itty bitty outrage committee

Originally posted by kylecassidy at post

Via Citykitties (emphasis mine):

A good samaritan found this cat today in a gutter by Clark Park, half dead. He is now at the Cat Doctor with a body temperature of 90 (normal is 102) and blood PCV of 8. The Cat Doctor housecat, Diamond, is currently donating blood to save his life. During the exam, the vet found that this cat has a microchip. When called, his "owners" reported that he was acting sick, so they put him outside. If this makes you as angry as it makes us, please channel your anger in one of two ways: visit our website at www.citykitties.org and make a donation to help us pay for his care, or share this post and encourage others to do so.




Click to donate.





Add me: [LiveJournal] [Facebook] [Twitter] [Google+] [Tumblr]

Just to add: the "or" in the If this makes you as angry" paragraph is what we logicians call an inclusive-or. Meaning you can do both, you aren't limited to one or the other. I am sure there are lots of groups around the country doing good animal welfare work and, while I can't support them all, I can do what I can...

Christianity: ur doing it rong

Dan Fincke drew my attention to some comments made by William Craig. A Christian wrote him saying he was having doubts when confronted by the arguments on atheist websites and asked Dr. Craig for advice. Craig wrote:

( Read more... )

I've posted about this line of argument before. I have passed over it much more often without comment, because usually I don't want to raise the profile of the person. (Not that my blog's profile is that high...) But William Craig is a philosopher. I routinely set my class to read his essay on the kalam (cosmological) argument that God exists, and typically it's bundled in philosophy anthologies. So this takes some debunking.

(Dan has already done a very good job, by the way. But now he has me feeling all hot under the collar as well.)

First: not all atheists leave theism because (to quote Craig) of "moral and spiritual lapses" rather than "intellectual doubts." My friend Dan argues for objective morality, essentially the idea that there is a right or wrong that isn't just what the individual or the culture says. He does more with this than I do, actually. While I'm sure not every atheist is actively working to explain why atheism =/=> moral moral nihilism, I know many who are.

Moreover, Christianity has some potential for rather easy morality. Jim Wallis and other members of the Christian left are changing this by having the Christian ethic apply to parts of our life beyond the bedroom (or the parked car, or wherever), for too long it was possible to be a Christian with relatively little change to your life. Look at the political situation. Want the Christian vote? Say the right words (no abortion, ever; homosexuality was an agenda; and recently, work "shariah" into the conversation as often as possible) and the pew-to-poll vote could be counted on. Even in non-political conversations, churches tended to be more interested in identity than true ethical living.

To be sure, lots of Christians are ethical and they use their religion to help them accomplish that (I think of myself that way, actually). But Craig's claim was that people became atheists because they felt guilty. My point is that change really isn't that necessary. And claiming as much is just insulting to them, and embarrassing to you.

Point #2 - and this is even more damning, given Craig claims to be a philosopher - is his question of why his correspondent went to those "infidel" sites:

Which leads me to ask: why are you reading those infidel websites anyway, when you know how destructive they are to your faith? These sites are literally pornographic (evil writing) and so ought in general to be shunned. Sure, somebody has to read them and refute them; but why does it have to be you?

Does he honestly believe the only point of exposing yourself to different opinions is apologetics? I find this lack of faith (in the philosophical method) disturbing. It is by exposing ourselves to and arguing against positions we might disagree with at first glance, that we begin to understand what we believe, including whether it is true. This is, incidentally, the meaning of this blog: fides quaerens intellectum, faith seeking after understanding. While I'm sure Dan would reject the starting-place of faith, my point is basically that thinking about things you don't yet accept is an absolute good. Not because it's the first step necessary to convincing the "other guy" they're wrong, but because the process is an end in itself.

Seeing this outlook laid out by someone presented as a philosopher. (And as a Christian, but it's the philosopher bit that's so shocking. Sometimes the internet's meme-machine is the only adequate critique of a position: ur doing it rong.