Tuesday, November 5, 2019

The Intellectual Death Toward which Secularism is Taking our Society, part 3

             Take notice also of the wholesale failure of secularism to, by rational means, achieve the very autonomous freedom it is seeking on its own terms.  Indeed no potential grounds exist for expecting its ultimate success for the reason that the challenge which lies in its way doesn’t consists of a few missing pieces to a puzzle that will surely soon be discovered.  The problem is rather of a systemic nature which forces the choice between either embracing rationality wholesale and consequently following the facts where they lead,[1] or settling for increasing disintegration of the foundations which societies have de-pended on for their security.  My worldview (based on Scripture) is that nature is not a chaos but very demonstrably[2] a cosmos (the Greek word meaning “orderly arrangement”).  That the created order is, as the term suggest, a cosmos means logically that the current secularist posture of playing loose with rationality cannot endlessly continue, for the reason that our rational[3] Creator (John 1:1-3) has infused into his handiwork inviolable laws extending from physics all the way to morality.  Consequently, in today’s contention between theo-centerism and autonomy, one of these viewpoints cannot prevail!

               In Isaiah 59:14, the prophet spoke during one bleak period in Israel’s history of rebellion against the authority of God in terms in terms of violating the concept of truth by mourning, “Truth is fallen in the public square.”  Although the Bible doesn’t define truth, it everywhere employs that concept in a manner consistent with Aristotle’s views that:  1) truth is an assertion of fact which in fact harmonizes with the state of affairs that it describes, and 2) truth is a concept which one is obligated to obey. 
         
Nevertheless, the absence of truth that Isaiah bemoaned was (and is) limited in scope.  Truth has in actual fact NOT fallen in either heaven or God’s creation.  In addition to the truthful character of His own Being, He has also instilled order into his creation both morally and ontologically.[4]  Nevertheless, whatever we do in defiance of his will results in chaos in our every interaction with it.  It is out of God’s love that He designed us to live in harmony with His will.  Just as symphonic orchestra players must follow their conductor to produce beautiful music together, so we are called to be reconciled to our Maker and Redeemer through His Son Jesus Christ.  God invites each and every person to turn away from our independence from Him, and take the step of receiving His salvation and forgiveness (2 Cor. 5:17-6:2).  It by this course alone the He can set us into both a harmonious relationship with Himself and restore us into a functional relationship with His created order.  Yet this is also the only means to know harmony with God’s creation and redemption, both individually and across society.  I fully acknowledge that my forthcoming conclusion may broadly be received with ridicule.  Yet in fact, the present course of our culture yields no indication that it is progressing toward the better.  Nothing less then is called for than turning from our present course and participating together in Christian salvation and reformation.



[1] Former atheist Antony Flew employs Plato’s words to describe his journey into deism in his book, There is a God. (Harper 2007), p. 56 .
[2] See my pamphlet, “His Prints are Everywhere!” Op.cit. (19).
[3] The Greek word designating the creator in this passage is logos, from which our word “logic” (and rationality) is employed.
[4] Ontology is a branch of knowledge which considers the very nature of existence in all its material aspects.

Friday, November 1, 2019

The Intellectual Death toward which Secularism is Taking Society, part 2

                Furthermore, secularists commit the double-standard fallacy by imposing alternative absolutes onto others with a level of conviction that resembles moral authority, while they at the same time deny moral absolutes on their allegation that they are not a rationally-valid category of argumentation.
  
               Equally bewildering is the propensity of secularists to subordinate scientific data to a merely pragmatic[1] (as opposed to absolute) role, thereby betraying their true indifference toward the authoritative role science ought to play before us all.  It is after all because of its long-acclaimed deference to science as the ultimate arbiter in scientific truth matters, that secularism derides “religious” people for elevating creeds above scientific facts.  I actually affirm the privilege of scientists to identify as scientific[2] truth what is discovered by following where evidence leads, independent of religious dogma.[3]  So it is galling for secularists to then deride Christians for opposing scientific evidence[4] when the former ignore it too when (because?) it conflicts with, to give but one example, the transgenderism (TG) movement.[5]  TG persons insist not only on the right to use whichever showers they desire; they also demand that society as a whole identify TG people by the gender they each prefer, irrespective of their anatomical and genetic constitution.  Furthermore, bureaucrats have recently legally obligated citizens to ignore these facts under the threat of debilitating lawsuits.  At bottom, biological facts concerning genetic and anatomical realities are officially being suppressed [6] to the end that ideology is now trumping science.

Furthermore, it isn’t only members of TG, but public educators too, who although mandated to instill critical-thinking skills in the light of reality, instead propagandize students away from the facts of life (in the larger sense).  This ploy undermines the very consciences of the latter.  In addition sadly, the scientific community, despite the guidance our society expects it to provide; by its failure to rebuke these falsehood instead encourages the intellectual travesties to continue unchallenged.  None of these errors are complex to such a degree as to require formal training in philosophy in order for lay people to discern their flaws, provided they aren’t badgered into silence.  Both errors violate the golden rule of “doing unto others what you would wish to be done unto you” (Rom. 2:1-3), while the second error also entails “cherry-picking” which facts to embrace and which to ignore based purely on their own private wishes.  Notice that St. Paul’s very first reference to sin in his Letter to the Romans entails suppressing evidence that, in his context, pertains to confronting and thereby convicting sinners that there must be a Creator of all things (Rom. 1:18-20).  In addition, the rest of that chapter prophetically narrates the path toward self-destruction which logically follows from denying God’s rightful lordship in the first place.             To be continued...



[1] Pragmatism considers whether a given proposition seems beneficial as opposed to whether it is actually true.
[2] That is, scientific conclusions only. Theological conclusions are based on revelation which is manifest through the Bible.
[3] 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.
[4] 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?” Op.cit. (19).
[5]I am NOT passing on persons experiencing sexual identity confusion, but on the irrational ways this matter is treated by societal leaders.  
[6] See my letter to the editor of the Everett Herald, “Self-Contradictory Policies of ‘Liberal’ Transgenderism Public Policy.” Op.cit. (19).