Another example

By -

We find Rod Dreher praising this piece of theoretical rubbish. 

The authors of the essay Dreher praises show no awareness of the fact that all ideologies are “political religions.” They will only condemn as “religious” those ideologies that “reveal a whole series of mythological and supernatural beliefs”: in other words, these clowns do not realize that what characterizes an ideology is precisely a closure to the supernatural and mythological, in other words, to divine reality.

Dreher is an Orthodox Christian, but is apparently so theoretically ignorant that he cannot even recognize people who would condemn his beliefs as irrational.

And should Dreher ever read this post, I hope he can accept it as a piece of advice against embracing false friends.

Comments

  1. BZ7:53 PM

    Are you going to make 2 posts a day?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BZ12:29 AM

      thanks for approving my comment.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more