Why our Culture Cannot Have its Cake While Devouring it! Pt. 2

Part 2

As for the first error, it is astonishing that at the same time that secularism is throwing off the restrictions that attend moral statutes grounded on traditional religious authority, with all the fury of the religious fanatics whom they decry, it is quick to impose an altogether new roster of imperatives onto society.  This one can only consist of rules grounded on naively selfish[1] feelings and drives that carry no metaphysical weight at all, or the threat of an autocratic government which, as Mao Zedong once stated, enforces its will through “the power of the gun.”[2]  The suggestion that autonomous[3] humans can evade this dilemma on the assumption that we are intellectually objective and morally good is entirely untenable in view of the clear track-record of the entire human race.[4]  In sum, those who would throw off morality in order to achieve self-freedom seem oblivious to the reality that they are merely replacing a morality-based code with a self-centered bundle of demands by which to impose their external power onto the rest of society through the force of government.  The irony is palpable.

                Even more bewildering, secondly, is the propensity of secularists to relegate scientific data to a pragmatic[5] (as opposed to absolute) role, thereby betraying their true indifference toward the authority that scientific data rightly deserves.  It is after all because of its long-recognized reverence of science as the ultimate arbiter in matters of truth, that secularism derides “religious people” for elevating creedal declarations above scientific facts.  I for one affirm the right of scientists to reach scientific[6] conclusions according to where the evidence actually leads, independent of religious dogma.[7]  So it is galling to hear of derision from secularists that Christians oppose science[8] when, in fact, the former suppress the same data insofar as it conflicts with, for example, the political/social transgenderism (TG) movement.  Not only have TG members insisted on the right to use whichever shower room each person desires; they also demand that the rest of society address TG members by the gender of each individual’s preference, irrespective of their plumbing.  In addition they insist everyone else deny clearly discernable biological facts so as to blindly follow the mounting wave of “lemmings” off the cliff.  All the while, the objectively-verifiable facts that pertain to genetic and anatomical realities are altogether ignored.[9]

Furthermore, it is not merely overt proponents of this movement, but also public educators bearing the obligation to teach students critical thinking skills in the light of knowable truths yet who instead propagandize them to ignore truth in violation of the consciences of the latter.  Tragically, in addition the scientific community which is deemed by all to be the very guardian of scientific insight, instead stands by in utter silence thereby allowing this intellectual travesty to prevail unchallenged.  Yet none of these errors are subtle or complex to such a degree that demands formal teaching in philosophy in order to discern their fallacies.  Both errors violate the golden rule of “doing unto others what you would wish to be done unto you” (Romans 2:1-3), while the second one also entails selectively picking which evidence to believe and which to ignore according to one’s personal preferences.  The Apostle Paul’s first reference to sin in his Letter to the Romans identifies it as the suppression of evidence (from the testimony of nature in this case) of a kind that has the power to convict sinners of His existence (Rom. 1:18-20).  Indeed the entire second half of Romans ch. 1 lays bare the core reality in narrative form that the act of turning away from God leads ultimately to irrational outcomes on a host of levels.                                                    To be continued 

---

[1] That is to say that at the same time that they may be idealistic, they evade the notion of being accountable to a higher judge.

[2] “Every Communist must grasp the truth that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" and, “Our Principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party,” are statements from Chairman Mao Zedong in his message, Problems on War and Strategy found at the website: Mao Zedong on War and Revolution. http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1900_mao_war.htm.

[3] Op.cit. (5).

[4] Reinhold Niebuhr. https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2014-06/unoriginal-sin  

[5] Pragmatism considers whether a given proposition seems beneficial as opposed to whether it is actually true.

[6] That is, scientific conclusions only. Theological conclusions are based solely on revelation which is manifest through the Bible.

[7] See my essay, “Defusing the Alleged Conflict Between Scientific Fact and the Text of Genesis 1,” which can be accessed, together with all of my essays, at my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com.

[8] I do concede that Christians partly contribute to the secularist’ impression I just described by their misinterpreting Scripture. See my essay, “Does the Bible Permit Denigrating Science in order to Maintain our Faith?” Ibid.

[9] See my letter to the editor of the Everett Herald, “Self-Contradictory Policies of ‘Liberal’ Transgenderism Public Policy.” Op.cit. (20).