Rss

  • youtube

America’s malaise

Posted by :admin On : November 14, 2014
0

Category: America, Archives, Christianity, Government, Humanism, Worldview

Malaise seems an inadequate word to describe what’s happening in and to America. Synonyms for “malaise” are sickness, illness, disease, disorder, anxiety, depression, and discontent. It appears all are needed to describe America’s mood and condition. One magazine cover reads, “Is the world falling apart?” [1] Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan laments the nation’s decline in a recent column titled “Things fall apart for many public institutions.” [2] He lists numerous examples of this brokenness in recent years including the Center for Disease Control’s fumbled response in protecting Americans from an Ebola epidemic; basic security breaches in protecting the president at and away from the White House; the invasion of the southern United States by 60,000 children and young people from Central America; the Obamacare rollout debacle; the federal and state response to Hurricane Katrina in which 30,000 New Orleans residents were stranded for days; the strategic blunders by the president and civilian policy makers in handling the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; failing schools; skyrocketing national debt; deteriorating infrastructure; and political, racial, and cultural clashes. [3] And the list grows weekly.

Buchanan says that things were not always that way, and he raises the question: “What happened to us?” “Whatever happened to that can-do nation” that survived the Great Depression, armed itself and fought World War II over five years, and placed a man on the moon in ten years because we said we could do it? [4] Mr. Buchanan ends his column in dismay but offers no solutions. To Buchanan’s list we must also add the extreme societal devastation caused by the fracturing of the family structure which the late Senator Daniel Moynihan described as the he biggest change in the North Atlantic world that he observed in his forty years of government service and which happened in “an historical instant. Something that was not imaginable forty years ago had happened.” [5]

Something is profoundly wrong in America. The symptoms of the sickness are known and well-defined as shown above. The solutions put forth by politicians, bureaucrats, education professionals, scientists, sociologists and psychologists, economists and business professionals, and a host of others in the knowledge class generally treat only the symptoms with remedies that often seem to make matters worse while at the same time fail to diagnose the disease itself.

How do we determine what went wrong with America and why? To find the answer it makes sense to go back in history to a time when things were working, a time when America was unified and had confidence in the rightness of its central cultural vision? Once we find that point in time, we must ask ourselves what changed. A cursory examination of modern history in America quickly identifies that point in time as the 1960s and the emergence of the Boomer generation. What changed was a dramatic rejection by many in the Boomer generation of the values and central cultural vision of all preceding generations of Americans since their arrival as colonists in the early 1600s. A comparison of the Boomers and the Greatest Generation confirms the beginnings of America’s cultural divide.

Much has been written and said about the Greatest Generation, a term that has gained almost universal acceptance following Tom Brokaw’s book, The Greatest Generation. For it was this generation that grew up during the deprivations of the Great Depression, fought a world war, persisted in blocking Soviet threats and aggression in a prostrate post-war world, and built the world’s greatest peacetime economy. Following the Allied victory in 1945, the United States stood at the pinnacle of world power. But unlike any other time in history, that generation acted not as victors but as a good and honorable people who poured their resources and energies into helping devastated nations and their starving peoples around the world. And, they didn’t retreat in the face of new dictators and despots as they fought the hot war in Korea and the cold war in other parts of the world, primarily against the USSR and its satellites. Following World War II, they married; went to schools, colleges, and universities in record numbers; and birthed approximately eighty million children who became known as the Baby Boomers. [6]

And through all of these deprivations, challenges, and monumental efforts, “They stayed true to their values of personal responsibility, duty, honor, and faith.” [7] But, how do these values play out in twenty-first century America? Personal responsibility has been replaced by government responsibility for our health, wealth, happiness, and well-being. Duty is out of date and doesn’t resonate with the goal of self-actualization. It’s all about me, baby! Honor is no longer based on timeless standards and awarded on merit but is now a matter of personal opinion and popularity. And as to faith, the beliefs of the naïve and ignorant masses that still believe in the Christian God are tolerated as long as they do not share their faith in public nor practice that faith if it conflicts with the dictates of the state.

The challenge to the Judeo-Christian worldview by the Boomer elite is not a new occurrence. For hundreds of years a conflict has existed within Western civilization between those that believe in a transcendent God and those that do not. But, it was in the mid-twentieth century as each sphere of influence in American society began abandoning the Judeo-Christian central cultural vision under the onslaught of the purveyors of the humanistic worldview. The abandonment of the biblical foundations upon which the nation was built became evident as the leaders of the Boomer generation took the reins of leadership in the institutions of American life and imposed their humanistic values upon the policies, practices, and standards of those institutions. What are those humanistic values and beliefs held by many Boomers in leadership? There is no God and no life after death. Nature is all there is, and man is merely the evolutionary product of nature. Man can solve his own problems through science and reason. Freedom of expression and civil liberties are paramount in all areas of life. Happiness, freedom, and progress are the goals of mankind. The focus of life is on self and self-development. Society requires extensive social programs to achieve the goals of humanism. [8] It is obvious that these humanistic values have little in common with the Greatest Generation’s values of personal responsibility, duty, honor, and faith.

Arguing from the Judeo-Christian worldview held by Americans from the Founders through the Greatest Generation, Christopher Badeaux describes the provision of order supplied by that worldview and the consequences of its abandonment in favor of the humanistic worldview.

The Lord made the Universe according to a set of hidden but largely discernable rules, and those rules produce specific, predictable outcomes once the rules and variables are known. Furthermore, all things are made ordered—oriented if you prefer—to not only the Lord, but also to decent and right outcomes…Our consciences and our natural inclinations are manifestations of this intrinsic order; disregarding them gives rise to disorder. Indeed, even doing things that are right and good can be taken to extremes that place one outside of that natural order. When we step outside of that order, as anyone who has lived with someone suffering through, say, anorexia or alcohol addiction can tell you, the disorder radiates outward in a spiderweb-crack pattern of pain. [9]

The problem with the humanistic worldview is that its prescriptions fail the test of what is required for a culture to survive. First, cultural unity and cohesiveness necessary for any society to survive can never be achieved through a dictatorial center of authority required by humanism. Second, humanism is inherently a false worldview because it steps outside the order of the universe. Therefore, it cannot answer the basic questions of life by which all people seek to understand the meaning and purpose of life.

With the ascendance of the humanistic worldview in society, the spiderweb-crack pattern of disorder and dysfunction radiates through every institution of American life. This is the reason our public institutions and the institution of family is falling apart, and polls consistently show that Americans believe that society is truly disordered and falling apart. Mr. Buchanan asked what changed America. Without doubt, what changed America was the humanistic leadership of the institutions of American life that abandoned the central cultural vision of the Founding Americans and every generation up to and including the Greatest Generation. It is only when Americans return to that central cultural vision whose foundation is Christianity that disorder will become order and America will began working again.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “Is the World Falling Apart?” World, October 4, 2014, Cover.
[2] Patrick Buchanan, “Things fall apart for many public institutions,” Tulsa World, October 28, 2014, A-11; Pat Buchanan, “Things fall apart,”
Creators.com, October 14, 2014. http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/things-fall-apart.html (accessed October 29, 2014).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth, (New York: Doubleday, 2001), pp. 2, 85.
[6] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 9.
[7] Tom Brokaw, The Greatest Generation, (New York: Random House, 1998), p. xx.
[8] Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, Eighth Edition, (Amherst, New York: Humanist Press, 1997), pp. 13-15.
[9] Christopher Badeaux, “Faith, Fear and Cormac McCarthy,” The City, Vol. 1, Issue 3, (Winter 2008), 84-85.

The quest for equality and the loss of respect – Part II

Posted by :admin On : October 3, 2014
1

Category: Archives, Christianity, Equality, Humanism, Worldview

As noted in Part I, another name for equality is egalitarianism which is a fundamental tenet of humanism whose worldview has captured almost all of the institutions of American life and its leadership. The purpose of Part II is to reveal the undeniable linkage between humanism’s quest for equality and the consequent loss of respect in every facet of America life.

The defining characteristic of humanism is the exaltation of self, and this emphasis on self leads to inward focus and results in egotism. Humanist Manifesto II preaches that “The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value.”[1] The practical outworking of humanism’s view of self invariably leads to a quest for equality, the roots of which reach back to the leveling theories of the French Revolution. For biblical Christianity, the central theme is about relationships as demonstrated by the sacrifice of God’s only son at Calvary to make possible fallen man’s redemption and restoration to right relationship with Him.

Worldview

Universals are called by various names including norms, permanent things, eternal truths, and first principles. These universals apply to all of mankind, in all cultures, and all of human history. Human nature reflects a number of universals. Man’s craving for order is a human universal. Above all man must have order, and as man attempts to achieve order he constructs his worldview—his perception of reality, an understanding of the way the world works, his basic beliefs. The affliction of modern man is his propensity to cast off the universals as he constructs his worldview. The order upon which one builds a worldview cannot be based on whim, choice, or man-made theories but must reflect unchangeable truth. One of those truths is that man was created in the image of God, and the order sought by any worldview must reflect these image-of-God qualities and what it means to be human. When a worldview fails to account for the true nature of man, it is false and destined for failure because it cannot provide a sustained order.

Therefore, the superiority of a worldview must be measured by its ability to bring order, and this is the measure we must use in evaluating humanism and Christianity. Which of these worldviews provides the respect sought by human nature or becomes the catalyst for loss of respect: humanism’s exaltation of self through its quest for equality or the value Christianity places on relationships? The prescriptions offered by these competing worldviews for achieving respect between men in the conduct of human affairs are mutually exclusive. One must be true and the other false.

Christian worldview

Wilfred McClay wrote, “…we shape our relationships, but we are more fundamentally shaped by the need for them, and we cannot understand ourselves without reference to them…we are made by, through, and for relationship with one another.”[2] One of the fundamental needs (universals) of mankind is to dwell together, in other words, a need for relationships. For the Christian, the importance of human relationships is a reflection of the Trinitarian relationship, a picture of His fundamental being. God’s being is shown by the Father-Son relationship and the relationship of Christ with the Church of which He is the head and we are the body.

For mankind, these relational patterns are present in various entities—marriage, family, community, nations, and the Kingdom of God. In his first letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul gives an insight into the operation of these relational patterns which speak of brotherhood and not equality, “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit, we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit…If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them as he chose.” [1 Corinthians 12:12-13, 17-18. RSV] Put another way, we are one human family, but not every member of the family can have the same place and position. Distinctions in the family are required. Status in family is determined by God. To sum up, man’s relational patterns are hierarchical.

Humanist worldview

Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) was one of the principal founders of the humanistic psychology movement. In his 1943 A Theory of Human Motivation, Maslow developed the concept of a “hierarchy of human needs” which proposed to rank the needs of humans.

Self-Actualization – Morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, and acceptance of facts. Self-actualizers are people who strive for and reach a maximum degree of their inborn potential.

Esteem – Self-esteem, confidence, achievement, respect of others, and respect by others.

Love-Belonging – Friendship, family, sexual intimacy.

Safety – Security of body, employment, resources, morality, the family, health, property.

Physiological – Breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion.[3]

Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs conflicts with the human universal of the primacy of relationships in motivating human beings. In Maslow’s hierarchy, the sex act is labeled as non-relational physiological need and banished to the lowest level of needs. Family at the second level is merely for safety’s sake and non-relational. It is only at level three that we see relational needs: family, friendship, and sexual intimacy.[4] The other four levels deal substantially with self, whether basic physiological/safety or esteem/self-actualization.

Maslow’s theories of human motivation are based on the humanistic worldview. They fail as human motivators because they dramatically diminish the importance of relationship in favor of self. Apart from physiological and safety needs which are creational givens, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is upside down as it reflects human nature and leads to a false worldview. The societal disorder that permeates the entire planet is a result of the widely held humanistic worldview which has elevated self above relationships. And the engine driving this topsy-turvy worldview is the quest for equality which demands a leveling of society which in turn can be achieved only through socialism. Therefore, humanism’s imposition of equality as a means of establishing a foundation for respect in individuals and society in general is fatally flawed.

Humanism’s equality attempts to re-structure society by eliminating distinctions and thereby increasing respect, but it does the opposite. This is evident from the writings of Richard M. Weaver, “The most portentous general event of our time is the steady obliteration of those distinctions which create society…If society is something which can be understood, it must have structure; if it has structure, it must have hierarchy…” Weaver called the elimination of hierarchy through the egalitarian notion that in a just society there are no distinctions a perversion. “…the most insidious idea employed to break down society is an undefined equalitarianism…Such equalitarianism is harmful because it always presents itself as a redress of injustice, whereas in truth it is the very opposite.”[5]

Here Weaver reveals the fatal flaw at the heart of equality and its failure to instill respect among people. Justice breeds respect…respect for authority, property rights, institutions, customs, and traditions, and to regard with esteem people who share that understanding of justice. But, equality that pretends to insure justice is inherently unjust in doing so. Forced equality’s injustice is inevitably corrosive to human relationships and leads to loss of respect in all facets of society.

Undeniable linkage

How does this Christian view of the supremacy of relationship promote respect in a dog-eat-dog world focused on its rights rather than responsibilities? Just as a focus on self inevitably fades into a demand for equality, fraternity (brotherhood) is the product of relationship. Brotherhood taps into human emotions that are rooted in mankind’s divine connection – those image-of-God qualities indelibly imprinted on man’s being. Man was made for brotherhood, and the emotional bonds of brotherhood link him with family, community, and nation. Those connections give us status in family which extracts duties and obligations from its members, entangling alliances that call for and fosters fidelity and respect.

Equality is rooted in self and demands its rights which often are nothing more than gossamer imaginings of a humanistic worldview. The undeniable linkage between the humanism’s quest for equality and the consequent loss of respect at all levels of human activity and relationship are obvious. Humanism’s forced equality leads to suspicion, resentment, disunity, and ultimately to disrespect of people, laws, authority, institutions, and the nation’s central cultural vision. It fails to provide an order based on truth which is requisite for respect. Only through the Christian worldview’s focus on relationships and consequent brotherhood can man give and receive the respect that flows from his image-of-God qualities found in his human nature.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifesto I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), p. 18.
[2] Wilfred McCray, “The Soul & the City,” The City, Vol. II, No. 2, (Summer 2009), 8-9.
[3] Neel Burton, M.D., “Our Hierarchy of Needs,” Psychology Today, May 23, 2012.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/our-hierarchy-needs (accessed September 18, 2014).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 35, 40.

Acts of God or Acts of Man?

Posted by :admin On : August 8, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism, Worldview

The phrase “an act of God” is typically associated with destruction, loss, pain, and suffering beyond the control of man. Many property and casualty insurance policies contain exclusions of coverage on losses attributed to “acts of God” because certain massive acts of nature can’t be controlled such as earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. However, other less pervasive natural and therefore insurable occurrences such as tornadoes, hail, storms, high winds, and ice may be covered. War, although man-made, is often included in these exclusions. Then there are other uninsurable catastrophes such as famine, pandemic disease, and pestilence that kill millions each year. For many, the biblical God of love has a lot to answer for if these actions are truly His responsibility.

It seems that God gets blamed for most if not all of the evil in the world. If He is not blamed for causing it, then He is blamed for not preventing it. For several well-known individuals, a good God cannot exist if He allows such pain and suffering. The last vestiges of Charles Darwin’s Christian faith evaporated upon his daughter’s painful death. Likewise, billionaire Ted Turner became an outspoken unbeliever upon his sister’s death from a painful disease. “I was taught that God was love and God was powerful, and I couldn’t understand how someone so innocent should be made or allowed to suffer so.” Former well-known evangelist Charles Templeton wrote Farewell to God in 1996. The reason for his rejection of belief in God is revealed by his question, “How could a loving and omnipotent God create such horrors as we have been contemplating?”[1]

So how could a good God allow a world full of pain and suffering to exist? It is a legitimate question, especially for those who deny the existence of God or who reject the biblical answer for mankind’s pain and suffering.

Before we require God to explain the reasons for the existence of pain and suffering in the world, we ought to be in agreement as to the definition and meaning of two words necessary to understand God’s answer: love and freedom. When we speak of love, we refer here to interpersonal relationships (as opposed to the impersonal “I love pizza!”). Our friend Webster describes love as “affection,” “devotion,” “warm attachment,” and “adoration.”[2] But love can one directional and rejected by the intended recipient. Love cannot be commanded, only accepted and returned or rejected. Here we see that love is a matter of choice. One is free to accept or reject love. The popular mantra that “love is all that is necessary” is wrong. We may love the terrorist, but that won’t stop him from maiming and killing innocent people. Even if the terrorist is won over by our love and renounces his terrorist activities, the pain and suffering caused by mindless natural forces can’t be stopped. So, we must agree that love requires freedom for both the giver and recipient.

With this understanding of love and freedom, we are able to comprehend God’s answer for the existence of pain and suffering in the world. To do so we must step back and take in the entire breadth and height of the biblical meta-story of creation including man who was God’s special creation.

God existed before the universe was created, and then God created the universe and all that is within it including the laws that govern that creation. Unlike all of the other elements of his creation, man was created with a free will. This part of the Christian worldview is called Creation. Mankind’s free will allowed man to think and act in ways that were contrary to God’s plan and will for His creation. When man acted in ways contrary to God’s laws (truths), such disobedience to God’s laws was called sin, and as a result decay and death entered into God’s creation. This is called the Fall, and it affected not only man but all of God’s creation. But as God is a loving God, he created a way through His son, Jesus Christ, which allows man to bring order to the chaos he created. This is called the Restoration. There you have the basic elements of the Christian worldview: the Creation, the Fall, and the Restoration. No other worldview recognizes the true nature of the human condition and provides a means whereby man can return to a proper orientation to God’s laws and plan. It answers the questions of where we came from and who we are, what went wrong, and how we get out of the chaos and restore order to our souls.[3]

God’s creation of man with a free will meant the possibility of rejection of God and His love. In other words free will and the potential for rejection of God was the penalty for the possibility of love. So it is on the earthly plane, to risk love is to risk rejection.[4] Pain and suffering entered the world through man’s rejection of God. But man was not the only victim of his rebellion.

Even natural evil—involving earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and the like—is rooted in our wrong use of free choice. We must not forget that we are living in a fallen world, and because of this, we are subject to disasters in the world of nature that would not have occurred had man not rebelled against God in the beginning. (see Romans 8:20-22)[5]

Humanism is the great competing meta-story and stands in stark contrast on every major point to that of Christianity with regard to man’s creation, purpose, and destiny. The humanistic philosophy denies the existence of all forms of the supernatural, proposes that nature is the totality of being and exists independently of any mind or consciousness. Man is the evolutionary product of Nature, and man has no conscious survival after death due to the unity of body and personality. Humans are masters of their own destiny, and human values are grounded in this-earthly experiences and relationships.[6]

Humanism presents the problem of suffering as the greatest objection to the existence of God. But humanism stands convicted by its own arguments in its denial of the existence of a supernatural God. If there is no supernatural God, and if humans are masters of their own destinies, what is the source of evil that has led to universal pain and suffering in the world? Its worldview has no logical, realistic, or compelling answers. Christian apologist William Craig Lane expresses the humanist’s dilemma.

Paradoxically, then, even though the problem of suffering is the greatest objection to the existence of God, at the end of the day God is the only solution to the problem of suffering. If God does not exist, then we are locked without hope in a world filled with pointless and unredeemed suffering. God is the final answer to the problem of suffering, for He redeems us from evil and takes us into the everlasting joy of an incommensurable good: fellowship with Himself.[7]

As the world is increasingly awash in unfathomable sorrow, pain, and suffering, those who are redeemed by God through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ can take comfort in the words of Christ to His disciples just before His betrayal and death on the cross. “These things I have said to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” [John 16:33. RSV]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Ken Ham and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, “Why is there death and suffering?” Creation Ministries International,
http://creation.com/why-is-there-death-and-suffering#_ret4 (accessed August 8, 2014).
[2] “love,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company,
Publishers, 1963), p. 501.
[3] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as Gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American
Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 86
[4] Ibid., p. 158.
[5] Ronald Rhodes, “Tough Questions About Evil,” Who Made God? Eds. Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler,
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003), p. 37.
[6] Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, Eighth Edition, Revised, (Amherst, New York: Humanist Press,
1997), pp. 13-14.
[7] William Lane Craig, On Guard, (Colorado Springs, Colorado: David C. Cook, 2010), p. 173.

Shake and Bake History – Engineering the future while forgetting the past

Posted by :admin On : August 1, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Education, Progressivism, Worldview

Two recent syndicated newspaper columns contained two views of history that frame the two worldviews contending for dominance in the nation’s central cultural vision—humanism and Christianity. The first was written by David Turnoy, a retired elementary teacher and author.[1] Mr. Turnoy is a proponent of ‘honest” history of the warts and all variety with a strong emphasis on the warts. Turnoy’s article is peppered with numerous phrases descriptive of the humanistic worldview, and some of his quotes will help understand that worldview.

For any progressive student or observer of history, it is well-known that the United States has a mixed record in its treatment of Native Americans, African Americans, women and other groups, including some especially cruel treatment…So what information should be taught? Should it be the traditional bland summary showing America as always in the right, led by truly admirable heroes who bring about change while leaving out any negative actions, which leads to disinterested, unquestioning citizens who allow government and other elites to do as they like? Or should it be a more balanced, honest approach?…If we want a better country with more equality and justice, this is where it starts.[2] (emphasis added)

To summarize, it appears that Turnoy believes that traditional history lessons will be bland summaries if not focused on the negatives and therefore produce disinterested and unquestioning citizens who are unconcerned about equality and justice. Turnoy assumes his approach is more balanced and honest. We will examine how Turnoy’s “honest and balanced” approach really plays out in the American education system dominated by a humanistic worldview.

A contrary view is held by Daniel Burnett who believes that there has been a “…growing trend in historical illiteracy for years, and the culprit is our nation’s education system…it fails to prepare students with the knowledge they’ll need for informed citizenship.” Quoting various research studies on knowledge of history in America, Burnett reported that only five percent of the top fifty public universities in the U.S. required even one survey course on American history. Most college and university curricula require only niche courses to take the place of American history courses. He cites several examples: “Foundations of Rock,” “Human Sexuality,” “History of Avant-Garde Film,” and “America Through Baseball.” Burnett believes that the American education system has produced a population of illiterates and amnesiacs as it relates to the nation’s history.[3]

One must ask why there is such an aversion to teaching American history in primary and secondary schools and at colleges and universities. Turnoy argues that history teachers are not honest with regard to America’s failures. Burnett cites the educational system’s focus on niche courses and a failure to teach a comprehensive history of the nation. Both points of view are a result of the educational system’s dominant humanistic worldview and its aversion to the lessons of the past.

American education’s humanistic worldview

The American education system is extremely humanistic in its worldview, teaching, policies, practices, and course content. The great architect of engineering the future through education without a historical foundation was John Dewey. Dewey was “…recognized as the leader of the ‘progressive movement’ in education.”[4] (emphasis added) His educational philosophy, writings, and twenty-five years at Columbia University dramatically shaped the educational system in the U.S. from the early years of the twentieth century until the present day. His philosophy was centered on humanistic concepts of man with regard to his origins, purpose, and future. Dewey had a substantial disdain for historical influence, tradition, patrimony, and religion (particularly the Christian worldview), all of which were noticeably absent in his development of American education’s modern paradigm.[5] The progressive movement in education resulted in faculty hostility to the courses and fields of study that examine the traditional roots of Western civilization and American institutions. Turnoy’s sought after “honest and balanced” presentation of history has been cast aside in favor of indoctrinating American students with a humanistic worldview.

Humanism’s aversion to history

In the humanist worldview history is excess baggage that must be tossed to make way for new, bold, and progressive ideas. Therefore, humanists subscribe to the Whig theory of history which states that the most advanced point in time is the point of its highest development. This fits nicely with humanists’ progressivism whose foundation is the Enlightenment belief of the perfectibility of man, a “…belief that critical and autonomous human reason held the power to discover the truth about life and the world, and to progressively liberate humanity from the ignorance and injustices of the past.”[6] Those holding the humanistic worldview eliminate the traditional historical narrative of America unless that narrative can be sifted and parsed to present selected evidence of America’s supposed widespread historical inequality and injustice.

Rob Koons, a philosophy professor at the University of Texas, has called the modern American university’s array of unconnected courses the Uncurriculum. Koons describes the Uncurriculum as a smorgasbord approach to curriculum offerings whose design usually exhibits a general lack of required courses, structure, and systematic order in meeting core course requirements for liberal arts studies.[7] From such comes a citizenry that is profoundly illiterate with regard to America’s story and the reasons for its preeminence among the past and present nations of the world.

The story of America

America cannot be understood without a comprehensive historical narrative. Such a narrative reveals that America’s founding originated from a biblical worldview that runs through the history of Western civilization since its inception. One cannot understand America by substituting a shake and bake curriculum that substitutes courses such as “America Through Baseball” or “History of Avant-Garde Film” for traditional comprehensive history courses that present the matchless story of America.

Russell Kirk expressed the true ideal of education.

True education is meant to develop the individual human being, the person, rather than to serve the state. In all our talk about “serving national goals” and “citizenship education”—phrases that originated with John Dewey and his disciples—we tend to ignore the fact that schooling was not originated by the modern nation-state. Formal schooling actually commenced as an endeavor to acquaint the rising generation with religious knowledge: with awareness of the transcendent and with moral truths…to teach what it is to be a true human being.[8]

Writing of the humanistic view of education, Richard Weaver’s words capture the goal of such education. “The student is to be prepared not to save his soul, or to inherit the wisdom and usages of past civilizations, or even to get ahead in life, but to become a member of a utopia resting on a false view of both nature and man.”[9]

It is safe to say that the great majority of modern Americans do not understand the true story of America and its institutions. Turnoy and Barnett’s prescriptions to achieve an informed citizenry with regard to American history follow starkly different avenues. Turnoy’s humanistic education model has ruled for the better part of a century and has utterly failed. Barnett offers hope that a return to telling the comprehensive though politically incorrect story of America will result in an informed and politically adept citizenry.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] David Turnoy, “When can we introduce children to honest history?” Tulsa World, June 8, 2014, A14.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Daniel Burnett, “Historical amnesia: Let us never forget D-Day,” Tulsa World, June 6, 2014, A14.
[4] Robert B. Talisse, On Dewey, (Belmont, California: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, 2000), pp. ix, 1, 4.
[5] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 23-25.
[6] Christian Smith, The Secular Revolution, (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2003), p. 54.
[7] Johnson, p. 300.
[8] Russell Kirk, The Essential Russell Kirk, ed. George A. Panichas, (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2007), p. 400.
[9] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 117.

Mainstream Environmentalism – The Dark Side – Part II

Posted by :admin On : July 18, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism, Worldview

The unifying element between mainstream and radical environmentalism is the status or position of human beings in nature’s hierarchy. In Part I we noted that this unifying belief is sometimes called “deep ecology” by which is meant “a movement or a body of concepts that considers humans no more important than other species and that advocates a corresponding radical readjustment of the relationships between humans and nature.”[1] This false concept of the value of human beings has its roots in humanism, one of two worldviews contending for dominance in Western civilization and particularly America, the other worldview being Christianity.

Modern environmentalism and its humanistic worldview

This humanistic worldview offers two pillars upon which environmentalists rest their efforts. First, life is the product of a long evolutionary process of nature. Corliss Lamont was one of the twentieth century’s leading humanists and author of The Philosophy of Humanism. Lamont brings together all of the variations and branches of humanist thought under the title of naturalism.

Naturalism considers that human beings, the earth, and the unending universe of space and time are all parts of one great Nature. The whole of existence is equivalent to Nature and outside of Nature nothing exists. This metaphysics has no place for the supernatural, no room for superphysical beings or a supermaterial God, whether Christian or non-Christian in character, from whom we can obtain favors through prayer or guidance through revelation. But the adherents of Naturalism recognize and indeed rejoice in our affinity with the mighty Nature that brought us forth…[2]

It is from naturalism that springs forth the environmental movement’s current adulation of “…mighty Nature that brought us forth…” and in which we “…are all parts of one great nature.” But such beliefs require that we jettison belief in the supernatural and the specialness of man’s creation. In other words, humans are no more important than other species which requires a new view of the relationship between humans and nature which is articulated in the numerous environmental laws, regulations, and restrictions to enforce the ordinariness of humans.

The second pillar of environmentalism is that man has the ability to solve his problems through science and reason and without help from God. Modern concepts of humanism emerged from eighteenth century Enlightenment which “…promoted the belief that critical and autonomous human reason held the power to discover the truth about life and the world, and to progressively liberate humanity from the ignorance and injustices of the past.”[3] But Charles Colson has identified the singular riff in the humanist reverence for both progressivism and naturalism and has labeled them the optimistic and pessimistic sides of the same coin. With the rise of science and technology during the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century, humanist philosophy optimistically exalted the ability of humans to solve their problems without God. Human reason allowed man to control his own destiny.[4] However, any student of world history over the last two hundred years will agree that man’s ability to solve his problems without God has failed miserably.

So what is the humanist to do? As humanist optimism fades to pessimism that man can fix his own problems through evolutionary progressivism, the humanist overlords intercede to save man and nature from man himself. Environmentalism is once again man’s attempt to control all the variables without God or even knowing what the variables are or the impact of the unintended consequences resulting from their efforts. Man’s solutions for the environment almost invariably come at great cost of time, money, and freedom to humankind and often at great cost to the ecosystem they propose to protect. “In today’s clash between two forms of humanism, Christianity can offer a balanced alternative.[5]

Tactics of environmentalism’s activists

The early history of the Sierra Club illustrates the tension between the worldviews of biblical Christianity and humanism with regard to nature and the environment. In 1864, Abraham Lincoln had originally set aside a portion of the Sierra Nevada mountain range in northern California in a public trust under the jurisdiction of that state. Efforts by naturalist John Muir to restrain local interests and curb development of areas in and around the Yosemite Valley led to a shift of control of the area to the federal government and the establishment of Yosemite National Park. Muir’s successful efforts to bring the area under federal jurisdiction led directly to the founding of the Sierra Club in May 1892 with the expressed purpose to protect the new park. From the very beginning of the club there was a tension between utilitarian conservation as directed by Gilford Pinchot, the first director of the U.S. Forest Service, and the aesthetic preservation of Muir and the Sierra Club. This tension between the two dissimilar environmental philosophies and tactics would continue for decades.[6]

As Muir and the Sierra Club began promoting its philosophies and exerting its influence, the club’s leaders learned two important lessons for successful environmental activism: first, the need to build a broad base of membership through the establishment of chapters far from local and even state boundaries, and second, “the need to elevate local or regional preservation issues to the national agenda to overcome the entrenched political power of local interests.”[7] Over one hundred years later, we see the success of these tactics as the environmental movement has indoctrinated the federal government, academia, and science with its humanistic approach to the environment and has influenced the enactment of environmental policies and practices that fit its humanistic worldview.

Be it Smokey the Bear and fire prevention, recycling campaigns, or cleaning up trash at a local park, few elementary school rooms in America are devoid of worthwhile and reasonable instruction with regard to conserving and protecting the environment. These efforts are in agreement with the Christian worldview that we are stewards and conservators of the earth and its environment. However, these early efforts at stewardship and conservation are used by environmental activists to condition children to accept the larger and more radical message and agenda of environmental activists and their humanistic worldview. This normalization or reasonableness of what was once thought radical is a standard practice in the humanistic attack on the larger culture (e.g., acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, gay marriage, and co-habitation). This was a favorite tactic used by David Brower, the reputed father of the modern environmental movement. Brower described the increasingly radical direction of his environmental activism throughout his life.

The Sierra Club made the Nature Conservancy look reasonable. I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We’re still waiting for someone else to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable.[8]

However, when one removes the façades of many of these seemingly reasonable environmental organizations, the deep ecology dark side is revealed. And however successful the environmental movement is in promoting the supposed reasonableness of its philosophy, its deep ecology dark side remains immersed in a false and destructive worldview, and its efforts will continue to fail as it has over the last one hundred years.

Charles Colson succinctly captures the dilemma of humanists and their environmental activist cohorts as well as the solution.

The lesson is clear: Humanism in any form is not only arrogant but mistaken. We are not God and we cannot control the variables—or even foresee them. The solution to our environmental problems must be found elsewhere: in the biblical teaching that God made human beings to be stewards over creation. That means that God intended us to develop the potential in creation through industry and technology. But it also means creation is not ours to misuse for our own purposes. We are responsible to someone higher than ourselves for how we treat creation.[9]

From Colson’s observations we see the fundamental difference between the biblical prescription of stewardship and conservation and the hammer of humanistic environmentalism that devalues and controls man through worship of the creation instead of the creator.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1]“deep ecology,” Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deep%20ecology (accessed July 7, 2014).
[2] Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, 8th Edition, (Amherst, New York: Humanist Press, 1997), p. 35.
[3]Christian Smith, ed., The Secular Revolution, (Berkley, California: University of California Press, 2003), p. 54.
[4]Charles Colson with Nancy R. Pearcey, A Dance with Deception, (Dallas, Texas: Word Publishing, 1993) pp. 223-224.
[5] Ibid., p. 224.
[6] Christopher J. Bosso, Environment, Inc., (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2005), pp. 23-24.
[7] Ibid., p. 24.