Thread by @Bezner

Enjoyed this interview of Camille Paglia by @clairlemon. I've long appreciated Paglia's insight and wit. Money quote from Paglia: "As an atheist, I have argued that if religion is erased, something must be put in its place." quillette.com/2018/11/10/cam…

In the same question from @clairelemon, Paglia argues that "secular humanism has failed." The fascinating thing to someone like myself (clergy/semi-academic) is the thought that any form of humanism ever *could* replace religion.

Western culture is so formed by Judeo-Christian ethics and sensibilities that it literally could not imagine a way of being in the world the wouldn't import copious amounts of Christian assumptions. Simply put: humanism doesn't have the inherent goods to create such a framework.

Personally, I think Paglia intuitively knows this. She is brilliant, erudite, creative. Yet she offers no constructive vision of the future that can offer a framework for belief. Why? Because she knows: Humans require transcendence in order to create existential frameworks.

Translation: You may not like or believe in God, but it is the concept of a transcendent that creates the framework for ethics and morality--in all human civilizations. When those frameworks are removed? Collapse comes soon thereafter.

Humans need a point of reference for the ordering and aiming of life. And they need this point of reference to be beyond themselves, per Augustine. I would love to see Paglia engage the Christian tradition, eschew deconstructionism, and see what sort of good might be made.

In other words, I think Paglia's assertion that secular humanism has failed is--in itself--the greatest argument against her being an atheist. Admit secularism doesn't work, embrace theism, and create a framework from that point instead of continuing with a fruitless approach.

The future of Western civilization is more likely to be found in the approach imagined by the likes of Radical Orthodoxy (Milbank, Pickstock, Ward, etc.) than it is any framework willed into existence by those who have no vision of transcendence.

These are the sorts of Saturday night tweets you get when I am forced to quarantine away from my family. Apologies. Or you're welcome. Depending on who you are.

Translation: You may not like or believe in God, but it is the concept of a transcendent that creates the framework for ethics and morality--in all human civilizations. When those frameworks are removed? Collapse comes soon thereafter.

Humans need a point of reference for the ordering and aiming of life. And they need this point of reference to be beyond themselves, per Augustine. I would love to see Paglia engage the Christian tradition, eschew deconstructionism, and see what sort of good might be made.

In other words, I think Paglia's assertion that secular humanism has failed is--in itself--the greatest argument against her being an atheist. Admit secularism doesn't work, embrace theism, and create a framework from that point instead of continuing with a fruitless approach.

The future of Western civilization is more likely to be found in the approach imagined by the likes of Radical Orthodoxy (Milbank, Pickstock, Ward, etc.) than it is any framework willed into existence by those who have no vision of transcendence.

These are the sorts of Saturday night tweets you get when I am forced to quarantine away from my family. Apologies. Or you're welcome. Depending on who you are.