There's something about secular humanism...
So I'm at Polly's Pies today for lunch and I look over and there is this cute boy with a book in his hands while he's shoveling lunch into his mouth...just like me. OK, wow. Book nerd = awesome. So I ask him what he's reading, and he says he never reads fiction but he thought he'd start with Albert Camus' The Stranger. I blink at him and say, "Well, that's a giant leap for mankind, eh? Ever think about starting somewhere a little more...um, introductory? Like, say, a genre novel? Something not so existential?"
I swear, I can't even sit down to lunch without getting into a philosophical argument. He starts in on the bleakness of the existential dilemma, which I defend with the earthbound philosophy of "here and now is all we can know (thank you Descartes) so that means the most important thing each of us can be doing is the thing we are doing NOW." Morality dependent on current action and effect, basically, suggesting that existentialism is not meaningless because meaning must have context and our only context is here and now. Well, I have no idea how or why he felt it necessary to bring this up, but suddenly he's telling me about his evangelistic church and how how he's a Christian and therefore humanism is wrong...AAARGH. Don't you dare attack secular humanism in front of me. I try to be a good Catholic, but I also try to be a good global citizen. The two are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, anytime someone tries to attack secular humanism around me means we're getting into a verbal donnybrook. I had to leave the restaurant because my lunch break was coming to an end, but I countered "Well I'm a Christian so I can't be a humanist" with "Humanism is the natural partner to the stewardship of creation granted by God, if you accept that there is a consciousness that actually granted us that stewardship. If you're going to have a rational--RATIONAL, PEOPLE--argument, you have to admit the lack of empirical evidence supporting an existence of a supreme being. Therefore faith is an internal decision not supported by Cartesian methodology, which is part of the miracle (not able to be proved by empirical evidence) and mystery (not able to be proved by empirical evidence) of a belief in a supreme being."
I'm trying to be a good Catholic. I'm attempting, with varying degrees of success, to live the courage of my convictions. I have to apologize to anyone who does not think long and hard about Cartesian methodology or the gathering and analysis of empirical evidence--if you dismiss reality in favor of blind faith (blind, folks, not reasoning--there CAN be faith and reason in the same place) then you're in for a world of hurt if you try to bring it to my sandbox. You will end up with philosophical sand being kicked in your face.
Bring it, freaks; I got a muzzle and a leash just for you.
I swear, I can't even sit down to lunch without getting into a philosophical argument. He starts in on the bleakness of the existential dilemma, which I defend with the earthbound philosophy of "here and now is all we can know (thank you Descartes) so that means the most important thing each of us can be doing is the thing we are doing NOW." Morality dependent on current action and effect, basically, suggesting that existentialism is not meaningless because meaning must have context and our only context is here and now. Well, I have no idea how or why he felt it necessary to bring this up, but suddenly he's telling me about his evangelistic church and how how he's a Christian and therefore humanism is wrong...AAARGH. Don't you dare attack secular humanism in front of me. I try to be a good Catholic, but I also try to be a good global citizen. The two are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, anytime someone tries to attack secular humanism around me means we're getting into a verbal donnybrook. I had to leave the restaurant because my lunch break was coming to an end, but I countered "Well I'm a Christian so I can't be a humanist" with "Humanism is the natural partner to the stewardship of creation granted by God, if you accept that there is a consciousness that actually granted us that stewardship. If you're going to have a rational--RATIONAL, PEOPLE--argument, you have to admit the lack of empirical evidence supporting an existence of a supreme being. Therefore faith is an internal decision not supported by Cartesian methodology, which is part of the miracle (not able to be proved by empirical evidence) and mystery (not able to be proved by empirical evidence) of a belief in a supreme being."
I'm trying to be a good Catholic. I'm attempting, with varying degrees of success, to live the courage of my convictions. I have to apologize to anyone who does not think long and hard about Cartesian methodology or the gathering and analysis of empirical evidence--if you dismiss reality in favor of blind faith (blind, folks, not reasoning--there CAN be faith and reason in the same place) then you're in for a world of hurt if you try to bring it to my sandbox. You will end up with philosophical sand being kicked in your face.
Bring it, freaks; I got a muzzle and a leash just for you.