A Final Authority equals a Final Solution

Roger Pearse, who has written in a consistent to the right of Tony Perkins manner for a while now, has entered the fray over attempted marginalization of Dr. Rollston by Dr. Blowers. In between his conspiracy theories of corporate control, of sinister plots, and the such, Pearse suggests that Rollston’s main crime is that he does not take Scripture as the final authority:

Considering the nature of the article that Dr Rollston has published, I would hope that this is so.  For that article makes pretty clear that, to him (at least as edited by the Huffington Post), the bible is not the final authority of faith and morals.

If Scripture is the final authority, then the rapist will as his reward, instead of jail time, the victim. Let us also consider the stoning of children deemed unruly. Or, what we would do to the blemished amongst us. But, let us move slightly past the literalist fallacy. Let us consider how we are actually one of many authorities.

What do I mean by that? First, we decide what part of Scripture to listen too. If are truly honest, we know that we do not take Leviticus as seriously as we do 1 Corinthians. Now, we can recreate the application, such as an ecological fascination with holiness and purity. However, this only shows that we do are the final authority on what to take as a guide to morality. Further, Christians differ on the role Scripture plays in our lives. Or, perhaps, some or simply more aware of the role Tradition actually plays in formulating Christian doctrine and perceptions.

If you continue to read Pearse’s arguments, you will not that he is quick to connect Rollston to the Nazi’s. It would seem that Pearse’s fascination with Nazi Germany is almost Girardian in nature, but I will let others decide that. His idea of a final authority fits well with some of Horney’s observations. Again, however, that should be discussed within a broader audience.

Anyway… back to this issue of final authority. It is a logical fallacy. What do I mean? Simple. What Roger sees as one moral or biblical value another will it a different way. Trust me, you could not get more “biblical values” conservative or what not that I was for over three decades. Roger is his own final authority, and if given the control, his final authority would be the final solution.

You Might Also Like

7 Replies to “A Final Authority equals a Final Solution”

  1. Hello,

    You may not know that, if you include a link in posts like this to the blog post that you are discussing, it will tell the blogger that someone, somewhere is writing about it? I only came across your comment by accident, you see.

    I have read your remarks, but they don’t seem to need any comment from me.

    Personal comments about other writers are unwise, incidentally. Posts about personalities make an article merely tedious to the intelligent reader. But let me explain.

    Suppose that you prove, unquestionably, beyond possibility, that I am a Bad Person — indeed the worst of men, on a par with Adolf Hitler (although for some reason we may not make that comparison! Why ever not?!), a liar, a cheat, a dealer in used cars … whatever. How does that proof help your case that what I say is wrong? For, whoever wrote the words, the truth (or falsity) of what was written will remain to be determined, by logic, reason and evidence, rather than by invective.

    All the best,

    Roger Pearse

    1. Roger, there is little I do not know about blogging. I am unsure as to what you meant by your first paragraph.

      What is your love affair with Hitler, Roger? What is this your default in any conversation wherein you are challenged?

      1. I’m sorry if I was unclear, and I am happy to explain it to you more simply. If you wanted me to respond, you needed to either email me or include a link in your post. As it stood, I only encountered your post by accident.

        You don’t seem able to read what I wrote, either in my post, or in my reply; at least, since what you write does not relate to anything that I had to say, I can only presume you are unable to read it. Apparently you want a fight instead. “Argument weak… start shouting”, eh? Shame on you, young man. Never campaign for any cause that you have to defend by being a jerk.

        Now your reader(s) will not learn this from your post, but my own original post called for integrity in academia. You, apparently, oppose this, although you don’t seem able to offer any arguments for it, beyond a vicious personal attack (which I did enjoy; you have much to learn about the art of hurting people online, as I can tell you from long experience of attacks by trolls, brinkers, and other cyber-scum).

        My response is this. I am a tolerant man, you see. I don’t feel the urge to require people to agree with me. It is certainly your right to treat the halls of knowledge, not as a place where honest men learn facts and teach knowledge, but as a system of patronage, of “jobs for the boys”, if you are so self-centred. The sleazeball have ye ever with you, and it would be absurd for me to complain that such people exist. But I don’t respect them. Nor should you, and still less should you ape them.

        Any decent man would be ashamed to prostitute himself and his interest in history for any such thing. Indeed I infer that you are ashamed: for your “reply” is that of the gutter, the squeal of a rat pushed away from its meal of offal, rather than that of a scholar or a gentleman. So be it. Be a rat, if you so choose.

        We all get to choose our path in life. Decent people love truth and honesty, and expect it of others. At your age, why not have some ideals? Or at least, if you intend to sell out, do try to sell out for something more than the pitiful salary that is all that most academics may command!

        I did enjoy your curious comment about the political right, as if I had any such issue in mind. To be honest, I wasn’t aware that honesty — the thing I called for — was the exclusive preserve of the political right. In these days of crony capitalism, I should hope that it was not! Your introduction of politics, of left and right, tells me only that you are a political bigot. Be more tolerant, then. Your religious comments, your evident hysterical hatred for Christians, tells me likewise that you are a religious bigot. Your “reply” was a troll, which tells me that you have few morals. But of course you are entitled to be all these things. Be a jerk, if you wish. That’s hardly my business, is it? And be kicked for it, of course, although kicking jerks isn’t my role in life. It is — while people like myself have a say — a free country.

        But don’t promote sleaze, patronage, and corruption, as you do here. At the lowest level, it’s against your own interest. We all need honesty in academia. Do you think that corruption will benefit a little guy like YOU, rather than some well-connected guy? On the contrary.

        Live and let live. And always, always, require intellectual honesty of academics.

        Or be a jerk. Your choice. 🙂

        All the best,

        Roger Pearse

  2. Roger Pearse once left a bizarre and rambling comment on a blog post of Ashleigh’s that apparently attempted to link her feminism to the date rape of coeds. Still, you have to take the good with the bad. His Tertullian website is fantastic and the guy uses his own money to bring untranslated works of church history into English. We are all at times blinded by ideology; he just happens to sound like an ultra-conservative loon when he is blinded by his. I’m glad he’s around and blogging, because 85% he’s doing great stuff.

    1. No doubt, and that is the consensus actually.

      Pearse makes some off the wall connections that has no place in reality, but he does good work on somethings.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.