Scientifically-minded people may appreciate science fiction as a means to retreat from the pressures of everyday life, or as a catalyst to assist their
imaginations in thinking outside the box; but they won’t ordinarily[1]
seek from it the details for solving concrete problems concerning the actual world (e.g. getting to the moon
and back or building a bridge from both ends).
Human beings cannot create our own reality. Neither can we even manipulate it in violation of the laws of physics and nature in general. For example, despite our perception of light
at the quantum-level in physics that implied to renowned physicist Dr. Niels
Bohr that we by our very observation of
light actually makes it behave
differently than it would if we weren’t watching it, further scientific analysis has concluded
otherwise.[2]
|
|
From the initial rupture of public sexual boundaries in the 1960s, all
the way to the denial in certain cases[6]
of even a semblance[7]
of boundaries, including both personal[8]
and society-wide ones[9] in a span of just six decades,
we are witnessing the disintegration of both the glue and the discriminative[10]
tools that are absolutely vital for holding civilizations together.[11]
Our culture is currently entangled in
two fundamental self-contradictory errors; the first of which commits internal logical inconsistencies, while the
second seeks to create “new realities”
on the basis of conceptually-impossible incongruities.
As
for the first error, it is ironic that at the same time that secularists are casting
off so-described “hindrances” derived from moral
statutes grounded on traditional religious
authority; with the same fury as the “religious fanatics” that they decry, they
are imposing a very different set of imperatives onto society. These strictures can only consist of rules naively
grounded on auto[12]-inspiration[13]
which carries no metaphysical weight.[14]
Also they can be upheld only by threats from
unaccountable leaders clinging to absolute authority who, as Mao Zedong conceded,
maintain their power by “the power of a
gun.”[15]
The notion
that autonomous humans can evade this dilemma out of a belief that we are objective
thinkers and morally sound, is entirely untenable in view of the bleak track-record
of the human race.[16] In sum, those who would cast aside morality in
order to achieve an idealized freedom seem to be utterly oblivious to the reality that they are merely replacing a moral code with
a self-derived one for which they force
their power and agenda onto the rest of society by means of unnamed and
un-elected people. To be continued...
[1] There are exceptions. See https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/02/08/jules-verne-prophet-of-science-fiction
[2] Hugh Ross. The Creator and the Cosmos: How Latest
Scientific Discoveries Reveal God, 3rd ed. (RTB, 2018), pp.
153f.
[5]
A self-guided conscience and will that is
independent from either from God or His moral standards.
[6] With respect to certain perspectives on sexual
identity and “identity politics.”
[7] As of February 13, 2014, ABC News writer Russell
Goldman identified 58 gender options for Facebook users (https://abcnews.com).
[8] In the 60s the societal plea was for acceptance of
homosexuals (HS). In the 70s the demand was shifted to affirming HS as a valid
lifestyle. In the 80s it was demanded that HS couples be treated as married couples if they so desired, which then led to the
insistence that HS marriage be declared
the equivalent in both status and privilege to heterosexual marriage.
[9] Vocal advocates of the Democrat political party, with virtual unanimity, decry the concept
of controlled borders between the U.S. and Mexico.
[10] The very fact that popular culture decries the notion
of discrimination is in itself an indication that our society is in the process
of intellectual disintegration. Although popular culture takes the term to
stand for employing a double-standard as to how separate parties of people can
treated unequally, the term actually stands for employing both a fair and thoughtful
standard for picking between options on the basis of the best available evidence
that is independent of personal preferences.
In the absence of such reflection, mistakes are sure to follow.
[11] Social critic C.P. Snow once stated, “Civilization is hideously fragile and
there’s not much between us and the horrors beneath, just about a coat of
varnish.” Cited in the American
Family Journal, (November, December, 1991), p. 19.
[12] The term, “auto” appears frequently as a preposition
in this paper. It basically means
“self,” just as automobile means “self-mobilized.”
[13] 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.
[14] A chief tenet of secularism is that humans are solely physical entities who possess
neither soul nor psyche that is separate from pure matter.
[15] “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.
[16] Reinhold Niebuhr. https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2014-06/unoriginal-sin. It is vital to clarify here that our society one need NOT take the term “gun” literally
for the reason that threats of lawsuits are equally as threatening or
constricting!
