural law, Sex, sexual revolution, SyFy, Wikipedia, women
The always-excellent John C. Wright, hopefully bringing to a close a lenghty debate on his blog, offers up a multi-part explanation of the argument that swung him ’round — and then during his years as a militant atheist — to support traditional marriage.
In order, the articles are:
- APOLOGIA PRO OPERE SUI part I (preamble and explanation)
- APOLOGIA PRO OPERE SUI part II (key questions)
- APOLOGIA PRO OPERE SUI part III (the argument)
- APOLOGIA PRO OPERE SUI part IV (the argument, continued)
- APOLOGIA PRO OPERE SUI part V (on law, marriage, and fornication)
- APOLOGIA PRO OPERE SUI part VI (concluding remarks)
The good reader might be wondering what prompted Wright to embark on such a long-winded explanation of the formation of his views. A read of this earlier article, and several that follow, might be worthwhile. It seems that in making a comment expressing his disagreement with a recent concession by SyFy, under pressure from proponents of the “homosexual agenda,” to include more gay characters in their shows, Wright attracted the ire of a large mob of amateur (and possibly a few professional) pro-gay agitators. The usual trolling ensued: hundreds of off-topic and/or insulting comments were left on Wright’s blog, his publisher evidently contacted, and his Wikipedia page was vandalized.
(Because the tolerant Left is so abundantly tolerant, not to mention secure in its philosophy, that it must work to silence any opponent, and also secure his economic ruin if possible. For such is Leftist tolerance: the Left tolerates its own, and bars no holds against “the other.”)
In particular, Wright was also accused of being anti-gay (or pro-marriage) because of his Catholicism, his Christian faith. Hence, his articles, a means of demonstrating that his faith did not lead him to be pro-marriage; if anything, his becoming pro-marriage was a first stepping stone toward his eventual faith.
His arguments touch on natural law, of course — he draws heavily on the “laboratory of real life” (to use the sublime Sheavian term) in articulating his position, and also leverages principles of law and economics, as well as Stoic virtues. If nothing else, then, his arguments demonstrate — while remaining entirely secular, mind — that reality comports with Catholic teaching in regard to human Sexuality and marriage. The Libertine approach (as Wright calls it) of modernity (set in place by the sexual revolution) leads to ruination…and on the way completely disadvantages and devalues women…whereas the Catholic position upholds the dignity of same, and proposes a reasonable defence thereof.
Some would call this an irony. At least, the foolish would.
It’s an interesting set of articles, good reader. Do read them all.
Kenneth Hynek • 15th Jul 2009 • Religion, Catholicism, Religion, Philosophy, The Sciences, Research • concupiscence, divorce, immortality, impassibility, John C. Wright, John Zmirak, justice, natural law, the Fall
The always witty columnist writes what might just be the best summation of the current age and its flirtations with horror and the flagrantly immoral, all in the name of progress:
…it seems to me that most of the project of secular modernity could be summed up as the technological and ideological crusade to achieve all the above — and shove the pesky business of the Fall and the Redemption down the memory hole.
It’s perfectly legitimate to try, within the limits of justice and the natural law, to mitigate the suffering that came to us from the Fall. (There are some Catholics who fetishize suffering, but they aren’t reading this column — they’re off watching Andrei Rublev.) Too bad the human race — thanks to its fallen will and darkened reason — typically blows past those stop signs like a Humvee plowing through a tollbooth. So we seek immortality by turning ourselves into stem-cell cannibals, and impassibility by downing drugs or asking the “cause” of our suffering for a divorce. We conquer concupiscence by changing the rules to match our cravings, and ignorance by clubbing the intellect into submission to the will. We keep ourselves sinless by defining deviancy down, and spread our conscience like Silly Putty to pick up the op-eds in the newspaper. And we lord it over the earth by shifting the costs for our self-indulgence to poor folks who live downwind, to hapless foreigners, or future generations.
Don’t miss what comes before he gets to this point in his article, though! His analysis of what a modern, unfallen world might just look like makes for an interesting reflection (and if taken in combination with some of John C. Wright‘s musings, might also make for some damned fine fiction).
Kenneth Hynek • 10th Jul 2009 • Religion, Atheism, Religion, Islam, Stray Thoughts, Secularism makes you stupid • abortion, Dearborn, evolution, Islam, Isreal, John C. Wright, Michael Coren, Michigan, unborn
I’ve linked this article once today, but it is worth linking again in order to highlight its closing remarks (this in regard to the recent events in Dearborn, Michigan):
I am curious to hear from anyone on the Leftward side of the political spectrum what your plan is, what policy you suggest the West embrace, to deal with an implacable enemy?
Do you believe there is a peaceful means to reduce their threat? Do you think giving the Jihadists money, or power, or apologies, or giving them Isreal will placate them?
If that is the your belief, what is the basis for this belief? On what facts is it founded?
How would you defend this belief from a skeptic?
(Aside from an ad hominem attack, I mean. I am refering to a convincing defense, a defense on the merits, not a witticism mocking the intelligence or moral rectitude of the skeptic himself. Among grown-ups, discussions concern the subject matter of the discussion, and are therefore not merely background noise to a word-game of moral preening.)
The disclaimer is necessary; mocking the skeptic is almost the only “debating” tactic used by the Left.
I say “almost” because there is, of course, one other tactic that Lefties are permitted to use, when the topic is Islamic fundamentalism: loudly sputter “there are Christian fundamentalists too, you know! They oppose evolution! And they’re against abortion!”
Because to the Left, blowing up a packed subway train is morally equivalent to arguing that it is immoral to murder the unborn.
Case in point: recent guests of Michael Coren’s.
