Posts Tagged ‘worldviews’

Food for thought.

Kevin DeYoung:

Sommerville’s main point is not the news is dumb, but that we are dumb for paying so much attention to it (11). We have become conditioned to think that the really important stuff of life comes to us in a neat 24-hour news cycle. Worse than that, in our mobile-digital age most of us assume that news is happening every second of every minute of every hour of every day, and if we tune out (or turn off our phones) for more than a few hours (minutes?) we will be rendered out of touch and uninformed. That’s dumb.

The solution is not better news, but less of it. The problem is with the nature of news itself. The news is all about information. It’s about what’s trending now. It rarely concerns itself with the big questions of life. It focuses relentlessly on change, which, as Sommerville points out, gives it an inherent bias against conservatism and religious tradition (50-54, 60-62, 135). Our soundbite/twitter/vine/ticker-at-the-bottom-of-the-screen/countdown-clock/special-report culture of news encourage us to miss the forest of wisdom for the triviality of so many trees. As Malcolm Muggeridge once observed: if he had been a journalist in the Holy Land during Jesus’ ministry he probably would have wasted his time digging through Salome’s memoirs (54).

Read the rest

Read Full Post »

If you’re wondering why, say, The Little Sisters of the Poor can’t just sign off on a form and let others go along with the HHS mandate for them, read this (“St. Thomas More, The Little Sisters of the Poor & the Casualness of Conscience,” Tod Worner, January 7, 2014, at Patheos). Well, even if you know already why they can’t, you might want to read the post. It’s a good overview, and a good reminder of some of what’s at stake.

Read Full Post »

Anthony Esolen provides a useful history lesson.

Read Full Post »

From a new book, a look at the epidemic hijacking of airplanes in the ’60s and ’70s, with emphasis on those starry-eyed people who sought to go to Cuba – where they found themselves despised.

Read Full Post »

This could explain a lot.

(Parents, your work is cut out for you, if you want to keep your children from falling into this trap.)

hat tip: Nancy Pearcey, on Facebook

Read Full Post »

Historian Eugene Genovese moved from Left to Right: some of the journey is chronicled in this National Review article by Jay Nordlinger.

Read Full Post »

T.M. Moore writes:

One area of conflict that arises between the Christian and other worldviews relates to the great hope of each. Increasingly, in our society, the highest hope and fondest aspiration of the secular and materialist worldview is a world without want, where each person is free to prosper according to his desire and ability.

Prosperity within the secular worldview is defined in individual and material terms – as much of the good life as any person might be able to enjoy without obstructing others in their quest for the same. This is the hope of people who live, in Solomon’s words, “under the sun.” They can envision nothing higher than personal material prosperity, and they will be wary of any worldview which insists that there are other, higher aims in life, the attaining of which demands sacrifice and self-denial.

If the secular worldview takes as its highest hope the glorification of man – again, defined in strictly personal and material terms – the Christian worldview hopes in the glory of God, and adherents of that worldview will make any sacrifice and endure any trial in order to ensure the realization of that great hope.

It’s not that the Christian worldview despises things and wealth. It doesn’t. It simply insists that these be kept in their proper place, “under the heavens,” and that the pursuit and use of material prosperity be subject to the demands of the Gospel. Love for God requires that Christians hope to please Him, not themselves or any other man, and that they not hold their material possessions too tightly, lest they fail to love their neighbor as themselves. But in the secular worldview, in an economy of getting-and-spending, such things as self-denial, sacrifice on behalf of others, and giving generously and consistently to relieve the distress of others do not constitute a driving force or defining motif. Instead, they are more on the order of something to make us feel good about ourselves.

Read the whole thing.

Read Full Post »

From Not Exactly Allies, two old friends in the spy business have some rare time off, and get philosophical. Durand is French and Catholic. Richard is British and something of a skeptic.:

“He had me fooled, I tell you.”

“He wasn’t quite as advertised. I’ll give him that,” Richard conceded.

“But who is?” Durand sounded philosophical and resigned.

Richard laughed. “We’d be out of business if everyone was exactly who they appeared to be.”

“I could live with that.”

Richard almost agreed, but stopped. And considered. “No, you couldn’t. At least I couldn’t.” he said.

“Would you not agree it would be better?”

“Better, possibly. But boring.”

“I have come to appreciate boredom in my old age,” Durand said.

“Stop it with the old age business. I’ve got that birthday breathing down my neck. Fifty. Half a century. It shouldn’t matter, but it’s making me crazy thinking that there must be some sort of symbolism in it, some sort of reckoning. It’s funny, but I’m not the least worried about being 51. Just 50 itself. Stupid, that.”

“You always were superstitious.”

“I’m not as bad as I used to be. Emma seems to have cured me of that.”

Durand pretended not to see Richard nervously crossing his fingers then hiding the offending hand after saying such a fate-tempting thing.

“Wives cure many ills,” Durand said. “At least your Emma does not set out to cure you of non-existent diseases. Many wives seek perfection in their mates. It is foolish, that.”

“Thank you. You’ve reminded me that I was trying to say something but that you got me sidetracked.”

“I’m sure it was all my fault,” Durand said, with false haughtiness.

“Mostly your fault, I’m sure. Now shut up a minute. You’re getting me sidetracked again. It’s something to do with that perfection business. Give me a minute.”

Durand began to hum a tune, as if to fill time for a minute. A sharp glance from Richard cut him off. Durand sat quietly for about twenty seconds, and then broke back in. “If you are going to say that just about the only thing wrong with communism is that it is impossible because it requires men to give up being whole men, while at the same time demands of them that they be better than they would be if they were whole, I welcome you to the world of civilized and truly educated mankind.”

“Something like that, I guess,” Richard said. “I’ve been thinking about it, trying to figure out why otherwise intelligent people get sucked into it.”

“Ach! That is easy. There are not enough properly trained Christians.”

“Well, obviously, being religious does tend to inoculate one against an anti-religious movement.”

“No, my friend. No. You do not understand me at all. You should read more unrevised history or something. Most historians are dupes, of course, but there are a few good ones from whom a person can learn what happens in societies that morally maim their citizens as a matter of policy. Then you would know, for instance, that communism counts on worship of the state and of its theories du jour. I will lend you some good books. I would lend you my copies of The Gulag Archipelago, but they are in French. I know you read French, but you cannot possibly know it well enough to tackle such a work, with such nuances in it.”

“Emma has copies, in English. All three volumes.”

“Of course she does. She is not afraid of facing what we are up against. I know she also has several books by G.K. Chesterton. You should read those, all of them. His ability to predict the problems of our day is uncanny, and he is humorous, too, which you should appreciate. But you have derailed me again.”

“You said there weren’t enough properly trained Christians.”

“You should go to a proper church, one that has not married the age instead of the truth. Then you would understand what I am talking about.”

“Does this really answer what I was asking, about why otherwise intelligent people get sucked into communism? Or socialism, for that matter? They tend to slide into each other, somehow.”

“Of course they do. Once people fall into grasping for power or dreaming of a spotless group identity or a perfectly functioning society, and one -ism fails them, they quite naturally grab at another -ism, hoping a different tool will do the trick.”

“But why do people fall for any of it?”

“Is it so difficult to see? The attractive element to communism is that it would truly be heaven on earth if it were true. But it is, of course, not true. It is built on lies tangled up with theories based on a false view of human nature. People who are not trained to understand that there is true and untrue are fools waiting to be plucked by the people who preach newness and happiness, and who tout their pretty philosophies as strong or inevitable or courageous, although they are nothing of the sort. ‘Join us and be somebody,’ they cheer. ‘Sacrifice for us and be a hero!’ And, except for mature Christians, people want to feel important, and to look important in the eyes of other men, and so they are doomed. It is as simple as that.”

“Exactly what I was going to say,” Richard said.

“Bah,” Durand said.

They both understood that doomed was not exactly the right word. It suggested that people couldn’t discover their mistake and correct it, given enough time and observation of the universe in general, and the human animal in particular, not to mention the grace of God. The world was awash with people who had been led astray in one way or another, but did not stay astray. Stolemaker, for example. But ‘Bah!’ seemed a good way to end the conversation, at least for the moment. It was a nice day, and it was pleasant just to play cards, now that they had agreed upon the variation of rummy they would play. It was not a pure game, if you were the sort of person who insisted upon using a book of standardized rules, picking just one game, and sticking with it. Instead, they had chosen the elements of play that they liked best from several different types of rum, and mixed them with aspects of an obscure and ancient form of poker. It was pleasant, inventing your own card game and having someone who would play it with you.

After a few minutes of companionable silence, Durand sat up straighter. “By the way, I am sure that I have a better nose, at least, than Voltaire, if the insufferable Voltaire is your man of the ogre-imp statue. With a better nose he is not so bad looking.”

“I rather like the man’s nose. Distinctive, you know,” Richard said.


Having let loose that succinct bit of commentary, Durand grinned and leaned back into his best reclining philosopher’s position.

“Uh, oh,” Richard said.

Durand smiled. “It seems to me that we were rudely interrupted before I could explain to you the importance of thinking in alloys. Somehow we have never found our way back to the subject.”

“I forget the context,” Richard said.

“We were sitting in Orchard’s flat, and it went boom.”

“That part I remember. What I forgot was what we were talking about.”


“Oh, that’s right. The beneficial aspects of marriage. The basis for good marriages. Love. Hope. Art. Natural law. The importance of thinking in alloys,” Richard said.

Durand broke into gales of laughter. “You must be more careful, my friend. Men who admit to good memories acquire reputations that cause them much trouble.”

“Have you ever seen me admit to a superior memory in front of anyone besides your humble and good-natured self?”

“I am not laughing at you. I am just laughing. I hope you know that.”


“It is very simple. Gold by itself is too soft for most of the purposes to which gold is put. So something must be added. An alloy, no? For another example, for brass you must have both copper and zinc, no? Neither of which can behave like brass, you understand. For bronze, you start with copper but you must add tin. Nothing against either copper or tin, mind you – but by themselves they can only be copper or tin, and nothing else. Steel? You cannot make steel with just iron. You must add carbon to it. Furthermore, you must add just the right amount of carbon, in just the right way. Do you remember what some people say about the Titanic?”

“Excuse me?”

“Some people say that what doomed the Titanic was not so much the iceberg, but that they were using a new type of steel, one that was supposed to be new and improved, but was not tried and true, and turned out to be brittle. When the ship hit the iceberg, the metal shattered instead of bending under the force of the blow. I do not know whether that story is true, but for my purposes let us say that it is true because it illustrates the point I wish to make so beautifully.”

“In other words, to have a good marriage, you must introduce just the right elements, and join them in just the right way, or you fall short of what marriage should be and/or the resulting combination is not strong enough to hold up.”

“A very good assessment. Almost too good. I think perhaps that you knew what I was going to say before I said it.”

“I mentioned what you said earlier to Emma, and she asked Perrine, and Perrine explained it to Emma, who kindly explained it to me.”

“Hah! So your curiosity got the better of you after all!”

“It’s your turn, I think.”

“Excuse me?”

“Cards. The game we’re playing? It’s your turn, I think. I know it’s no fun to lose, but-”

“I haven’t lost yet.”

“Care to bet on the outcome?”

Read Full Post »

… it can become ridiculously hard to get help.

Read Full Post »

From Ken Myers, writing at Touchstone:

In June of 1941, C. S. Lewis preached a sermon that has come down to us as one of his most enduring essays: “The Weight of Glory.” Lewis’s sermon was a reflection on the nature of the rewards that await believers, and he began by making the following claim: “If you asked twenty good men to-day what they thought the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you asked almost any of the great Christians of old, he would have replied, Love.”

Lewis went on to comment that the important difference between these two perspectives is more than the substitution of a negative term for a positive one. It is the claim that the really virtuous act is to forgo pleasures or benefits for the sake of others, “as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point.” Lewis suspected that the modern virtue of Unselfishness had its origins in Stoicism or in the ethics of Kant rather than in Christianity.

More a Strategy Than a Virtue

I thought of Lewis’s comparison of love and unselfishness when rereading A. J. Conyers’s book on the modern preoccupation with tolerance, The Long Truce: How Toleration Made the World Safe for Power and Profit. In the first chapter of the book, Conyers observes that tolerance has—over the course of the past four centuries—assumed a prominent position on the modern list of virtues. But if it is indeed a virtue, it is, he notes, a peculiar one…

Read the whole article.

hat tip: Joe Carter, at Mere Comments

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »