Few people write about the intellectual core of the pro-life movement quite like Robert P. George of Princeton. He is a comely figure, whose spirit always impresses foes even as his keen intellect often shames them by exposing the flaws in their logic. When my students seem to be allowing their pietistic impulses to supplant their rational abilities, I often will point them to his writings as an illustration of someone who successfully (and correctly) joins the two in the pursuit of godliness.
His essays always are insightful, but his recent posting at Public Affairs, a publication of the Witherspoon Institute, is quite moving. It’s a tribute to recently deceased Bernard Nathanson, the abortionist who helped to push us into Roe v. Wade but then had a change of mind and heart on the issue and began to campaign against the culture of death that was ushered in by that court decision. It’s hard to read Nathanson’s story and not be struck by its parallels to Saul’s incredible conversion in Acts.
Nathanson admitted that he lied frequently in the defense of abortion, but asserted that he would never lie in the other direction:
“You said that I was converted to the cause of life; and that’s true. But you must remember that I was converted to the cause of life only because I was converted to the cause of truth. That’s why I wouldn’t lie, even in a good cause.”
Amazing words to ponder.
February 28th, 2011 | 8:43 pm | #1
Robert George himself seems to be converted to the cause of religious dogma. My impression is that this accounts both for his influence in certain spheres and for his lack of influence in others. Though you wouldn’t know it from the way he is revered here at First Things, his work isn’t highly regarded among his professional peers within philosophy. But, then again, I suppose this isn’t his aim.
February 28th, 2011 | 9:13 pm | #2
C. Earhart,
Is your argument that if someone isn’t influential among peers, then that person doesn’t have good arguments? If not, then what’s your point? Do you expect him to convert people like you to the pro-life position? I doubt that will happen. Then again, maybe you hang around the FT blogs because deep down there’s something you’re looking for.
February 28th, 2011 | 10:24 pm | #3
Just making an observation. I entirely accept that, for many people, the cause of religious dogma is equivalent to the cause of truth. And it’s generally among these people that Robert George has his influence.
I’m not even saying that this is bad.
March 1st, 2011 | 9:23 am | #4
[...] From pro-choice to pro-life, a journey recounted. [...]
March 1st, 2011 | 9:26 am | #5
[...] From pro-choice to pro-life, a journey recounted. [...]
March 1st, 2011 | 11:00 am | #6
“For many people, the cause of religious dogma is equivalent to the cause of truth.”
Dear C. Ehrlich: They are not equivalent. But for us (if this were a Venn diagram), the set of D is entirely contained within the set of T.
Regarding Prof. George’s professional status: It depends on whom you ask. He is not as respected amongst professional philosophers as is, say, Alvin Plantinga. And he is not nearly as famous as is, say, Peter Singer. But I’d bet in terms of “respect” he is somewhere between the two. His writings certainly appear in and are discussed in many journals which are not at all “religious” in nature.
March 1st, 2011 | 11:19 am | #7
I suppose. if you like, we can say that, for many people, the cause of religious dogma and the cause of truth are practically equivalent. However, when people speak of “the cause of truth” they’re usually already talking about a proper subset of the set of all truths. It would be comical to imagine people, in the cause of truth, promoting the explicit recognition of every truth. Imagine running around proclaiming the truth that this morning you’ve just brushed your teeth with 31 strokes of the brush. So yes, for many people, the cause of religious dogma is equivalent to the cause of truth.
As for the George’s regard by his professional peers in philosophy, try searching peer-reviewed philosophy journals for reviews on George’s work. The little you find will be indicative.
March 1st, 2011 | 12:07 pm | #8
C. Ehrlich — you’ve just demonstrated that you entirely missed the point of Nathanson’s remark. His point was that a consequence of his conversion was a commitment to the truth, that had previously been absent. Yes, he identifies his religious beliefs with the truth, but it is not necessary for you to concede that they are, to get his point that he changed with regard to his beliefs about the necessity of dealing in truth.
March 1st, 2011 | 12:27 pm | #9
Relax pentamom. Just because a commenter doesn’t address everything in a blog post doesn’t “demonstrate” that the commenter “entirely misses the point” of some more particular aspect of that post. We can of course also meditate upon the many admirable qualities of a person’s commitment to truth-telling (even if the person happens to be quite misguided).
March 1st, 2011 | 4:44 pm | #10
Bernard Nathanson, was a man of great courage, and conviction. I admire him a lot. He sought after the truth, even when it was not to his own “benefit”.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact