I have observed that the philosophers in order to insinuate their polluted atheism into young minds systematically flatter all their passions natural and unnatural. They explode or render odious or contemptible that class of virtues which restrain the appetite. These are at least nine out of ten of the virtues. In place of all this they substitute a virtue which they call humanity or benevolence. By this means their morality has no idea in it of restraint, or indeed of a distinct settled principle of any kind. When their disciples are thus left free and guided only by present feeling they are no longer to be depended upon for good or evil. The men who today snatch the worst criminals from justice will murder the most innocent persons tomorrow.
~~Edmund Burke to the Chevalier de Rivarol, 1791. (qtd. in The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk.)
Quotation of the Week
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
A rebuttal to Richard Dawkins, perchance?
I can't quite work out which side he's on. Martin Luther on the side is a little more plain-speaking. Nice use of rhetoric though.
Cheers, MCB. How are things?
My apologies for the tardiness of my response but I have been busy with work and personal commitments.
These prophetic words from Edmund Burke are a repudiation of all Secularists - of whom Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are the more obnoxious.
Secularism by doing away with the Christian basis of Western morality - does away with restraints on fallen human nature (chastity, fidelity, or other unfashionable virtues).
These limits are replaced with something Burke calls “benevolence” or what would be called in modern times “compassion”. This “compassion” means that a person’s feelings become the ultimate guide to morality and not concepts of Christian good or evil.
Thus if it feels good do it ; if something stops you from acting on a desire then remove it.
In this warped perspective things like the killing of babies in the womb is a “choice” but the death penalty for murderers is a affront to “human rights”.
The more I think about it, the more I am offended by Dawkins. I know many religious people who are not monsters, but good and moral people (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus).
I think of my dear grandmother, who is a devout Christian and a Good Person. She has done more for the world than Dawkins ever did (over 30 years of voluntary work for the local hospital, knitting blankets for orphans, making up boxes of toys and little gifts (pencils, combs, pads of paper) for African children etc, etc, etc).
Dawkins' broad-brush assertion that religion is the root cause of all evil in the world is dangerous and leads to evil outcomes as much as blind religious fundamentalism does.
Dawkins is very vulnerable to all kinds of academic scrutiny and being found very much wanting. So many of these pseudo-intellectuals are building straw man arguments and are yet able to dazzle with rhetoric. I saw a brilliant repudiation of him in last month's Quadrant.
(Aurora)
Post a Comment