It gets interesting here ... but don't miss any of it!
And a comment from Francis Beckwith at Dreher's blog:
P. Z. Myers performed this act either for a reason or no reason. If it's a reason, it must be more than efficient cause. He can't say, in other words, "I destroyed the Eucharist because I willed my hands to destroy the Eucharist." So, he had a reason with a particular end in mind. Thus, assuming it was not self-defense, Professor Myers was trying to communicate something. But he didn't use words; he acted. Consequently, his act was intended to symbolize something.
Yet, he bristles at the idea that he ought to respect other people's symbols, since they are, in his judgment mere superstition. But why should we honor his symbol, or even his right to announce it to others? Could it be because he is a human being who, by nature, should be permitted to voice opinions, even those that are unpopular? But why should we believe that a human being has by nature such a property? Since such properties are non-material objects that cannot be known through the five senses, why should any of us respect this "superstition"? Here's why: we will extend to Professor Myers an understanding of intrinsic human dignity for which his own understanding of the universe cannot account. Lucky for Professor Myers that Christians think more of him than he thinks of himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment