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).
