Let me respectfully suggest that there is a problem with this line from Voeglin: "The personal contempt for God will manifest itself in ruthless conduct toward the weaker man and create general disorder in society. That is all there in the implications of the nabal."
The problem is that the opposite is also true: the belief that one is following God will often do the same. This is, in fact, exactly what we see in some "Traditionalists" and evangelicals: the strictly obey the "rules" (or what they think are the rules) and despise there fellow man, especially the weakest, the least of his brothers.
But, you see, the traddies you describe are "nabal". They are the fools who say in their hearts, "there is no god" - but of course they don't say this of the dogmatic God. That's the subtley of Voegelin's point. It's a deeper atheism; in this case, an atheism of the theists. They despise the weak and cause disorder in society, making sure all the while not to miss Mass on Sundays.
That's why Voegelin is quick to point out that the "nabal" of the Old Testament, the fool who says in his heart that there is no God, is not the "dogmatic atheist" of modern times. The image of the "dogmatic atheist" is not what he's talking about; he's talking about a kind of functional atheism, a deeper denial of the divine.
The odd thing about the "liberal arts" and conservative colleges is that the two really don't go together. Some progressives think the liberal arts are about reading "dead white males." In truth, what they largely read are dead white liberals. Nearly all the people they will read were at the bleeding edge of thought in their societies, and were regarded with suspicion by the "conservatives" of their day.
It was not the liberals that handed the hemlock to Socrates. And St. Thomas Aquinas was condemned by the conservative Archbishop Tempier of Paris, and that in 400 articles, a condemnation that was repeated at Cologne and Oxford.
And that's pretty much the story throughout history.
Let me respectfully suggest that there is a problem with this line from Voeglin: "The personal contempt for God will manifest itself in ruthless conduct toward the weaker man and create general disorder in society. That is all there in the implications of the nabal."
The problem is that the opposite is also true: the belief that one is following God will often do the same. This is, in fact, exactly what we see in some "Traditionalists" and evangelicals: the strictly obey the "rules" (or what they think are the rules) and despise there fellow man, especially the weakest, the least of his brothers.
But, you see, the traddies you describe are "nabal". They are the fools who say in their hearts, "there is no god" - but of course they don't say this of the dogmatic God. That's the subtley of Voegelin's point. It's a deeper atheism; in this case, an atheism of the theists. They despise the weak and cause disorder in society, making sure all the while not to miss Mass on Sundays.
That's why Voegelin is quick to point out that the "nabal" of the Old Testament, the fool who says in his heart that there is no God, is not the "dogmatic atheist" of modern times. The image of the "dogmatic atheist" is not what he's talking about; he's talking about a kind of functional atheism, a deeper denial of the divine.
The odd thing about the "liberal arts" and conservative colleges is that the two really don't go together. Some progressives think the liberal arts are about reading "dead white males." In truth, what they largely read are dead white liberals. Nearly all the people they will read were at the bleeding edge of thought in their societies, and were regarded with suspicion by the "conservatives" of their day.
It was not the liberals that handed the hemlock to Socrates. And St. Thomas Aquinas was condemned by the conservative Archbishop Tempier of Paris, and that in 400 articles, a condemnation that was repeated at Cologne and Oxford.
And that's pretty much the story throughout history.