The End of Metaphysics II

In the same week that I read John Derbyshire's article on genomics, I saw Peter Singer's editorial, "Should This be the Last Generation" on the New York Times website. It was the perfect juxtaposition of idea and conclusion. If we embrace the logic of Derbyshire we eventually come to agreement with Singer. This is one of the terrible, unintended consequences of the enlightenment, it takes us to the place of hopelessness. Derbyshire alludes to this as the cost of honesty, he writes, "If self-deception gets more difficult, so will happiness." In other words, religion is a form of "self-deception" that enables us to face life optimistically. And, a "realistic" view of religion forces us to face the music in regard to the end of our existence.

The enlightenment began as a grand liberation movement that was supposed to release human potential. Central to the enlightenment hope was the belief in progress; enlightened science will eliminate disease and extend life spans, enlightened philosophy will end fear, prejudice, and inhibitions, and enlightened politics will create an educated, enlightened citizenry free of the burdens and insecurities of previous generations. The problem is that the leaders of the enlightenment never looked behind the curtain labeled, "the end of religious belief," which was one of their central goals.

The famous British philosopher Bertrand Russell pulls back the curtain for us.

That man is the product of causes which had no provision of the end they were achieving that his origin, his growth, his hopes, his fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collucations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all devotions, all inspiration, all the noon-day brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of our solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins-all these things, if not beyond dispute, are, yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." ( from A Free Man's Worship)

Peter Singer clearly describes the "unyielding despair" of modern enlightenment faith as he questions the value of human existence. He asks in the editorial if it is right for a couple to bring a child into the world based on the possibility that the child will suffer or contribute to the suffering of others. He asks at a crucial point in the article, "If there were no future generations, there would be much less to feel guilty about." His causes of guilt are such things as over population and global warming.

The irony in all of this is that guilt is an expression of the moral sense in man, it exists in that upper storey of abstractions that includes truth, beauty, goodness, and love. If human consciousness is nothing more than a biological accident, then guilt is as much of an illusion as religion, and ethics is reduced to "only to thine own self be true." It is no wonder that the primary consequence of the enlightenment has been the kind of self-absorbed hedonism we see in American popular culture.

The evolutionary scheme of things provides no explanation for guilt and the other abstractions of human consciousness. Nature only knows survival, the moral arose with the personal and the rational, both of which are unique to humanity. The aspirations to hope, faith, and love are inate, as are conscience and our sense of moral obligation. They stand as a transcendent reality in the midst of an impersonal, material universe.

The Bible declares that men are made in the image of God. It is these inner hopes, desires, and obligations that affirm that claim. How ironic that Peter Singer would invoke an aspect of his nature that he denies, yet which are fundamental to his motives and actions. He has lost all hope in the significance of life because he has lost hope in God, but his sense of obligation to prevent present and future suffering arise from that which is most deeply personal and even spiritual in his nature.

We must never give in to the nihilism of modern thought. We are not a cosmic accident. Too much about us, from consciousness to conscience, are beyond an accidental or natural explanation. We must never give up our hope in God, for goodness and God are linked. Without God there is no good, only darkness, hopelessness and despair. It is not that we embrace a fantasy to give ourselves hope, but that we see the deep need for hope in our hearts as evidence of the God who put it there.

The End of Metaphysics?

John Derbyshire has written an interesting article for National Review Online on the making of an artificial genome of a one celled creature. It is not quite artificial life, but it is close. Derbyshire's point is not journalistic, to report on a scientific advance, but philosophical, to declare the end of metaphysics and vitalism. This is a remarkable leap of logic. To say that because we can manipulate strands of DNA in the laboratory, and because we have "decoded" the genomes of several creatures, including man, that "life is essentially information" and thus we have removed any possiblity of mystery or of spirituality from nature and life. This is modern reductionism at its worst.


Mr. Derbyshire goes further, he invokes the Freudian view that religion is a delusion created to avoid the fear of death. Several generations of atheists have patted themselves on the back for being truly "courageous," completely rational, and fully accepting of the implications of modern science without ever questioning their own assumptions and the gigantic gaps in knowledge that their view of science prevents them from discovering.

At the top of this list is conscience and the sense of moral obligation. Immanuel Kant, in spite of his profound agnosticism, saw this as clear evidence of the existence of God. It is rather easy in your 20's and 30's to boast of your courage in rejecting religion, while never disclosing that your real motivation is to be free of moral restraint. Most people dislike the idea of God because they see Him as the enemy of their pleasures.

To return to the argument about the manipulation of the DNA of a single celled creature to make a new lifeform as a deathblow to metaphysics and vitalism. Just because we have acquired godlike knowledge that enables godlike power to manipulate lifeforms doesn't mean we have proven there is no God nor a non-physical, spiritual reality. We must keep in mind the fact that naturalism requires that DNA and all the creatures that inhabit this planet are the product of the random forces of nature. It is one thing for intelligent human beings, with all their equipment and technique to manipulate the chemistry to "create" a new single celled creature, it is another for the purely chance processes of nature to do the same thing. In fact, the chances of it happening accidentally is beyond any real possibility. It is unquestioningly accepted by evolutionists because they assume right from the start that there is no supernatural source thus it must have happened through natural processes. They allow themselves no other option than nature. We shouldn't be surprised, then, when they declare the end of metaphysics.

I am no fan of vitalism, but I understand the reason that many thoughtful writers, such as Gordon Ratty Taylor and Will Durant, have resorted to it. It provides a purposeful explanation for the amazing levels of organization and complexity we see in organic life. Even as great a critic of religion as Fredrich Nietzsche declared, "The development of matter into a thinking subject is impossible." He understood the utter inadequacy of pure materialism (matter is all that exists) to explain the world in which we live. There are far too many creatures, which all display levels of intricacy and design that defy any possibility of a chance explanation. Vitalism is the attempt to explain design and purpose by means of a "force," in other words without resorting to a personal creator God. The problem is that forces don't provide design or purpose. Forces are powers or tools that must be directed by intelligence which is ultimately personal. If we are going to invoke purpose and design, we are left with only one choice, a personal God.

Bio-engineering is a remarkable field. We certainly shouldn't deny its potential for curing disease, and improving life, but we must also be wary of its potential for abuse. We are not gods and we need to proceed very cautiously in assuming power over life, even the life of single celled creatures. In addition, our knowledge of nature is not as great as we think it is. We are basing many of our conclusions on unwarranted (and often unconscious) assumptions that we will surely come to regret. The Bible tells us, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1) Even in this era of dramatic scientific advances foolishness is alive and well.

Why All the Rage?

We are currently having a debate about political anger. The tea parties, in particular, are accused of being driven by anger toward this current democratic administration. In response, conservative commentators are pointing out the heated rhetoric that has been displayed on the liberal blogs and cable networks toward Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin. Anyone paying attention to politics in the past three years will have heard many angry words directed toward political opponents. So, what are we so mad about?

Political anger is rooted in moral sentiment. People justify their anger because they believe bad, harmful, or even evil things are being done. Conservatives and liberals see their anger as righteous indignation. The difference between the two groups are their definitions of right and wrong.

While we hear a great deal about moral relativism, it is in some ways a chimera. Relativism is a philosophy of convenience, allowing people to ignore moral obligations they believe interfere with their pursuit of personal pleasure. The side of the political spectrum most supportive of relativism, liberals, are just as capable of righteous indignation as any member of the religious right. It's not that liberals are relativists and conservatives are moralists, it is that they fundamentally disagree about what is right and what is wrong.

Since at least the 1960's the left has assumed the role of moral leadership for American society. Prior to that time, the moral consensus was shaped by widely understood Protestant values, such as marital fidelity, the work ethic, self-reliance, thrift, and personal decorum and responsibility. To see an example of this consensus watch a Doris Day movie from the 50's or a Leave it to Beaver re-run. With the freedom marches and the victory over racial segregation in the 60's, we saw one of liberalism's finest hours, and its rise to the place of defining acceptable and unacceptable behavior in our society.

Today they define what should be legal or illegal (Same-sex marriage-legal, hate crimes-illegal), what is important (stopping global warming) and what is unimportant (religion). What becomes disturbing is the lack of a real opportunity to debate the merits of these beliefs, and to question the qualifications of those defining these important decisions about our values and our laws.

Sadly, apart from their absolutely correct opposition to racial segregation, the left has defined its moral causes by the distorted values of the enlightenment. Over time, the anger of the left was directed at most of the previously held values of the American middle class. Eventually, they added the issues of environmentalism, sexual orientation, and economic egalitarianism to their list of things to be mad about. So, while the left has achieved moral leadership because it has achieved political leadership, that doesn't mean that its proscriptions for our values and behavior are right or beneficial.

The values of the previous generations and of the social conservatives today were built upon the foundations of the Bible and natural law. These values have been proven in the crucible of human history. They are a significant reason that America has been as successful as it has been. We turn our back on these values to our own peril, and a great deal of the anger generated by the Tea Parties is founded on the concern that we are endangering the future of our society by the rejection of these fundamental values.

In the end, the question isn't which group has the right to be angry. The more important question is which group has the right values upon which we should build our society. The testimony of history supports the Tea Party.

No Prayer Allowed

In a pre-emptive strike against the National Day of Prayer, first established by President Truman in 1952 and re-affirmed by President Reagan in 1988, an atheist-agnostic group in Wisconsin took the issue to court and received a favorable opinion from the judge. Judge Barbara Crabb wrote in her opinion that government must operate in regards to prayer under the bizarre constraint of serving "a significant secular purpose and is 'not a call for religious action on the part of its citizens.'" (quoted from Worldnet Daily article, "National Day of Prayer Ruled Unconstitutional," April 15, 2010) This becomes an impossible standard for how could prayer ever be for a significant secular purpose and not call for religious action on the part of citizens?

Here is another example of what Alexander Solzenitsyn described as "legalism" in his landmark speech at Harvard in the 1970's. His criticism of American society was that we use the legal system for political purposes rather than the maintenance of justice and morality. He spoke of the perversity of using the courts to justify activities that undermine the moral and social fabric of society such as traditional marriage and the family. In this instance, we see the courts used to strike another blow at the Judeo-Christian faith which forms the moral and spiritual foundation of American culture.

As I argue in my book, this use of the courts to prevent any public expression of the predominant Christian beliefs held by most Americans, implies that the government views Christian faith as a dangerous and destructive activity. Why else would it be considered illegal? It really is the courts, and thus the government of the United States, siding with the secularist view of Christianity as a great evil whose actions should be outlawed and its influence reduced or eliminated. By making public prayer, posting of the Ten Commandments, and Bible reading against the law the government can no longer claim to be neutral in regard to religious belief. It has taken a firm stand in opposition to any and all public expressions of the Christian faith.

We are only continuing to fool ourselves if we think this elimination of a national day of prayer is no big deal. It is another nail in the coffin of the influence of Judeo-Christian values on American society. We are sawing off the limbs of personal morality, unselfish concern for our fellow man, the Protestant/American work ethic, and the value of delayed gratification as we sit on them. We also rob our younger generations of faith and hope, because the two are related. We must recognize that God and goodness are entirely related. Nietzsche was the first of the modern philosophers to understand this fundamental truth. In denying God we face the unintended consequence of denying the good. I believe the descent into the relativistic darkness that characterizes so much of Western popular culture is merely the result of our embrace of a radical secularism that allows no place for God.

How ironic. Just when we need prayer the most we find it's not allowed.

The Problem with Taxes

April 15 seems to be the perfect day to think about the why's and wherefore's of taxes. In case you haven't noticed, an entire movement has risen in opposition to the expansion of government programs and the taxes needed to pay for them. As a conservative, my sentiments lie with the Tea Partiers. Yet, one of my frustrations with the conservative movement in America is our inability to explain why we are the party of No to those who don't buy into our point of view.

So, let me take a shot at explaining why we are opposed to increasing taxes. First, conservatives are as compassionate and as concerned about helping those in need as anyone. Our opposition to the present condition of our government is not based on a selfish desire to keep more of our hard earned money. It has much more to do with the way our taxes are being spent, and with the ever increasing deficits and debts that will dramatically reduce our capacity for economic growth. We are concerned about the impact this deficit spending will have on the economic conditions our children and grandchildren will inherit. We cannot attack the engine of our economy, which is the profit and income from the private sector, by designating an ever increasing portion of Gross National Product to government programs and entitlements without severely weakening our capacity to provide full employment and a decent middle class income.

Secondly, we are not opposed to paying taxes. We understand the proper role of government, and it's not just providing defense and infrastructure. Public education, social security, medicare, medicaid, and many forms of public assistance are important parts of a modern civilized society. My problem is not that we are spending money on these things, but that we are spending so very much with so little real results. It's really about efficiency and effectiveness. So many of our policies and programs are driven by ideology rather than pragmatism. Only government can mindlessly continue to spend countless billions on an educational system that has failed to adequately prepare so many of our young people for the demands of today's global economy. And no part of the public sector is more ideologically driven than public education. When we face the disastrous test scores and frighteningly low graduation rates of many of our inner city schools, we have every right to question how our taxes are being spent. When more emphasis is placed upon political correctness than upon mastering the basics of reading and writing, of science and math, of history and literature, and of critical thinking, we have every right to be concerned about our approach to K-12 education in this country.

What has made it worse is that non-ideological, proven solutions exist but cannot be applied because of the political power of special interest groups. The scandal that was the elimination of the school voucher program in Washington D.C. is a perfect example of politics and ideology trumping what is best for our children and what actually works in solving the serious problems we face as a society.

In addition, taxation is involuntary. We are forced to pay them under penalty of law. Yet, when we see our taxes used for programs and policies that offend our personal beliefs and values, our only recourse is political opposition. The Tea Parties are American conservatives declaring loudly, "No mas!" One of the great dangers of modern liberalism is its capacity to justify the imposing of its values and policies on others because it is being done in the name of "justice" or "equality" or "rights." The recently enacted health care bill is full of progressive attempts to make America "fair." The problem will be, as it always is, all the unanticipated consequences and expenses that end up making the policies un-fair.

As tax payers, it is our right and even our responsibility to question how our taxes are being spent. And with the massive bailouts of the financial industry, the ineffective and politically driven stimulus plan, and now, with the passage of mandated health insurance we have reached a tipping point. I fully expect this November to be a tax revolt via the ballot box.

Shaky Times

We are living through what is being called the Great Recession. Everyone I know is feeling the effects, not the least of which is a certain level of anxiety about the future. As believers, we shouldn't be taken by surprise. God warned of times of shaking before Jesus returns. Hebrews 12:26 says, "Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens." He is doing this to reveal the things that cannot be shaken. One of those things that are unshakable should be our confidence in Jesus.



One of the metaphors used to describe the Lord is as a "Rock." He is also described as a "fortress." Both of these picture our God as our place of refuge, protection, and security. In fact, there is no other shelter from the coming storm, because He is the only one who cannot be shaken.

If we think that by will power or self-discipline or the accumulation of wealth we can become unshakable, we are only deluding ourselves. There is no aspect of our natural capacities that can stand up to the challenges that await us, and while these are difficult times, we must see them as practice for times of testing to come.

This thing we are calling the Great Recession is, therefore, a time to press into Jesus. We need to spend more intentional time in Bible study, in prayer, in worship, in meditation upon the word and listening to the Lord. Now, more than ever, we need to deepen our sense of God's presence and grace upon our lives. He is the only unshakable One, and only in Him will we become those who cannot be shaken.

The Problem of Gridlock

I have wanted to write for some time on the problem of partisanship in American politics. It stands as one of the serious drawbacks to our system of governance. It's part of what makes American democracy, as Churchill said, "the worst form of government, except for all those other forms..."

What bothers me specifically about partisanship is its capacity for exaggeration, distortion, and polarization of the issues we face. It is a wonder we get anything accomplished through this highly contentious and downright dysfunctional process. Nor should it surprise us when the results promised by our elected representatives don't materialize, a.k.a. stimulus packages that don't actually stimulate the economy, education policies that don't improve education outcomes, or trade policies that don't reduce our trade deficit.

For full disclosure, I've never knowingly voted for a democrat, yet I find republican partisanship as distasteful and counter-productive as that coming from the democrats. Both parties are infected with this virus, and it is severely reducing our capacity to solve the serious problems we face as a nation.

When we exaggerate for the sake of political ideology, we often lose sight of the best approaches to solving our deep seated problems. We often turn irrational such as claiming that a limited option for private accounts would "deprive" seniors of the their social security benefits or calling the commission established to control medicare costs a "death panel." We make common sense, pragmatic solutions almost impossible particularly if they require acknowledgement of the merits of the other party's point of view. One gets the impression that for most politicians, politics is far more about winning than about solving problems and improving our society.

In the past, our blatant partisanship was an annoyance, today it is a major impediment. We face serious economic problems, of which the Great Recession was the first symptoms of the potential decline of our presumed prosperity. In the post-world war II era, we have always been able to climb out of recessions because of our dominance in manufacturing, technology, and personal prosperity. We could count on the auto industry or silicon valley or a pent up demand for housing and real estate investment to bring us out of a down turn. This time, economists ask what will be the engine of growth? Green jobs? Not likely, we are realistically not that far ahead of where we were in the late 70's in regard to bio-fuels, solar panels, wind energy, fuel-cell technology, and nuclear. None of these things are in a position to provide the millions of jobs necessary to restore us to the unemployment levels we enjoyed two years ago.

When experts tell us that so many of the jobs lost in this recession are "never coming back," it should cause us some serious concern. Yet, I don't sense that concern from many of our politicians. For them it seems to be political business as usual. How can we be talking about a massive new health care entitlement supported by all the disingenuous rhetoric we have come to expect from partisanship? It is like planning for a week of shuffleboard tournaments while the Titanic is sinking. Actually, our problem is that we are far enough removed from the actual sinking of the ship, that we can continue to live in denial.

What we need, before we get to a crisis far worse than we face today, is a set of truly honest political leaders. The problem is, I don't know how any of them can get elected. It may be that things are getting so bad that we are finally ready for leaders who will tell us what we need to hear rather than what we want to hear. In other words, how can our leaders overcome partisanship unless we do.