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).
No comments:
Post a Comment