“With the decline of clerical power in the eighteenth century, a new kind of mentor emerged to fill the vacuum and capture the ear of society. The secular intellectual might be deist, sceptic or atheist. But he was just as ready as any pontiff or presbyter to tell mankind how to conduct its affairs.
Professor:
Nobody in his right mind likes to discuss his own idiocies. But because we are all in danger of being idiots, sometimes we owe it to each other to do so.
Professor:
This is the fourth in a series of posts in Q&A format. It’s an experiment; readers, do you like it or hate it? Though slightly edited, the questions are from real letters. By responding to just one letter per post, I can also post more often. Coming Thursday: The ITC statement on natural law. Coming next Monday: Points of no return.
Professor:
I’m trying out a new format for a few posts. These are real letters, though slightly edited.
Back from traveling again. Thanks for your patience. I think the three conversational situations you describe need different responses. Let’s talk about them.
Some people believe that sin isn’t so bad if it is done with a good intention. “After all, he meant well.” The problem with this view is that every sin is done with a good intention. Nobody loves evil just because for being evil; the only way an evil can be attractive in the first place is that is good in some respect.
Recently the journal First Things republished an essay of mine which was originally published twenty-one years ago, called “The Illusion of Moral Neutrality.” Neutralism is the doctrine that