My father held much respect for Daniel Dennett; and so - still - does Pixy Misa. Dennett has gone to whatever afterlife will have him. Various Christians are now dancing on his grave, anticipating the afterlife as will have them. Personally I couldn't finish Darwin's Dangerous Idea; nowadays the greatest satan is Bart Ehrman. I have read Ehrman... and I am Catholic. How do we request of an Ehrman reader that Catholicism is worth the, er, candle?
Christians have composed multitudinous apologetic against secular text-criticism; mostly it's silly Protestants on this beat, but not all. The smarter Catholics don't fall into the trap of citing Protestants - so some have mooted their own brand. In my day we had The Real Jesus; nowadays we got Brant Pitre.
These serve the purpose of affirming lay Catholics (or Christians generally) that it's been Handled, that Ehrman's been Refuted. Same as Darwin's been Handled, and Refuted ("epicycles"!). Just read this book bro'.
But the skeptic is not a lay Catholic anymore. He is examining the texts and the Tradition. What if he finds that Pitre skirts around the questions the skeptic has? (This isn't opinion - this is fact, that Pitre ducks and dodges.) Also: what if he decides that, yeah, Ehrman's got some problems here and there but that those problems are better solved by Carrier? and/or by Godfrey? This isn't a question about Ehrman, a brilliant man but just a man; it's a question about "2 Peter", whose author was a liar. And about all the dupes - or even poltroons, like Pitre, whom I suspect of knowing better, more quietly than I - who've continued to flout such Church Fathers as used to warn against "2 Peter".
What I'd say to the skeptic is that it's okay to harbour some misgivings about this canon. But: I affirm a greater canon, of saints, which saints include Ignatius and Clement.
As for Dennett, I get the feeling that those smirking about him being in Hell will be suffering a worse fate down there than is Dennett.
No comments:
Post a Comment