The new edition of the always-excellent Mars Hill Audio Journal contains an interview about the late Elizabeth Fox-Genovese's posthumous book defending traditional marriage. Dr. Fox-Genovese was raised Protestant, but established her reputation as a Marxist academic. In the mid-1990s, she converted to Roman Catholicism. Here is her conversion story, from an old issue of First Things. I found these parts especially interesting:
My quests, such as they were, focused upon the claims and contours of moral worthiness in a world that took it as a matter of faith that "God is dead."Over the years, my concerns about morality deepened, and my reflections invariably pointed to the apparently irrefutable conclusion that morality was, by its very nature, authoritarian. Morality, in other words, drew the dividing line between good and bad. During the years of my reflection, however, the secular world was rapidly promoting the belief that moral conviction, like any other idea, expressed the standpoint of the person who enunciated it. And it was becoming a widely shared belief that there were as many moralities as there were people and that it was inappropriate to impose one's own morality on another whose situation one could not fully understand. Although as predisposed as any to respect the claims of difference, whether of sex, class, or culture, I increasingly found this moral relativism troubling. It seemed difficult to imagine a world in which each followed his or her personal moral compass, if only because the morality of some was bound, sooner or later, to clash with the morality of others. And without some semblance of a common standard, those clashes were more than likely to end in one or another form of violence.
And:
An important part of what opened me to Catholicism -- and to the peerless gift of faith in Christ Jesus -- was my growing horror at the pride of too many in the secular academy. The sin is all the more pernicious because it is so rarely experienced as sin. Educated and enjoined to rely upon our reason and cultivate our autonomy, countless perfectly decent and honorable professors devote their best efforts to making sense of thorny intellectual problems, which everything in their environment encourages them to believe they can solve. Postmodernism has challenged the philosophical presuppositions of the modernists' intellectual hubris, but, with the same stroke, it has pretended to discredit what it calls "logocentrism," namely, the centrality of the Word. In the postmodernist universe, all claims of universal certainty must be exposed as delusions, leaving the individual as authoritative arbiter of the meaning that pertains to his or her situation. Thus, what originated as a struggle to discredit pretensions to intellectual authority has ended, at least in the American academy, in a validation of personal prejudice and desire.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
"Questions" which you fail to mention, Chris B. Instead of being obtuse and smug, tell us exactly how Jon and Elizabeth are wrong.
quote: ""justice sunday"? "justice sunday II"? hello? i'd say such "politics" in right wing evangelical/pentecostal/fundamentalist churches is far more coordinated and damaging than anything a feminist UCC pastor talking about tolerance could ever do."
Well, it depends on how you define "damaging." I see most leftist ideas as inherently "damaging." So something tells me that we aren't going to agree on that. I fully grant that some traditional, orthodox churches are involved in politics. But many aren't.
What is really important, however, isn't the level of political involvement, though I'd argue that on average "progressive" churches are more politically active than orthodox ones. The real issue is the source of a church's ideas and politically involvement. Orthodox churches start with their theology and the extent of their political involvement (e.g. opposition to abortion or "gay marriage") flows from their theology. "Progressive" churches start with left wing political ideology (ex: Marxism, feminism) and allow it to determine their theology. In other words, the "progressives" have things backward from how they should be.
If all orthodox churches totally disengaged from politics tomorrow à la the Amish they would still have a purpose. Life would very much go on for them. "Progressive" churches on the other hand wouldn't have much to talk about or much to do without politics.
quote: "you know what's intellectually bankrupt, rr? any moral argument that ultimately relies on a "god/god's book said so". not that you would be able to suspend your belief in the rightness of your religion, even for a second, to see that."
LOL! What a joke. If one presupposes that God exists and that he is a completely sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient God, then "God/God's book said so" is a perfectly logical moral argument.
It's not that I can't "suspend my belief in the rightness of my religion." Indeed, I've read a number of atheist philosophers, especially Nietzsche and Sartre. I went through a phase in which I considered atheism. I think there is a case for atheism, although I'm certainly not an atheist. Nonetheless, I've yet to hear a logical case for the existence (or even relevance) of ethics in a world without God. Oh, I've heard a lot of sentimentalism about being "good" (whatever that means) in a world without God. I've also heard a lot of emotional reactions to the question itself. But none of these count. Which is why I wouldn't believe or be interested in ethics if I was an atheist.
rr
rr
Many of us in her own discipline find all of this a bit rich given her amazing history of abusing her graduate students, using them as unpaid servants and housecleaners. (Emory University paid out millions of dollars twice, to two different graduate students, in private out-of-court settlements. For some of the story, you can consult _Historians in Trouble_.) She was known for the sin of pride herself, so I think this might also be an example of being sensitive to faults in other people that one can't easily admit to also sharing.
So, taking moralistic advice on the failings of academia and morality from a woman who used her position to abuse the system and other people is more than I am willing to do, however persuasive her ability to put together words might be
rr is totally discounting Buddhism, without explaining why (except by begging the question." Is there some reason his/her name sounds like a growl?
"Nonetheless, I've yet to hear a logical case for the existence (or even relevance) of ethics in a world without God. Oh, I've heard a lot of sentimentalism about being "good" (whatever that means) in a world without God. I've also heard a lot of emotional reactions to the question itself. But none of these count. Which is why I wouldn't believe or be interested in ethics if I was an atheist."
This sentiment gets expressed here from time to time - even by the blog author - that there is no reason to be ethical without a supreme deity. It always surprises me. There is not time on a combox to delve in to the Buddhist view. I referenced Buddhism because of the claim in the blog post that morality is necessarily authoritarian. Buddhism is a 2,500 year old example of a religious and cultural system that does not work that way.
Buddhism is not a philosophy. It is a way of learning to look directly at life, at the nature of being, and tearing back the veil of daily life with all the dramas we think are so important. Ultimately we find that what we defend or fight is a construct in our own minds. When we just observe and love, there is only "us" - so morality does not require an arbiter.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.