Friday, December 25, 2020

The Broad Array of Cowardly Ploys the Left Employs

 The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousand-fold.” (Aristotle)[1] 

Con-fraud-ulations to the Left!  At every turn present-day Leftists of every stripe,[2] who parade themselves as champions of science and rationality, have exposed by their practices, their fears of submitting their positions to the light of scrutiny.  In actuality the Left habitually practices the following:

·        In their academic studies and personal research projects, Leftists both cherry-pick and seek for sources of choice that merely advance their prejudicial agendas, as opposed to seeking unadulterated truth for the purpose of correcting their views in light of compelling new knowledge.[3]

·        They censor data which conflicts with their agenda.[4]  This ploy has been vividly expressed both at a personal level by, for example, their refusal to watch footage of this past summer’s rioting that implicates the Democrat Party, and publicly, by the refusal of Google and Face-book-owned networks to broadcast the nightly damage on TV.[5]  Consequently both parties are guilty.[6]   

·        Certain Leftist politicians, especially, chronically refuse to engage in dialogue with people they differ with.  They instead prefer public grandstanding to submitting to give-and-take dialogue.[7]

·        They also refuse to answer questions about their official conduct that is highly-consequential.[8]

·        Similarly, the Left refuses to acknowledge their own mistakes even though they either magnify or even invent charges of, for example, systemic racism against people on the political Right.[9]

·        Similarly, with respect to accountability, they apply one standard to themselves while imposing another standard onto the political Right.  For example, the Left spent four years seeking to impeach Donald Trump (without any evidence), while now opposing investigating potential fraud in this recent Presidential race, in spite of substantial evidence that supports this claim.

·        The Left’s propensity to impose imperatives on others is incoherent and self-contradictory.  For example, although they reject morality for allegedly being conceptually invalid, they insist on compliance by individuals and they demand social restructuring in order to carry out decrees that are derived from the “insights” of unaccountable leaders of cancel-culture.[10]

·        During this recent Presidential campaign, the Left expressed utter indifference over the virtual absence of Joe Biden from the public eye.  In part this ploy shielded his real goals from public exposure.  Had Donald Trump campaigned similarly, the Left would have denounced him.

·        Biden campaigned on virtually no positive agenda and was held accountable to no criteria at all except for “not being Trump.”  Had the roles been reversed, Trump would have been vivisected.

The grounds then for seeking to recount the recent Presidential election results are that Leftism has in numerous ways demonstrably proven that there are no intellectual grounds to trust them at all!   



[1] Aristotle. “On the Heavens.” Book 1, ch. 5. (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.1.i.html).

[2] By “Left” I don’t mean the extreme Left, but every view that lies somewhere on the left side of the Left/Right philosophical/political spectrum.

[3] John M. Ellis. The Breakdown of Higher Education. (Encounter, 2020), p. 39,  ** and my blog posting, “The Choice: Flawed Liberators or Clueless Thugs?” part 1, August 8, 2020, at www.offensivechristianity.blogspot.com

[4] See my posting, “What Christians Must Understand about Truth,” Dec. 14, 2020. Ibid.

[5] My posting, “Willful Ignorance is Anti Scientific,” December 14, 2020.  ** and “Fox News Alone Visually Connects Rioting with the Democrat Party. Op.cit. (3).

[6] Ibid.

[7] My posting, “Leftism’s Glaring Cowardice,” December 9, 2020, Op.cit. (3).

[8] My posting, “When Refusing to Answer a Question is an Admission of Guilt,” December 20, 2020, at Op.cit. (3).

[9] My postings, “Merriam-Websters Attempt to “De-Racistify” Blacks by Redefinition,” July 18,19, and **  “Harris’ and Biden’s Naked Lies about Donald Trump’s Racism,” October 9, 1), Op.cit. (3).

[10] My posting, “The Self-Contradictory Core of the Cancel Culture Agenda,” September 3, 2020, Op.cit. (3).

Sunday, December 20, 2020

When Refusing to Answer a Question is an Admission of Guilt

 A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool.” (Proverbs 17:10) 

               When Jesus famously stood silent at his trial (Mt. 27:12-13, Mark 15:5, and Luke 23:9), the two parties present included not only himself as the passive and sinless[1] Son of God, but also his naive and impertinent antagonists.  Jesus’ purpose there was not to challenge their verdict or rail against their conduct; but instead to, through their verdict, bear the sins of the entire world on the very cross that was being prepared for him.  It is this distinction that sets Jesus apart from every person in our current philosophical and political climate who, for whatever reason, evades answering their critics.  While it is true that Jesus himself didn’t answer the crowds, the reason was because he was accountable instead to the purposes of His Father as represented in the covenantal[2] love that Yahweh expresses (Isaiah 43:25).[3]  By stark contrast, the present Democrat Party exudes utter self-centered (humanistic) abandon.

               According to our U.S. Constitution, any view that the authority of elected and appointed Offi-cials permits ruling by their private insights and whims is entirely alien to the purposes of our founders.  Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence states, “All men are created equal…and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights[In order to] secure these rights, governments [derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed.  In addition, the Preamble to our Constitution begins, “We the people of the United States…do ordain to establish a more perfect Union…  Also, “four score and seven years” later, Abraham Lincoln closed his Gettysburg Address with these words; “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”[4]  For these reasons, it is impossible to deny that Democrats are trashing one profoundly fundament aspect of our Constitutional form of government.

               I wish to be clear that this transgression, as grave as I argue it to be, is not limited to technical disputes over methods of governance.  A chronic refusal to answer critics which is rooted in a pretense of claiming “superiority” over all challengers, contradicts the principles of rational deliberation in gen-eral.[5]  This is especially so when certain indicators are in place, including firstly verified and specific factual evidence that contradicts the assertions of the witness in question; secondly, when there is a refusal by the same witness to both inform him/herself of the relevant facts and address them; and thirdly, when the extent of the ramifications which follow from the case in question rises to the degree that it threatens the security of society at any level.  In summary, it is vital to the governance of our civilization that truth prevail only after facing rigorous scrutiny.  If it should be the case that the facts are indeed on one’s side, then it is strongly in their favor that every aspect of their case be brought out into the open.  On the other hand, refusal to come clean concerning the facts of the case becomes a tacit admission that the truth is damning to their asserted claims.



[1] 1 Peter 2:22-24.

[2] A covenant is a close equivalent notion of a contract.  The former, was considered absolutely inviolable.  Yahweh, the God of the Bible, him-self initiated covenants with his people Israel (Exodus 19:5).

[3] This Passage says, “I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake.” Notice first the double Is,which makes them emphatic. Notice secondly that the boldface portion emphasizes that God considers that His own reputation is at stake.

[4] Constitutional documents can be accessed by searching under the theme, the United States Constitution. **  Non-statutory documents are drawn from Diane Ravitch, ed. The American Reader. (Harper Perennial, 1990).  All boldface is my doing for the purpose of highlighting the priority of the concept that governmental officials are accountable to the voters, and not vice-versa.

[5] Dr. John Ellis (The Breakdown of Higher Education: How it Happened. The Damage it Does. & What Can be Done. (Encounter, 2020.)) argues persuasively in my view, that the prevailing dominant “educational” strategy on university campuses today, political activism, is incompatible with classical intellectual inquiry, which seeks to assemble all the relevant evidence and freely debate over its ramifications (p. 39).  

Monday, December 14, 2020

What Christians Must Understand About Truth

 Truth is fallen in the public squares” (Isaiah 59:41) 

               All truth is one.  If a Christian uses the expression, “biblical truth,” that can only mean that the context in which his/her truth is found pertains to some area of biblical studies.  The reason is that the Bible does NOT claim to be a special means of establishing truth that differs from how the secular world establishes it.  In fact this article will argue that the Bible establishes its truths by the same principle that scientists establish scientific truths.  Now Christians might protest this point by noting that the Old Test-ament prophets often began their oracles by announcing, “Thus says the LORD!”  And what a declaration that was, that the truth which followed it came from no less than Yahweh (Jehovah)!  Yet their protest does not refute my point for the reason that identifying the speaker as opposed to establishing that His word is true, are two different things.  That is why I italicized “establish in this paragraph every time.  

Now hear ye the following:  The Bible in fact, I repeat, establishes itself to be true in the same way that scientists must establish their claims with facts and a historian does so with documentable evidence.[1]  If this theme is irritating to you, it nevertheless must be highlighted because many voices today are determined to confuse the matter of truth by insisting that you accept their assertions “just because they say so.”  To give some examples, these people continue insisting both that citizens accept the election results just because some courts might decree so, and that no relevant events (gratuitous rioting, etc.) were withheld from the voters notice despite the fact that Fox News has video records to the contrary.  They also continue insisting that we accept a fetus to be just a part of the mother’s body, and that genetics and anatomy are likewise irrelevant to their demand that, for example, biological males who deem themselves to be female be treated as such in every public context including showers.  So, while the Left prides itself in championing science, they actually accept it only if it serves their goals.[2]  It is a dreadful prospect then that we may become legally bound to accept propositions that are false. 

What is truth?  The universally-accepted definition in our culture is called the “correspondence view.”  It means that a proposition is true only if it can be reconciled with the facts that it asserts.  Keep this always in mind, please!  This is the view of truth that the Bible across the board embraces.  Indeed, in Romans 1:18f, the Apostle Paul identifies it as sinful to suppress or deny facts concerning specifically the testimony of nature.  I count close to 900 occasions in the Bible where obedience to truth in such contexts is a serious matter.  Scripture never commands us to believe what our minds know is false. 

Am I saying that we should only believe the Bible is truth if we can prove it?  Absolutely not!  Much of the Bible I hold to be absolutely so, despite not being able to prove it.  My point rather is that if it is to be established as true, it must be in the way the Bible employs.  For example, the Old Testament prophets established their truth by foretelling an event in the nearby future which actually came to pass (Deut. 18:22, Is. 46:8-11, Jer. 28:9).  Jesus likewise honored factual knowledge on two occasions: “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe; how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:12), and “Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves” (Jn. 14:11).  Both times He emphasizes truth since it is the only indicator that God’s Word is in fact true to both Himself and the world He addresses.  Indeed if truth is rejected, then healthy societies cannot endure because they lack foundation of a kind that promotes mutual trust and understanding.  For this reason, obeying truth is never optional, but a matter of societal life and death.[3]



[1] See my paper, “The Pervasive Employment of Apologetics in the Bible,” which is available at the office.

[2] See my blog, “Leftism’s Claims to be Champions of Science is a Gigantic Fraud,” November 10, 2020, at offensivechristianity.blogspot.com

[3] See my blog, “Willful Ignorance is Both Anti-Scientific and Anti-Biblical,” (December 14, 2020), Ibid.

Willful Ignorance is Anti-Scientific, part 2

          This refusal to consider take consequential evidence into analytical consideration is a gross intellectual error in that it violates fundamental principles in both scientific and legal inquiry.  This reality logically leads to the question of the source of the opening quotation, which is NOT the Bible.  It is instead the recorded insights of one of the greatest of all philosophers, the pagan thinker, Aristotle in his section on ethics.[1]  There is found the additional factor of the moral dimension to the right application of knowledge.  One anonymous author states, 

The phrase see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ has come to mean something different than was originally intended. In the West, the proverb see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil means to turn a blind eye to something that is legally or morally wrong. In this case, a person who will see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil pretends that he has not witnessed wrongdoing, and therefore abdicates all responsibility in righting a wrong.”[2]

Aristotle and the Apostle Paul (Romans 1:18-32) agree with each other on the reality of a moral dimension (obligation) to not merely take notice of truth but also seek it out and indeed obey its ramifications.  Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, preceded him regarded this matter of a binding obedience to truth by affirming in his “Republic” his commitment to “follow the truth where it leads.”[3]   



[1] H.H. Joachim, tr. Renford Bambrough, ed. Philosophy of Aristotle. “Ethics” Book III. (Mentor, 1963), pp. 323-4. Boldface mine.

[2] https://grammarist.com/proverb/see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil/

[3] H.D.P. Lee tr. Plato: The Republic. (Penguin, 1955), #394, p. 133.   


Willful Ignorance is Anti-Scientific, part 1

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” (Chinese Proverb)  

Where should we expect to find the following quotation in the Bible? 

We punish [people] for the very fact of being in ignorance if a man seems responsible  for his own ignorance.  Hence, the fine for offenses committed by drunks is double; after all, he can decide not to get drunk, and it is this that causes his ignorance.  There is punishment too, when people are in ignorance of a point of law that should be known and is not difficult to know…“[Similarly] people themselves are responsible for [their carelessness] through living disorderly lives; they are responsible for being unjust or profligate, the former through evildoing, the latter through drinking and so on … [Evidence of not] knowing that dispositions are attained by actually doing things, is a sign of a complete ignoramus.” 

The source of this statement will be revealed later in this essay. 

               It is plainly deemed to be a badge of sophistication in our day to dismiss certain avenues of information from sources that are “judged” to be “beneath” or unworthy to merit one’s consideration.  Leftists indeed routinely parade themselves as authorities who are especially qualified to distinguish between valid and invalid propositions.  Yet even “authorities” conceptually rely on standards that lie outside their own intuitions (which Christians regard as sinful).  In matters of values (morality) the only broadly-acknowledged moral standard that is external to the human psyche is the Ten Commandments.  In matters of science that standard is grounded in heeding an investigational methodology (“the scien-tific method”), while in a court of law truth is pursued in the form of a judgment “reached” by carefully witnessing  contesting testimony.  In every case then, it is expected that the relevant evidence is first assembled, and then scrutinized prior to discerning the question of its validity.  Yet this is exactly what has been missing in Leftism’s prejudicial, blanket, and ruthless dismissal of virtually every Conservative claim, specifically with respect to the present ongoing national political contest.

               With respect to the Left the above general failure has two prongs to it.  For example, the fact that the alphabet news agencies (ABCA) forbade broadcasting videos of the nightly riotous devastation but a part of the broader transgression.  The other half entails the refusal of Leftists to investigate whether or not the Fox New footage was true.  The reason cannot rest on innocent, naïve ignorance for the reason that ABCA news coverage included ongoing charges that Fox was portraying its objections as “out-of-context exaggerations”).  In other words, the fact of the omission of the video feeds couldn’t have succeeded except for the willful ignorance of Leftist’s news audiences (LNA) who drank from only the ABCA trough.  Both ABCA and LNA continue to be complicit in a major coverup that can be best summarized in the Chinese proverb, “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.”  

To be continued...

 

Wednesday, December 9, 2020

Leftism’s Glaring Cowardice, or, How the Left has "Won"

 Remember then from where you have fallen.” – (Revelation 2:5). 

               In 1964, during Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson’s official oversight as the 36th President of the United States, the “Free Speech Movement” was formed to defy his administration’s ban of on-campus protesting over the Vietnam War.  Their goal was consistent with that of any university.[1]  Astonishingly however, the Wikipedia article on this topic, which was revised as recently as this month (Dec. 1) states, “To this day, the Movement’s legacy continues to shape American political dialogue both on college campuses and in broader society.[2]  Yet ironically, Leftists[3] today are seemingly clueless to the contradiction of their stance in the face of that Movement back in the 60’s to which they claim inspiration.

               Indeed left-of-center ideology today is thoroughly pervaded with a spirit of both censorship and the suppression of honest debate[4] in matters of substance, each of which fundamentally undermines freedom of speech that is protected in the First Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.[5]  This ploy seeks, apparently, to buffer Leftists from scrutiny by an informed public as applied in the following ways:

·        In terms of posture, the Left’s chronic refusal to engage in dialogue with Conservatives destroys even the possibility of reaching a common understanding together.  So much darker, then, is the prospect of reaching mutually acceptable solutions.  Nonetheless, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Kamala Harris, to name a few, insist on unchecked grandstanding as opposed to constructive conversation. 

·        Censorship of critical facts has marked the ongoing ploy of all news networks, except Fox, over this recent Presidential election campaign.  Not only did they forbid broadcasting the hundred-plus-nights of rampage when police were constrained from both halting the damage and protecting lives; they also refused to assign the blame to the refusal of Democrat Mayors to act.[6] 

·        In contradiction to scientific methodology[7] concerning Covid19, both Google and Facebook censor viewpoints that lie outside the prevailing Leftist vision, despite being advanced by renowned first-rank scientists who have advanced degrees in the very same relevant medical fields.[8] 

·        Leftism[9] has aided the obscurity in Joe Biden’s pre-election schemes both in terms of his “agenda” and his financial entanglements with China.  Only after his win seemed sure, did the press report what they earlier mockingly dismissed; that Hunter Biden is under FBI investigation. 

These factors each betray Leftism’s deep insecurity about exposing their views to public scrutiny.  Indeed, apart from such ploys there is little prospect that they could remotely prevail in an honest vote.  I for one gladly invite challenges to my own views.  How pathetic it is then that they fear to do the same. 



[1] “University” can be defined by dividing the word into its components: unity and diversity. The purpose of Universities is to reconcile them.

[3] I use this term in the broad sense of belonging anywhere on the left side of the ideological spectrum in contrast to conservatives or “the Right.”

[4] Dr. John M. Ellis’ book, The Breakdown of Higher Education: How it Happened, The Damage it Does, & What Can be Done. (Encounter, 2020), pp. 38f.  One of his central theses is that, beginning in the sixties there has been a profound shift in educational goals on university campuses, from free academic inquiry (irrespective of the ramifications the follow from them) on the one hand, and political activism on the other.  I agree with his contention that the two goals are intellectually irreconcilable. 

[5]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

[6] See my Oct. 24 blog, “Rioting Gone Wild: But Why No Longer?” at www.offensivechristianity.blogspot.com

[7] See my November 10, 2020 blog, “Leftism’s Claim to be Champions of Science is a Gigantic Fraud,” (all six points). Ibid.

   

  

Tuesday, November 10, 2020

Leftism's Claim to be Champions of Science is a Gigantic Fraud

               Leftism[1] by any stripe rejects obligation to religious tenets as their authority, even in principle.  Rather it denigrates both “sacred” doctrines and philosophy[2] to a lesser degree, in deference instead to “hard” factual conclusions that they assert follow from scientific research.  Since this is the standard upon which Leftism claims its certitude, it is fitting to scrutinize its degree of loyalty to both scientific methodology and the data that it yields with respect to specifically the Democrat Party’s “values and conduct.”  So the question is, do Leftists obey the same scientific principles they impose onto others?  The body of analytic criteria and principles which apply across the entire scientific enterprise include:

1.                  The primacy of the philosophical First Principle of the “Law of Non-Contradiction.”[3]

2.                  The universality[4] of truth across every context.  Since truth is one, it is to be applied uniformly.

3.                  The necessity to seek, assemble, and consider every piece of relevant scientific evidence.

4.                  The necessity to test each hypothesis under consideration against all known scientific facts.

5.                  The wisdom to evaluate the distinction between empirical data and philosophical conjecture.

6.                  The biblical and rational demand to seek truth[5] and consequently, to follow it where it leads.[6]

Though this list is not exhaustive, its’ criteria are sufficient to expose the utter nakedness of the Leftist’s empty claim to sincere adherence to the parameters entailed in scientific principles.

·             Point 1: The first First-Principle holds that “contradictory truths cannot both be true in the same way and at the same time.”  Leftism denies this by, for example, insisting both that, for example, biological males who identify as females be deemed as such, despite their genes and anatomy, and that a fetus is part of the woman’s body, regardless of blood-type, anatomy, and genes.

·             Pt. 2: The rules of validation that the Left exploits for themselves, they deny to Conservatives.

·             Pt. 3: principles have been violated in two ways.  This Presidential campaign, Biden-aligned news-feeds censored videos which connected the nightly-riots to Democrat leadership, which, if shown, could have thwarted Biden-supporters from voting prejudicially.[7]  In regard to Covid-19, they also shut out alternative views held by equally-qualified-scientists from being heard.

·             Pt. 4: Leftists violated this principle by staunchly refusing to scrutinize both the qualifications of their candidates and the glaring dishonesty of their platform, in that they never unveiled it.

·             Pt. 5: In a naked attempt to retain their materialistic postures, so-inclined “scientists” ignore empirical facts that validate the Big Bang, by fixating instead on non-testable speculation.[8]

·             Pt. 6: In a Court of Law, people “swear to tell the truth; the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”  Willful departure from this standard with the examples I cited above, undermines that very foundation which is necessary for the public to trust the “science” that Leftism distorts.  Worse still, they also refuse to critique their own positions in light of the above principles.



[1] I use the term “leftism” as a broad blanket term to cover a worldview which contrasts with conservativism on the sociological spectrum.

[2]  An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.davidhume.org/text/e/E1234SBN165.  ** Stephen Hawking began his book, The Grand Design by stating that “Philosophy is dead.” Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. (Bantam, 2012), p.5.

[3] Without it there can be no science. J.P. Moreland. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation. (Baker, 1989), p. 118.  

[4] Universal Truths. https://www.nature.com/articles/472136a

[5] Unless it is held that scientists are dealing with truth in regard to physical reality, there is no intellectual motive to research nature.

[6] Plato. The Republic. (Penguin, 1966), no. 394, p. 133.

[7] Renford Bambrough, ed. The Philosophy of Aristotle. Ethics, (Mentor, 1963), bk. III, pp.323,4.

[8] Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross. The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God. (RTB, 2018), pp. 85-107.