The American Crisis: Origins-
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Miscellaneous Notes and Summary
Journal Entry #29
Upon his entry into the 2012 presidential campaign, Congressman Paul Ryan observed that the United States of America began as an idea. In this he was right on track. Sadly, this observation is not emphasized enough; really, it’s not emphasized at all. We seldom get past the economics of politics. However, the idea of self-government, the polity of which “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, was the unique product of the Age of Enlightenment.
As Jay Winik describes in his outstanding book The Great Upheaval; America and The Birth of The Modern World 1788-1800 (2007), “…scarcely had there been an age so skeptical toward tradition, so confident in the powers of human reason and science, so firmly convinced of the regularity and harmony of nature, and so deeply imbued with the sense of civilization’s advance and progress. The evidence of this was all around.”
“The literate public greatly expanded…As the 1700’s unfolded before them, their thoughts turned to the question of governance and the human condition. And mostly to this basic notion- that the existing state of society could be improved.” Through the intellectual influence of the French philosophes Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau, and their distinguished followers “d’Alembert, Buffon, Turgot, Helvetius…and Diderot”, Western thought took an entirely new direction.
This new direction inspired a novel belief, “one that radiated outward, radically and exponentially, in Europe, east and west, off to Russia, and far away to the colonies in North America, which would set minds ablaze and soon help kindle two great revolutions, not to mention a counterrevolution. The crux of this belief eschewed [avoided; shunned] an order based on the direct will of God and the fixed nature of the universe. Instead, it focused a bright light on man-made law and man-made authority.”
The new worldview of the French philosophes notwithstanding, the luminaries of the North American colonies- Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Madison, and especially Washington- respected the “direct will of God and the fixed nature of the universe” as they embraced the libertarian (as opposed to the communal-collectivist) version of the emerging European democratic tradition, according to Klaus Fischer in his fascinating work Nazi Germany; A New History (1995), in the chapter entitled The Origins of Totalitarianism.
“Libertarianism and its various permutations gave rise to the Anglo-American style of thought with its emphasis on representative government, freedom, equality, and human rights, while collectivism informed the rising Socialist and Communist movements and their demands for the abolition of private property, the communal ownership of goods, and ‘true’ equality.”
For the American Founders therefore, all “man-made law and man-made authority” could derive its legitimacy only from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, as the American Revolution’s Declaration of Independence read. This distinction incidentally, between two philosophical versions of democracy is supported in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, who saw a clear distinction between the twin Revolutions of the later eighteenth century.
Jefferson regarded the American Revolution as a conservative political revolution because the pre-war colonial legislatures and representative assemblies were extended and preserved. The subsequent French Revolution he thought a radical social revolution, because it advocated and implemented the dissolution of the Old Regime (ancien regime) as well as the overturning of the older, traditional social order.
As the streets of Paris became awash in blood in the Reign of Terror, many hapless souls were condemned to execution- nobles, bourgeois and commoners alike, even King Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette- all receiving the due process of the guillotine. Of course, in this radical revolutionary madness the Church also was attacked, its property confiscated.
According to Fischer, with the onset of the nineteenth century, global European imperialism combined with aggressive nationalism and the gathering Industrial Revolution, accelerating the scientific, secularized direction of Western thought begun in the Enlightenment. Unlike the mercantilist economic order of Europe’s earlier colonialism period, nineteenth century imperialism saw the organization and implementation of capitalist economic arrangements integrating the geographic and cultural areas of overseas investments.
“In practical terms, this meant investing vast amounts of capital in overseas ventures and in setting up the instruments of production and exchange: mines, factories, docks, warehouses, refineries, railroads, steamboats, and banks.” Reciprocal construction was engaged in the increasingly industrialized European cities to receive the raw materials from these overseas ventures and facilitate production, transport, manufacture and export of finished products.
In the process of establishing these “instruments of production”, the physical excavation of large areas of the earth to accommodate mines, railroads, canals, bridges and tunnels began to reveal strata or earlier surface layers of the earth of apparently great antiquity, which gave impetus to the study of geology. The English surveyor and canal builder William Smith pioneered the systematic study of the stratification of the earth's crust with his book, Strata Identified by Organised Fossils (1816). And of course, within these strata were found layered evidence of differing climates in addition to the fossil remains of long extinct species, giving rise to the study of paleontology and the work of Georges Cuvier.
In 1830 Charles Lyell published the first volume of his Principles of Geology, a copy of which was given to a young English naturalist named Charles Darwin by his Cambridge botany professor, to read on his famous voyage of exploration on the HMS Beagle. In the pages of this seminal book, “Lyell had opened to [Darwin] the vast and exhilarating prospect of nature- ‘no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end’- first unfolded in James Hutton’s Theory of the Earth in 1788”, wrote Professor John Greene in The Death of Adam; Evolution and Its Impact on Western Thought (1959).
According to the concept of uniformitarianism- advanced by Buffon in his 1749 work Natural History- Charles Lyell “reconstructed the history of the earth based on processes still continuing; uniform actions through time implied a uniform rate of change”, observed the historian James Burke in The Day the Universe Changed. Because “only natural causes could be used to explain geological events”, Lyell’s work “shattered the biblical complacency of the Victorian intellectual world.” It also increased the popular misconception that religion and science were very much incompatible.
Awaiting Charles Darwin upon the Beagle’s return in 1832 was the second volume of Principles of Geology, in which Lyell extended the definition of geology “to include the study of organic change as well”, wrote Professor Greene. With the publication in 1838 of Thomas Malthus’ Essay On The Principle of Population, the fossil evidence confirmed in Darwin’s mind Lyell’s view that “In the universal struggle for existence, the right of the strongest eventually prevails”.
For Western thought, what began in 1687 with Isaac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation in Principia Mathematica had come full circle. According to James Burke in The Day the Universe Changed, Newton’s system- predicated as it was upon a rationally operating universe, understood by human reason alone- sought how, not why, the universe operated. Universal gravitation destroyed the medieval picture of the world as a structure moved by the unseen and ever-present hand of God.
Man was no longer at the center of a universal system operated for his edification by the Almighty. Earth was just one small planet of many in an incomprehensibly vast universe that behaved according to mathematical laws. There seemed, for the first time, no place in the cosmos for the Providential involvement of God in the affairs of mankind. The human race was quite alone.
Charles Darwin’s 1859 publication of Origin of Species, though it was concerned with the origin of the plants and animals found in the fossil record, required little imagination in order to be applied to human beings. If there were no Adam and Eve, then Man was subject to the same evolutionary rules as any other organism. Consequently, humanity was no longer a special creation made in God’s image; if this were so, there would be little use for the religion that taught such a lie…
Montag
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Thursday, November 8, 2012
The American Crisis: Our Continuing Plight
A Brief Interlude
An Observation on the Recent Election
Journal Entry #28
In their inscrutable wisdom, the majority of American voters have returned Barack Obama to the Presidency to serve a second term. I have no doubt that the Americans who voted thus are sincere people and upstanding citizens who, given the limitations inherent in any candidate seeking high office, nevertheless desire by their vote to achieve hope and change, and a better day in America. This is what they desired; I’m compelled to tell you what they will, in fact, receive.
Before the first day of his new term, before he does anything great or small, President Obama will arrive- like the proverbial blind date- encumbered with a great deal of baggage from the previous engagement. Chief among this encumbrance is that eight-hundred pound gorilla so sweetly overlooked by his erstwhile opponents, done certainly in the spirit of patriotism and magnanimity. This gorilla is what they call nowadays a “done deal”. And like the blind date, we are forced to take all of him or none of him, and that includes his “family”.
That gorilla’s name is the Affordable Health Care Act which, with Mr. Obama’s reelection, has received a guaranteed four year stay of execution- definitely a long enough period of time to graft itself onto the national body politic. And from there, to inextricably intertwine its powerful tendrils with the otherwise necessary nerve-system pathway traversing the spinal column so wisely devised by the original thirteen colonies and codified by the U.S. Constitution.
The Affordable Health Care Act will achieve several things- none of which are good, insofar as good governance is concerned. This Act will, in one mighty stroke, reduce health care quality and availability, dramatically increase health care cost with a reciprocal decrease in the citizen’s overall material standard of living, and enormously increase the power of the STATE- done always at the expense of personal liberty- with the promotion of the STATE’S ability to coerce any and all arbitrarily (thanks to the Supreme Court) in order to force compliance. If that’s not Tyranny, I’ll eat my hat. If we were living in the Islamist regions of the world, this Act would be called a Fatwa.
Montag
A Brief Interlude
An Observation on the Recent Election
Journal Entry #28
In their inscrutable wisdom, the majority of American voters have returned Barack Obama to the Presidency to serve a second term. I have no doubt that the Americans who voted thus are sincere people and upstanding citizens who, given the limitations inherent in any candidate seeking high office, nevertheless desire by their vote to achieve hope and change, and a better day in America. This is what they desired; I’m compelled to tell you what they will, in fact, receive.
Before the first day of his new term, before he does anything great or small, President Obama will arrive- like the proverbial blind date- encumbered with a great deal of baggage from the previous engagement. Chief among this encumbrance is that eight-hundred pound gorilla so sweetly overlooked by his erstwhile opponents, done certainly in the spirit of patriotism and magnanimity. This gorilla is what they call nowadays a “done deal”. And like the blind date, we are forced to take all of him or none of him, and that includes his “family”.
That gorilla’s name is the Affordable Health Care Act which, with Mr. Obama’s reelection, has received a guaranteed four year stay of execution- definitely a long enough period of time to graft itself onto the national body politic. And from there, to inextricably intertwine its powerful tendrils with the otherwise necessary nerve-system pathway traversing the spinal column so wisely devised by the original thirteen colonies and codified by the U.S. Constitution.
The Affordable Health Care Act will achieve several things- none of which are good, insofar as good governance is concerned. This Act will, in one mighty stroke, reduce health care quality and availability, dramatically increase health care cost with a reciprocal decrease in the citizen’s overall material standard of living, and enormously increase the power of the STATE- done always at the expense of personal liberty- with the promotion of the STATE’S ability to coerce any and all arbitrarily (thanks to the Supreme Court) in order to force compliance. If that’s not Tyranny, I’ll eat my hat. If we were living in the Islamist regions of the world, this Act would be called a Fatwa.
Montag
Monday, September 17, 2012
The American Crisis: Origins-
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 13- Conclusion
Journal Entry #27
Look at the nations and watch- and be utterly amazed. For I am going to do something in your days that you would not believe, even if you were told. –Habakkuk 1: 5.
One of the most world-changing events in my lifetime was the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the re-formation of the once-powerful Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall that symbolized a dividing line between Christian and anti-Christian beliefs painted a picture of the moral and philosophical dilemma in the latter years of the twentieth century. The suddenness of these changes baffled scholars, Soviet observers, diplomats, and even the CIA.
I recalled speaking at the wall…to a group of wide-eyed East Germans who told me they were both hopeful and frightened. They were hopeful that peace and freedom would improve their way of life, but they were frightened by the scenes of greed and materialism they saw in the West. They said they would rather remain behind the wall, in poverty and bondage to Communism, than to discover that ‘freedom’ was nothing more than moral decadence, corruption, sin, violence, and greed that characterize much of the West today. I thought those were incredibly wise and stirring sentiments from people who had already suffered so much. –Billy Graham, Storm Warning, pp. 47, 53.
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 13- Conclusion
We understand that a dilemma is a situation ultimately requiring a distressing or painful choice one would rather not make. For those of us residing in Western Civilization, this decision involves choosing between two distinct futures. One future sees science as the exclusive interpreter of the universe and humanity, coupled with the dangerous irrationalism its strictly material assumptions would make inevitable- yielding philosophical, social and political totalitarianism.
The other future denies the sufficiency of science alone to define the universe and human beings, with the unavoidable suggestion that the boundaries of reality may very well exceed the material confines of the physical universe. The unsettling implication this latter choice imposes upon the modern intellect and the technologically sophisticated society we’ve made, is that humanity may no longer arrogantly regard itself as the sole arbiter of its own destiny. In other words, Western Civilization would once again be compelled to make some sort of philosophical (the fields of ontology and epistemology) allowance for the existence of a divine presence in the natural order of things.
Because the alternatives are sharply defined, one might think the choice between the two futures- though painful- would nevertheless be a fairly straightforward bargain. From the historical examples we have so far considered, we know any society which adopts a strictly material, evolutionary worldview soon finds it necessary to maintain its legitimacy by official decree, coercion and eventually tyranny, since the appeal of its ideology is made to irrationalism, rather than reason. Once again, one can only imagine how different the history of the twentieth century would read had there been no Darwinist theory of biological evolution to essentially sustain Marxism and Nazism.
In such societies, we inevitably see emerge an official hostility to reason (“logic is an enemy and truth is a menace”) since it is only by well-practiced reasoning that a citizenry may effectively challenge the folly of an irrational worldview. It’s no wonder that totalitarian societies impose empty reasoning and the vigorous denial of universal truth early in state-sponsored education, where young minds simply have no alternative philosophical comparisons upon which to rely. And one may be certain that the court system (much like U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper, in Part 9) of a totalitarian society will always rule according to the party line, the official ideology: no logical comparisons or alternative theories will ever again be available to the students.
To the extent that democratic government is adopted or imitated worldwide, with deference to modern science’s perspective that the material world is the ultimate reality, the eventual collapse of these governments will be equally as widespread. In the final analysis, what should matter most to our enlightened sensibilities is not whether democratic government has vanquished or outlived its totalitarian enemies- Soviet Russia, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Peoples Republic of China, Al Qaeda, whomever.
History would seem to indicate that as humanity’s primordial will to power and impulse to superiority- both intellectual and geopolitical- combines with the more recent adversarial necessities of ideology, democracy will always and everywhere be challenged.
What will truly matter most to us, in the final analysis, is whether we will ultimately persuade ourselves within the context of our great learning of the “logic” of philosophic materialism and evolution. To do so would displace rationalism and promote a philosophic climate conducive to totalitarian ideology; in such a circumstance the difference between democratic government and tyranny would be in name only. In my opinion we come very near that threshold. The absence of stability, propriety, prosperity and unity- the disequilibrium- in our society, and the diminished intellectual freedom to extend truth all attest to this fact.
What truth are we no longer permitted to enlarge? The actual historical events surrounding the real historical figure Jesus of Nazareth, who presented arguably the most relevant philosophical observation to ever challenge the modern scientific mind: “You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.”
Montag
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Copyright © 2005 by Michael Condon
Next posting:
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Miscellaneous Notes, with a Note on Positivism and Professor Einstein; Summary.
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 13- Conclusion
Journal Entry #27
Look at the nations and watch- and be utterly amazed. For I am going to do something in your days that you would not believe, even if you were told. –Habakkuk 1: 5.
One of the most world-changing events in my lifetime was the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the re-formation of the once-powerful Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall that symbolized a dividing line between Christian and anti-Christian beliefs painted a picture of the moral and philosophical dilemma in the latter years of the twentieth century. The suddenness of these changes baffled scholars, Soviet observers, diplomats, and even the CIA.
I recalled speaking at the wall…to a group of wide-eyed East Germans who told me they were both hopeful and frightened. They were hopeful that peace and freedom would improve their way of life, but they were frightened by the scenes of greed and materialism they saw in the West. They said they would rather remain behind the wall, in poverty and bondage to Communism, than to discover that ‘freedom’ was nothing more than moral decadence, corruption, sin, violence, and greed that characterize much of the West today. I thought those were incredibly wise and stirring sentiments from people who had already suffered so much. –Billy Graham, Storm Warning, pp. 47, 53.
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 13- Conclusion
We understand that a dilemma is a situation ultimately requiring a distressing or painful choice one would rather not make. For those of us residing in Western Civilization, this decision involves choosing between two distinct futures. One future sees science as the exclusive interpreter of the universe and humanity, coupled with the dangerous irrationalism its strictly material assumptions would make inevitable- yielding philosophical, social and political totalitarianism.
The other future denies the sufficiency of science alone to define the universe and human beings, with the unavoidable suggestion that the boundaries of reality may very well exceed the material confines of the physical universe. The unsettling implication this latter choice imposes upon the modern intellect and the technologically sophisticated society we’ve made, is that humanity may no longer arrogantly regard itself as the sole arbiter of its own destiny. In other words, Western Civilization would once again be compelled to make some sort of philosophical (the fields of ontology and epistemology) allowance for the existence of a divine presence in the natural order of things.
Because the alternatives are sharply defined, one might think the choice between the two futures- though painful- would nevertheless be a fairly straightforward bargain. From the historical examples we have so far considered, we know any society which adopts a strictly material, evolutionary worldview soon finds it necessary to maintain its legitimacy by official decree, coercion and eventually tyranny, since the appeal of its ideology is made to irrationalism, rather than reason. Once again, one can only imagine how different the history of the twentieth century would read had there been no Darwinist theory of biological evolution to essentially sustain Marxism and Nazism.
In such societies, we inevitably see emerge an official hostility to reason (“logic is an enemy and truth is a menace”) since it is only by well-practiced reasoning that a citizenry may effectively challenge the folly of an irrational worldview. It’s no wonder that totalitarian societies impose empty reasoning and the vigorous denial of universal truth early in state-sponsored education, where young minds simply have no alternative philosophical comparisons upon which to rely. And one may be certain that the court system (much like U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper, in Part 9) of a totalitarian society will always rule according to the party line, the official ideology: no logical comparisons or alternative theories will ever again be available to the students.
To the extent that democratic government is adopted or imitated worldwide, with deference to modern science’s perspective that the material world is the ultimate reality, the eventual collapse of these governments will be equally as widespread. In the final analysis, what should matter most to our enlightened sensibilities is not whether democratic government has vanquished or outlived its totalitarian enemies- Soviet Russia, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Peoples Republic of China, Al Qaeda, whomever.
History would seem to indicate that as humanity’s primordial will to power and impulse to superiority- both intellectual and geopolitical- combines with the more recent adversarial necessities of ideology, democracy will always and everywhere be challenged.
What will truly matter most to us, in the final analysis, is whether we will ultimately persuade ourselves within the context of our great learning of the “logic” of philosophic materialism and evolution. To do so would displace rationalism and promote a philosophic climate conducive to totalitarian ideology; in such a circumstance the difference between democratic government and tyranny would be in name only. In my opinion we come very near that threshold. The absence of stability, propriety, prosperity and unity- the disequilibrium- in our society, and the diminished intellectual freedom to extend truth all attest to this fact.
What truth are we no longer permitted to enlarge? The actual historical events surrounding the real historical figure Jesus of Nazareth, who presented arguably the most relevant philosophical observation to ever challenge the modern scientific mind: “You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.”
Montag
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Copyright © 2005 by Michael Condon
Next posting:
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Miscellaneous Notes, with a Note on Positivism and Professor Einstein; Summary.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
The American Crisis: Origins-
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Parts 11 & 12
Journal Entry #26
But if scientific atheists are disposed to challenge God’s existence- the party line, after all- they are far less willing to reflect on what His dismissal entails. –David Berlinski, PhD, Mathematics. The Devil’s Delusion; Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth…he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else…From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth…For in him we live and move and have our being. –The apostle Paul, addressing the Areopagus in Athens, Acts 17:24-26, 28
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. –Hebrews 11:3
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 11
Of lesser importance here is the issue of whether the beginning of the universe can be traced to a point of infinite density- a singularity- according to Professor Hawking's calculations, or, as other scientists have speculated, the Big Bang was simply one phase of an endless cycle of universal contraction and expansion. Of greater, indeed of critical importance, is the common ground these conceptualizations share: the resort to infinite matter.
Though the conferring of self-sufficiency to material systems via infinite matter offers the human mind the convenience of excluding the qualitative (non-mathematical) aspects of the universe, it also leads human thought into the chaotic and illogical realm of fallacious thinking by means of Petitio Principi, the Argumentum ad Baculum and the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
Professor Carl Sagan‘s remarks in Part 6 epitomize this last fallacy, which is “committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true. But our ignorance of how to prove or disprove a proposition clearly does not establish either the truth or the falsehood of that proposition.”- Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, p. 101.
If one hypothesizes only according to material criteria, one essentially "stacks the deck" or "loads the dice" in favor of arriving at a material conclusion. Now, this would be fine if the universe is bound together exclusively by material properties, however, we see also in the universe the distinct presence of transmaterial existence, or being. Unfortunately, in a strictly material interpretation of the universe, the extent and boundaries of being remain largely unexplored by science, leaving the student to wonder whether scientists are aware of it at all.
Consequently, science never resolves the critical issue of whether matter and being are coextensive. The answer to this is of crucial importance to science, though scientists appear quite indifferent to it. Nevertheless, if the boundaries of being exceed the boundaries of matter, then exclusively material explanations- especially about origins- fall woefully short of accurately defining the universe. Phrased another way, the conclusions of strictly material theories become entirely insufficient if the actual evidence shows there exists more to the universe than just material components and properties.
To the extent internal contradictions plague our first two potential explanations of how matter and being might combine, we are left with the third possible way the universe came about: being is the defining and initially occurring ingredient upon which matter is dependent and subsequently founded. If the reverse were true, if matter occurred initially in order to inaugurate being, then matter would be in a state of nonbeing or nonexistence while existing.
Obviously, such a state of affairs contradicts practical experience and empirical observation. Therefore being is first, then comes matter and the material universe. As a corollary we can say this of matter: it should no longer be regarded as the only ingredient composing the universe- nor even the most important, either in the formation of the whole or in the determination of its parts.
Part 12
Because scientists have failed to register all the empirical evidence displayed by the universe and, as a consequence, failed to resolve the critical issue whether matter and being are coextensive, modern science has become entangled in fallacy and error. We are therefore justified in concluding that the current materialist theories of the origin of the universe and of life- the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution- are scientifically deficient.
In fact, a key feature long overlooked and improperly excluded from the body of scientific evidence- the undeniable fact of being- would actually disprove these materialist theories, given the opportunity. The reader should note that some physicists have recently labored to eliminate the Big Bang singularity theory in favor of a physical explanation known as the “quantum vacuum”, which is a fancy way of saying that something (like the universe) could potentially emerge from nothing. How about that??!! If we begin to equate something with nothing, will they eventually become indistinguishable? Can human freedom and self government exist in such a philosophical climate?
In any event, ignoring evidence will ultimately weaken future scientific effort and human thought generally. Though empirically disprovable, the internal contradictions of Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang have not in the least diminished their unchallenged prestige and dominance in Western science and thought. However, the unavoidable philosophic irrationalism fostered by these theories represents a very real threat to the indispensible rationalism necessary for democratic government. Such irrationalism displaces the pursuit and observance of truth so essential to democracy in favor of the much easier political expedience and social utilitarianism characteristic of technocracy and totalitarian states.
In this study I have attempted to make clear the inseparable connection science shares with the entire culture within which it works. Just as practical technology and the products of science (penicillin and Hiroshima, for example) profoundly affect the physical environment of human civilization, we may assume that the philosophical method of modern science similarly penetrates every area of human thought as well. Such philosophical penetration unavoidably extends such methods to influence the general search for knowledge, beyond the range of scientific particularities. If these methods gotten from science are corrupted by fallacy and error, so also will the larger body of human knowledge become corrupted.
Furthermore, these philosophical methods ultimately influence and direct much of humanity's overall worldview. This idea of a worldview, though abstract in its formulation, is in its implementation quite tangible and powerful, and is continuously reinforced by the intellect's interpretation of reality. You will remember in Journal Entry #14 the reader is introduced to the esteemed historian of science and innovation James Burke, through his book and PBS series The Day the Universe Changed.
Mr. Burke explains, “When we observe nature we see what we want to see, according to what we believe we know about it at the time. Nature is disordered, powerful and chaotic, and through fear of the chaos we impose system on it…We need to have an overall explanation of what the universe is and how it functions…we develop explanatory theories which will give structure to natural phenomena: we classify nature into a coherent system which appears to do what we say it does. This view of the universe permeates all aspects of our life. All communities in all places at all times manifest their own view of reality in what they do. The entire culture reflects the contemporary model of reality. We are what we know. And when the body of knowledge changes, so do we.”
So as the scientific method becomes distorted by philosophic materialism, so also will the extended field of human inquiry become distorted, according to the tremendous influence science exerts upon society. As a result, the conceptual status of reality inevitably diverges from- and ultimately rejects- the actually existing status of reality. This process is at the heart of my Disequilibrium Hypothesis, which is a measure of the degree of separation between actual reality and our ideas about that reality. To the extent this divergence increases in a society, so inevitably does that society’s imbalance and instability. As I point out in my book History Remembered, History Forgotten: as human thought goes, so goes human history.
In the preface I write that the human act is the consummation of the thought, even as the thought is the justification for the human act. We have seen the historical impulse to irrationalism conspicuously embodied in the darkest tyrannies of the twentieth century. We can be assured that if we continue to disregard this tendency to irrationalism within current scientific thought, the twentieth century’s Age of the Great Tyrants will be greatly surpassed by a Tyranny of the Intellect in the twenty-first century.
This, of course, would be the most insidious of all tyrannies. Though its illegitimate nature would be real enough- if not readily apparent- it would nevertheless enjoy a mantle of scientific respectability, as it labored to repress dissenting or contrary views. Such a result is unavoidable in that climate where the intellect defiantly determines what reality is, despite reality's counterclaim. But then, that’s the very heart and soul of modern ideology, isn’t it?
What must always be remembered, and forgotten only at our peril- and which obtains whether we are discussing the history of science or general human history- is this salient fact: whatever cannot be sustained by reason must surely be maintained by force. Standing as we are at the threshold of this tyranny, we are compelled to resolve the dilemma into which we’ve placed our civilization. To do less would be foolhardy.
Montag
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Parts 11 & 12
Journal Entry #26
But if scientific atheists are disposed to challenge God’s existence- the party line, after all- they are far less willing to reflect on what His dismissal entails. –David Berlinski, PhD, Mathematics. The Devil’s Delusion; Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth…he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else…From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth…For in him we live and move and have our being. –The apostle Paul, addressing the Areopagus in Athens, Acts 17:24-26, 28
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. –Hebrews 11:3
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 11
Of lesser importance here is the issue of whether the beginning of the universe can be traced to a point of infinite density- a singularity- according to Professor Hawking's calculations, or, as other scientists have speculated, the Big Bang was simply one phase of an endless cycle of universal contraction and expansion. Of greater, indeed of critical importance, is the common ground these conceptualizations share: the resort to infinite matter.
Though the conferring of self-sufficiency to material systems via infinite matter offers the human mind the convenience of excluding the qualitative (non-mathematical) aspects of the universe, it also leads human thought into the chaotic and illogical realm of fallacious thinking by means of Petitio Principi, the Argumentum ad Baculum and the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
Professor Carl Sagan‘s remarks in Part 6 epitomize this last fallacy, which is “committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true. But our ignorance of how to prove or disprove a proposition clearly does not establish either the truth or the falsehood of that proposition.”- Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, p. 101.
If one hypothesizes only according to material criteria, one essentially "stacks the deck" or "loads the dice" in favor of arriving at a material conclusion. Now, this would be fine if the universe is bound together exclusively by material properties, however, we see also in the universe the distinct presence of transmaterial existence, or being. Unfortunately, in a strictly material interpretation of the universe, the extent and boundaries of being remain largely unexplored by science, leaving the student to wonder whether scientists are aware of it at all.
Consequently, science never resolves the critical issue of whether matter and being are coextensive. The answer to this is of crucial importance to science, though scientists appear quite indifferent to it. Nevertheless, if the boundaries of being exceed the boundaries of matter, then exclusively material explanations- especially about origins- fall woefully short of accurately defining the universe. Phrased another way, the conclusions of strictly material theories become entirely insufficient if the actual evidence shows there exists more to the universe than just material components and properties.
To the extent internal contradictions plague our first two potential explanations of how matter and being might combine, we are left with the third possible way the universe came about: being is the defining and initially occurring ingredient upon which matter is dependent and subsequently founded. If the reverse were true, if matter occurred initially in order to inaugurate being, then matter would be in a state of nonbeing or nonexistence while existing.
Obviously, such a state of affairs contradicts practical experience and empirical observation. Therefore being is first, then comes matter and the material universe. As a corollary we can say this of matter: it should no longer be regarded as the only ingredient composing the universe- nor even the most important, either in the formation of the whole or in the determination of its parts.
Part 12
Because scientists have failed to register all the empirical evidence displayed by the universe and, as a consequence, failed to resolve the critical issue whether matter and being are coextensive, modern science has become entangled in fallacy and error. We are therefore justified in concluding that the current materialist theories of the origin of the universe and of life- the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution- are scientifically deficient.
In fact, a key feature long overlooked and improperly excluded from the body of scientific evidence- the undeniable fact of being- would actually disprove these materialist theories, given the opportunity. The reader should note that some physicists have recently labored to eliminate the Big Bang singularity theory in favor of a physical explanation known as the “quantum vacuum”, which is a fancy way of saying that something (like the universe) could potentially emerge from nothing. How about that??!! If we begin to equate something with nothing, will they eventually become indistinguishable? Can human freedom and self government exist in such a philosophical climate?
In any event, ignoring evidence will ultimately weaken future scientific effort and human thought generally. Though empirically disprovable, the internal contradictions of Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang have not in the least diminished their unchallenged prestige and dominance in Western science and thought. However, the unavoidable philosophic irrationalism fostered by these theories represents a very real threat to the indispensible rationalism necessary for democratic government. Such irrationalism displaces the pursuit and observance of truth so essential to democracy in favor of the much easier political expedience and social utilitarianism characteristic of technocracy and totalitarian states.
In this study I have attempted to make clear the inseparable connection science shares with the entire culture within which it works. Just as practical technology and the products of science (penicillin and Hiroshima, for example) profoundly affect the physical environment of human civilization, we may assume that the philosophical method of modern science similarly penetrates every area of human thought as well. Such philosophical penetration unavoidably extends such methods to influence the general search for knowledge, beyond the range of scientific particularities. If these methods gotten from science are corrupted by fallacy and error, so also will the larger body of human knowledge become corrupted.
Furthermore, these philosophical methods ultimately influence and direct much of humanity's overall worldview. This idea of a worldview, though abstract in its formulation, is in its implementation quite tangible and powerful, and is continuously reinforced by the intellect's interpretation of reality. You will remember in Journal Entry #14 the reader is introduced to the esteemed historian of science and innovation James Burke, through his book and PBS series The Day the Universe Changed.
Mr. Burke explains, “When we observe nature we see what we want to see, according to what we believe we know about it at the time. Nature is disordered, powerful and chaotic, and through fear of the chaos we impose system on it…We need to have an overall explanation of what the universe is and how it functions…we develop explanatory theories which will give structure to natural phenomena: we classify nature into a coherent system which appears to do what we say it does. This view of the universe permeates all aspects of our life. All communities in all places at all times manifest their own view of reality in what they do. The entire culture reflects the contemporary model of reality. We are what we know. And when the body of knowledge changes, so do we.”
So as the scientific method becomes distorted by philosophic materialism, so also will the extended field of human inquiry become distorted, according to the tremendous influence science exerts upon society. As a result, the conceptual status of reality inevitably diverges from- and ultimately rejects- the actually existing status of reality. This process is at the heart of my Disequilibrium Hypothesis, which is a measure of the degree of separation between actual reality and our ideas about that reality. To the extent this divergence increases in a society, so inevitably does that society’s imbalance and instability. As I point out in my book History Remembered, History Forgotten: as human thought goes, so goes human history.
In the preface I write that the human act is the consummation of the thought, even as the thought is the justification for the human act. We have seen the historical impulse to irrationalism conspicuously embodied in the darkest tyrannies of the twentieth century. We can be assured that if we continue to disregard this tendency to irrationalism within current scientific thought, the twentieth century’s Age of the Great Tyrants will be greatly surpassed by a Tyranny of the Intellect in the twenty-first century.
This, of course, would be the most insidious of all tyrannies. Though its illegitimate nature would be real enough- if not readily apparent- it would nevertheless enjoy a mantle of scientific respectability, as it labored to repress dissenting or contrary views. Such a result is unavoidable in that climate where the intellect defiantly determines what reality is, despite reality's counterclaim. But then, that’s the very heart and soul of modern ideology, isn’t it?
What must always be remembered, and forgotten only at our peril- and which obtains whether we are discussing the history of science or general human history- is this salient fact: whatever cannot be sustained by reason must surely be maintained by force. Standing as we are at the threshold of this tyranny, we are compelled to resolve the dilemma into which we’ve placed our civilization. To do less would be foolhardy.
Montag
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
The American Crisis: Origins-
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Parts 9 & 10
Journal Entry #25
Our study proceeds according to the premise that there exists in democracy a philosophical threshold, beyond which we can no longer ensure free institutions and a stable society. –abstract, The Failure of Modern Science...
...my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. –Hosea 4:6
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 9
Initially, the worldview that said all the observable and measurable things in the universe are material phenomena began life as a useful assumption. In short order it was promoted to a scientific article of faith. Ultimately, it would graduate into the unshakeable belief that all that exists in the universe are material objects. It was a bold, yet philosophically unwarranted scientific presumption.
As a result, particular hypotheses of material development, embodied in the theories of Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang singularity, now receive widespread acceptance and are said to satisfactorily account for the origin of biological life and the universe in which we live. Ironically, the practical effect of this erroneous reasoning is the frustration of the legitimate pursuits of science: the comprehension of the universe, and the general advancement of human knowledge and understanding.
Specifically, these are the destructive consequences to the body of human knowledge from such fallacious reasoning: First, an erroneous scientific theory is immediately produced. Second, this logically erroneous conclusion serves as an "established" theory according to which future scientific investigation is organized and to which subsequent hypotheses are compared and “validated”.* Third, the status of this inductive reasoning illicitly acquires the authority and force of deductive reasoning, though the conclusions of the former are by no means certainly and necessarily true, as are those of the latter.
Fourth, the overall standard for judging empirical evidence loses objectivity, admitting finally only data that support preferred or cherished hypotheses, and therefore commit the fallacy of petitio principii. Eventually, the scientific method becomes arbitrary, while the true nature of the universe is conceptually distorted. Ultimately, the entirety of human thought becomes likewise skewed and arbitrary, and through the extended philosophical corruption that follows, human reason becomes at once narrow, uncertain and unreliable.
We need look no further than the morning newspaper to see evidence of the consequences of the faulty reasoning that sustains philosophic materialism. In a recent Associated Press report, we are told of the Federal judge who ordered an Atlanta suburban school system to remove from their high school biology textbook a provocative sticker warning that evolution is “a theory, not a fact.” In this most remarkable ruling, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper states that…
“By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories…While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community.”**
To be sure, by judicial fiat- which is just a nice way of saying government coercion- the students in this Atlanta community will no longer underestimate the “significance and value of evolution” to science (nor to the legal profession as well, one might suppose). Unfortunately these same students will henceforth misunderstand the significance and value of the scientific method, at the core of which is the responsible evaluation and application of the empirical evidence manifested by the natural world (evidence as an issue is likewise at the core of a legitimate system of jurisprudence- or was, until this Federal ruling).
Indeed, the very fact that an otherwise exclusively academic controversy is now subject to arbitration in courts of law, rather than resolved as they once were through logical debate and the free play of ideas, strongly indicates the speculations of a 19th century English naturalist have now gone well beyond the confines of science. Even as the philosophical implications of this quarrel now largely exceed the boundaries of the scientific method.
It’s no coincidence therefore, that what began as a logical departure in scientific thought according to the fallacy of petitio principii, should then require reinforcement in generalized thought by means of the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum- or the appeal to force. The latter fallacy is committed “when one appeals to force or the threat of force [whether legal or otherwise] to cause acceptance of a conclusion…[and is] usually resorted to only when evidence or rational arguments fail.”***
Generally speaking, if we were to offer any explanation which fails to take into account all aspects of the phenomena under observation, we know that explanation would be incomplete and therefore, unacceptable. Scientifically, if we similarly advance a strictly material explanation (evolution) which fails to account for a nonmaterial ingredient- the presence, the existence of biological life- we know such a scientific conclusion would also be incomplete and unacceptable. In either case, it is an undeniable fact one simply cannot expect to accurately explain a complete thing (in the Atlanta school case, biological life) by reference to only one of its parts- matter, while ignoring the nonmaterial fact of its presence, its existence.
To remedy this erroneous habit of mind, we need to recognize the inadequacy of material explanations, whether of biological life or of the universe as a whole. Now the three main monotheistic religions are all in agreement with modern science that there was a beginning to both the universe and biological life. This would imply that at one time the universe was nonexistent. In order for the universe to gain material existence therefore, a measure of being was needed upon which to build. Since matter did not exist however, the necessary existence had to come from elsewhere, and therefore, could only have come from being which must already have been in existence.
Apparently, the universe and the biological life we observe possesses an unrecognized, though actually existing ingredient. That ingredient I have termed transmaterial existence, which is being. Such being sustains and occurs in, but is not confined to- nor defined by- matter or material existence. We shall see that transmaterial existence is the primary condition for material existence and that, were the reverse true- that material existence is the main condition for being- it would not be possible for us to discuss this subject, for neither we nor the universe could exist.
Part 10
In an enormously revealing statement, Stephen Hawking proposes in his book, The Universe in a Nutshell that we should try and “understand the beginning of the universe on the basis of science.”^ Insofar as science, by reason of its language and object of study, is confined to the extended material order, Professor Hawking would naturally propose we take as our initial premise that matter is the defining ingredient in the formation of the universe.
Certainly matter consistently displays specifically definable characteristics, for example its capacity to be handled, weighed and measured, and its distinctive occupation of an area of space. However, the strictly materialist theories which claim to explain the origins of the universe and the living things therein- the Big Bang singularity and Darwinian evolution- necessarily require the material universe must respect these definable characteristics of matter while at the same time exceeding them.
A closer assessment tells us that for these theories to be valid, matter must be a measurable part of an immeasurable universe; a part distributed within boundaries comprising a boundless universe. Nevertheless, because science routinely recognizes only matter- and its derivative energy- then the beginning of the universe must surely have been of material origin. But if it is the case that only matter begets matter, then there must have been infinite matter before the beginning of the universe. But if matter is infinite, its ongoing material presence would have obviated the need for a beginning. Yet modern science asserts matter- as well as space and time- had a beginning.
According to practical experience, we are reasonably entitled to assume matter cannot retain its reputation as a finite, bounded, measurable entity while at the same time promising an infinite potential. Besides matter then, to what other ingredient must science therefore refer in its observations of the universe? To that very observable though mostly immaterial ingredient: being. For science to recognize such an ingredient is not only empirically necessary but quite unavoidable, because being is the fact of existing, of existence as opposed to nonexistence. It would be extremely surprising for anyone, especially within the scientific community, to argue against the existence of both matter and the universe.
These two ingredients- matter and being- comprising the physical universe can only occur in one of three combinations; taken together these explanations may be considered mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. The first possible way matter and being might occur is in a proportional or symmetrical combination; the second way is for matter and being to be in a synonymous or identical relationship; and the third way they might combine is for being to be distinctly in place before matter ever comes into existence.
In the proportional or symmetrical way of combining, matter and being occur in the same place, in the same proportion and share common boundaries and extent. In other words, there is always found the one in the presence of the other. We need not, at this point, entertain any notion of causation in any possible combination of matter and being. Here we merely observe that one component is consistently and proportionally in evidence with every occurrence of the other. The issue of causation is of marginal importance.
From the outset there seems to appear a prominent deficiency with this proportional or symmetrical combination, rendering impossible any chance of it leading to the formation of the entire universe: that deficiency is the concurrent nature of the relationship. Concurrence requires that the components of this relationship of matter and being possess equal authority and jurisdiction, and that they consequently display simultaneity.
Matter seems to be present only as there is being, and being only as there is the presence of matter. And because there is always found the one in the presence of the other, the presence of one implies the presence of both. From this we are entitled to infer the absence of one prohibits the presence of the other. And similarly, the absence of both rules out the presence of either one. Consequently, for both matter and being to first appear (assuming the universe had a beginning), one of them must make a first appearance.
According to the concurrent nature of their relationship, however, if it is the case that neither had yet appeared, it would be impossible for there to be a first appearance of either in the absence of the other. The only way, therefore, matter and being may combine proportionally to form the universe, is for both to have always been in existence- that is, existed infinitely. But the resort to infinity would then place us more properly within the second explanation of the combination of matter and being.
Within the second scheme, matter and being occur in a synonymous, identical combination, in which matter is being and being is matter. In other words, there is never found the one in the absence of the other. Another formulation of this would identify all matter with existence, and all existence with matter, presumably the closest understanding Professor Hawking would have us take on the universe: “The universe would be entirely self-contained; it wouldn't need anything outside to wind up the clockwork and set it going...everything in the universe would be determined by the laws of science and by rolls of the dice within the universe.”^^
Certainly he and Roger Penrose approved such a formulation when they set forth the Big Bang theory in 1970. This theory allegedly proves mathematically that space and time- and by association the physical universe- had a beginning^^^, though the infinite magnitude matter and being must assume as we regard them as identical would not only argue against, but unequivocally contradict any such talk of beginnings as a result of a Big Bang singularity model.
To say matter and being exist infinitely is also to say they exist eternally. With eternities, as with infinities, there are no beginnings nor endings, even as there are no boundaries. We must concede then the first two possible explanations of how matter and being might combine are physically impossible. Which leads us to conclude that being existed initially, and sustained the later emergence of the material universe.
Notes
*Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic: Sixth Edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1982) 470. Cf. 13.3, Evaluating Scientific Explanations.
**The Cleveland Plain Dealer; Friday, 14 January 2005; Section A5. Italics are mine.
***Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic: Sixth Edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1982) 99.
^Stephen Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell (New York: Bantam Books, 2001) 79.
^^Ibid., p.85. Italics are mine.
^^^Ibid., pp. 41, 82.
Montag
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Parts 9 & 10
Journal Entry #25
Our study proceeds according to the premise that there exists in democracy a philosophical threshold, beyond which we can no longer ensure free institutions and a stable society. –abstract, The Failure of Modern Science...
...my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. –Hosea 4:6
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 9
Initially, the worldview that said all the observable and measurable things in the universe are material phenomena began life as a useful assumption. In short order it was promoted to a scientific article of faith. Ultimately, it would graduate into the unshakeable belief that all that exists in the universe are material objects. It was a bold, yet philosophically unwarranted scientific presumption.
As a result, particular hypotheses of material development, embodied in the theories of Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang singularity, now receive widespread acceptance and are said to satisfactorily account for the origin of biological life and the universe in which we live. Ironically, the practical effect of this erroneous reasoning is the frustration of the legitimate pursuits of science: the comprehension of the universe, and the general advancement of human knowledge and understanding.
Specifically, these are the destructive consequences to the body of human knowledge from such fallacious reasoning: First, an erroneous scientific theory is immediately produced. Second, this logically erroneous conclusion serves as an "established" theory according to which future scientific investigation is organized and to which subsequent hypotheses are compared and “validated”.* Third, the status of this inductive reasoning illicitly acquires the authority and force of deductive reasoning, though the conclusions of the former are by no means certainly and necessarily true, as are those of the latter.
Fourth, the overall standard for judging empirical evidence loses objectivity, admitting finally only data that support preferred or cherished hypotheses, and therefore commit the fallacy of petitio principii. Eventually, the scientific method becomes arbitrary, while the true nature of the universe is conceptually distorted. Ultimately, the entirety of human thought becomes likewise skewed and arbitrary, and through the extended philosophical corruption that follows, human reason becomes at once narrow, uncertain and unreliable.
We need look no further than the morning newspaper to see evidence of the consequences of the faulty reasoning that sustains philosophic materialism. In a recent Associated Press report, we are told of the Federal judge who ordered an Atlanta suburban school system to remove from their high school biology textbook a provocative sticker warning that evolution is “a theory, not a fact.” In this most remarkable ruling, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper states that…
“By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories…While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community.”**
To be sure, by judicial fiat- which is just a nice way of saying government coercion- the students in this Atlanta community will no longer underestimate the “significance and value of evolution” to science (nor to the legal profession as well, one might suppose). Unfortunately these same students will henceforth misunderstand the significance and value of the scientific method, at the core of which is the responsible evaluation and application of the empirical evidence manifested by the natural world (evidence as an issue is likewise at the core of a legitimate system of jurisprudence- or was, until this Federal ruling).
Indeed, the very fact that an otherwise exclusively academic controversy is now subject to arbitration in courts of law, rather than resolved as they once were through logical debate and the free play of ideas, strongly indicates the speculations of a 19th century English naturalist have now gone well beyond the confines of science. Even as the philosophical implications of this quarrel now largely exceed the boundaries of the scientific method.
It’s no coincidence therefore, that what began as a logical departure in scientific thought according to the fallacy of petitio principii, should then require reinforcement in generalized thought by means of the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum- or the appeal to force. The latter fallacy is committed “when one appeals to force or the threat of force [whether legal or otherwise] to cause acceptance of a conclusion…[and is] usually resorted to only when evidence or rational arguments fail.”***
Generally speaking, if we were to offer any explanation which fails to take into account all aspects of the phenomena under observation, we know that explanation would be incomplete and therefore, unacceptable. Scientifically, if we similarly advance a strictly material explanation (evolution) which fails to account for a nonmaterial ingredient- the presence, the existence of biological life- we know such a scientific conclusion would also be incomplete and unacceptable. In either case, it is an undeniable fact one simply cannot expect to accurately explain a complete thing (in the Atlanta school case, biological life) by reference to only one of its parts- matter, while ignoring the nonmaterial fact of its presence, its existence.
To remedy this erroneous habit of mind, we need to recognize the inadequacy of material explanations, whether of biological life or of the universe as a whole. Now the three main monotheistic religions are all in agreement with modern science that there was a beginning to both the universe and biological life. This would imply that at one time the universe was nonexistent. In order for the universe to gain material existence therefore, a measure of being was needed upon which to build. Since matter did not exist however, the necessary existence had to come from elsewhere, and therefore, could only have come from being which must already have been in existence.
Apparently, the universe and the biological life we observe possesses an unrecognized, though actually existing ingredient. That ingredient I have termed transmaterial existence, which is being. Such being sustains and occurs in, but is not confined to- nor defined by- matter or material existence. We shall see that transmaterial existence is the primary condition for material existence and that, were the reverse true- that material existence is the main condition for being- it would not be possible for us to discuss this subject, for neither we nor the universe could exist.
Part 10
In an enormously revealing statement, Stephen Hawking proposes in his book, The Universe in a Nutshell that we should try and “understand the beginning of the universe on the basis of science.”^ Insofar as science, by reason of its language and object of study, is confined to the extended material order, Professor Hawking would naturally propose we take as our initial premise that matter is the defining ingredient in the formation of the universe.
Certainly matter consistently displays specifically definable characteristics, for example its capacity to be handled, weighed and measured, and its distinctive occupation of an area of space. However, the strictly materialist theories which claim to explain the origins of the universe and the living things therein- the Big Bang singularity and Darwinian evolution- necessarily require the material universe must respect these definable characteristics of matter while at the same time exceeding them.
A closer assessment tells us that for these theories to be valid, matter must be a measurable part of an immeasurable universe; a part distributed within boundaries comprising a boundless universe. Nevertheless, because science routinely recognizes only matter- and its derivative energy- then the beginning of the universe must surely have been of material origin. But if it is the case that only matter begets matter, then there must have been infinite matter before the beginning of the universe. But if matter is infinite, its ongoing material presence would have obviated the need for a beginning. Yet modern science asserts matter- as well as space and time- had a beginning.
According to practical experience, we are reasonably entitled to assume matter cannot retain its reputation as a finite, bounded, measurable entity while at the same time promising an infinite potential. Besides matter then, to what other ingredient must science therefore refer in its observations of the universe? To that very observable though mostly immaterial ingredient: being. For science to recognize such an ingredient is not only empirically necessary but quite unavoidable, because being is the fact of existing, of existence as opposed to nonexistence. It would be extremely surprising for anyone, especially within the scientific community, to argue against the existence of both matter and the universe.
These two ingredients- matter and being- comprising the physical universe can only occur in one of three combinations; taken together these explanations may be considered mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. The first possible way matter and being might occur is in a proportional or symmetrical combination; the second way is for matter and being to be in a synonymous or identical relationship; and the third way they might combine is for being to be distinctly in place before matter ever comes into existence.
In the proportional or symmetrical way of combining, matter and being occur in the same place, in the same proportion and share common boundaries and extent. In other words, there is always found the one in the presence of the other. We need not, at this point, entertain any notion of causation in any possible combination of matter and being. Here we merely observe that one component is consistently and proportionally in evidence with every occurrence of the other. The issue of causation is of marginal importance.
From the outset there seems to appear a prominent deficiency with this proportional or symmetrical combination, rendering impossible any chance of it leading to the formation of the entire universe: that deficiency is the concurrent nature of the relationship. Concurrence requires that the components of this relationship of matter and being possess equal authority and jurisdiction, and that they consequently display simultaneity.
Matter seems to be present only as there is being, and being only as there is the presence of matter. And because there is always found the one in the presence of the other, the presence of one implies the presence of both. From this we are entitled to infer the absence of one prohibits the presence of the other. And similarly, the absence of both rules out the presence of either one. Consequently, for both matter and being to first appear (assuming the universe had a beginning), one of them must make a first appearance.
According to the concurrent nature of their relationship, however, if it is the case that neither had yet appeared, it would be impossible for there to be a first appearance of either in the absence of the other. The only way, therefore, matter and being may combine proportionally to form the universe, is for both to have always been in existence- that is, existed infinitely. But the resort to infinity would then place us more properly within the second explanation of the combination of matter and being.
Within the second scheme, matter and being occur in a synonymous, identical combination, in which matter is being and being is matter. In other words, there is never found the one in the absence of the other. Another formulation of this would identify all matter with existence, and all existence with matter, presumably the closest understanding Professor Hawking would have us take on the universe: “The universe would be entirely self-contained; it wouldn't need anything outside to wind up the clockwork and set it going...everything in the universe would be determined by the laws of science and by rolls of the dice within the universe.”^^
Certainly he and Roger Penrose approved such a formulation when they set forth the Big Bang theory in 1970. This theory allegedly proves mathematically that space and time- and by association the physical universe- had a beginning^^^, though the infinite magnitude matter and being must assume as we regard them as identical would not only argue against, but unequivocally contradict any such talk of beginnings as a result of a Big Bang singularity model.
To say matter and being exist infinitely is also to say they exist eternally. With eternities, as with infinities, there are no beginnings nor endings, even as there are no boundaries. We must concede then the first two possible explanations of how matter and being might combine are physically impossible. Which leads us to conclude that being existed initially, and sustained the later emergence of the material universe.
Notes
*Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic: Sixth Edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1982) 470. Cf. 13.3, Evaluating Scientific Explanations.
**The Cleveland Plain Dealer; Friday, 14 January 2005; Section A5. Italics are mine.
***Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic: Sixth Edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1982) 99.
^Stephen Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell (New York: Bantam Books, 2001) 79.
^^Ibid., p.85. Italics are mine.
^^^Ibid., pp. 41, 82.
Montag
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The American Crisis: Origins-
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Parts 7 & 8
Journal Entry #24
…physicists have placed their faith in the idea that deep down the universe is coordinated by a great plan, a rational system of organization, a hidden but accessible scheme…There remains the obvious question: By what standards might we determine that faith in science is reasonable, but that faith in God is not? –The Devil’s Delusion; Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions; David Berlinski, PhD Mathematics
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. –Isaiah 5:20
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 7
If we must, as science stipulates, observe a strictly material worldview to gain “positive” knowledge and guarantee intellectual legitimacy- despite the possibility that materialism describes an incomplete universe- what would the ultimate effect be on the welfare and advancement of human knowledge? Could a species so completely dependent upon conceptual and abstract thought tolerate a mode of thinking that always can but sometimes won’t yield truthful knowledge, without inviting some sort of societal catastrophe?
In this the esteemed scholar Hannah Arendt, in her 1958 book The Human Condition, offers us insight as she recognized early in the Cold War era the peril to the traditional integrity of Western thought as modern science delved ever more deeply into the universe and the atom.
Concerning what she termed the ‘truths’ of the modern scientific worldview, Ms. Arendt noted the increasing inability of leading scientists in the Cold War era to express in common speech and thought what they otherwise could represent mathematically. The consequent divide to which she refers- between knowledge and thought- might be understood more clearly as a fracture ultimately separating the qualitative from the quantitative realms of nature which the human intellect formerly perceived jointly.
“If it should turn out to be true that knowledge (in the modern sense of know-how) and thought have parted company for good, then we would indeed become the helpless slaves, not so much of our machines as of our know-how, thoughtless creatures at the mercy of every gadget which is technically possible, no matter how murderous it is.”*
Ominous indeed are the consequences to humanity if knowledge (understood as know-how) and thought are separated, this being a prelude to an ever more ruinous situation in which scientists selectively disassociate the empirical side of science from the rational, thereby producing rival descriptions of the same universe. In essence, establishing incompatible or conflicting explanations of what is real; contemplated- but never reconciled- through Orwellian doublethink. Ultimately, we would witness a tragicomedy in which science demands we adhere only to the empirical evidence the universe displays, even as they flout this very evidence in practice.
One reality would entail conventional know-how and technology suited to the everyday needs of the practical world; another reality would accommodate scientists' unrestrained speculations on the origin and nature of the existing universe. In such a situation empirical-rationalism would no longer represent that coherently reliable method it once had been in promoting the cause of truth: the truth of an expansive yet circumscribed universe existing independently of the observer, and the truthful thoughts the observer entertains about that universe.
Part 8
In the Western intellectual tradition, empirical-rationalism was regarded as the most effective means of defining the universe, because it firmly established the language and method of the scientific enterprise. As the language of science is mathematical- involving the numerical (or quantitative) description and measurement of material objects and processes of the physical universe- so the method of science, according to which the mathematics should conform, is appropriately delegated to the philosophical.
Ordinarily, this notion of a philosophical method of science is almost unknown by the mass of America’s students. But of critical importance- and what so engrosses this observer- is that this philosophical method of science is virtually ignored amongst the scientific community; that is, by those who are extensively educated enough to know better.
Routinely, scientists incorrectly presume both the language and method of science fall entirely within the realm of mathematics. Aside from the fact that the study of philosophy is conspicuously held in disdain by scientists- even as they all continue to philosophize- there really is no objective justification to presume a strictly quantitative or mathematical universe.
According to this philosophical method every scientific theory, without exception, is framed syllogistically. That is, from a set of known facts called premises, we derive a previously unknown factual conclusion; all such conclusions are, without exception, inductive in nature. For a scientific conclusion to be considered acceptable, it must follow from and be supported by true premises. Otherwise, the proposition or conclusion has no basis for, nor claim to, acceptability.
To the extent a set of premises contain increasing evidential proof, the conclusion has an increasingly greater claim to validity. Herein lay the philosophical strength and flexibility of scientific speculation. Because the scientific method proceeds inductively, additional empirical evidence gathered affords the scientist the opportunity to reinforce, revise or alter entirely the conclusion.
Here we may distinguish these inductive scientific explanations- being tentative by reason of their probable truthfulness- from deductive conclusions, which are certainly and necessarily true. Only in a deductive syllogism do the premises provide indisputable grounds for the truth of their conclusions, while at the same time establishing a relationship between the conclusion and its premises, such “that it is absolutely impossible for the premisses to be true unless the conclusion is true also.”** In the study of logic, the only philosophical impossibility is an argument which contains true premises and a false conclusion.
What follows in all of this, and what elevates this issue from the purely academic to the immediately practical is the skewed habit of mind supporting the current modern scientific material worldview. This skewed- and illegitimate- habit of mind confuses the tentative and probable nature of inductive conclusions with the certain and necessarily true conclusions characteristic of deductive arguments.
A perfect example of this illicit tendency to treat an inductive scientific proposition as if it were a deductive conclusion is the Darwinian “theory of descent with modification”: biological evolution. Modern science prospers greatly by the placement of preferred or culturally popular theories such as Darwinian evolution, firmly in a category that is above debate and beyond dispute.
Compounding this philosophical confusion brought about by mistaking inductive propositions for deductive conclusions is the equally deceptive practice of selectively interpreting the empirical evidence supporting a theory. To selectively interpret evidence, scientists acknowledge only that data which tends to support their preferred theories, while discounting or ignoring evidence which might call into question or dispute such theories.
In formal logic this skewed habit of mind and the selective interpretation of evidence combine to inaugurate a perpetuating chain of fallacious reasoning, properly termed the fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, in which “...one assumes as a premiss for an argument the very conclusion it is intended to prove…”*** That assumption, that initial premise goes by the name of philosophic materialism.
In the modern scientific worldview the universe is defined and studied according to material criteria, by which all that exists is either matter, or some property or function of matter: the material world is the ultimate reality. In the service of philosophic materialism the function of empirical evidence is to confirm "…the concept of nature as a law-bound system of matter in motion"****; a closed system of material cause and effect, eliciting only natural- as opposed to supernatural- phenomena and processes.
Such a strict materialist perspective toward the universe had been observed as far back as Greek antiquity, having been advocated by Democritus and Epicurus in the fifth through third centuries before Christ, and by the Roman philosopher Lucretius in the first century B.C. But as a practical device for scientific reasoning, materialism proved conceptually useful beginning with the thought of Rene Descartes.
In his 1632 work Le Monde, the Discours de la Methode in 1637, his Meditationes de Prima Philosophia (Meditations) in 1641 and the Principia Philosophiae (Principles) in 1644, Descartes reasoned in the historical climate of the philosophic transition from Medieval to Enlightenment thought- the dawning of the Scientific Revolution. At that time, a material worldview simply acknowledged that all the observable and mathematically measurable things in the universe are material objects.
Notes
*Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958, 1989) 3.
**Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic: Sixth Edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1982) 51.
***Ibid., p. 107.
****John C. Greene, The Death of Adam; Evolution and Its Impact on Western Thought (Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1959) Preface.
Montag
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Parts 7 & 8
Journal Entry #24
…physicists have placed their faith in the idea that deep down the universe is coordinated by a great plan, a rational system of organization, a hidden but accessible scheme…There remains the obvious question: By what standards might we determine that faith in science is reasonable, but that faith in God is not? –The Devil’s Delusion; Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions; David Berlinski, PhD Mathematics
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. –Isaiah 5:20
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 7
If we must, as science stipulates, observe a strictly material worldview to gain “positive” knowledge and guarantee intellectual legitimacy- despite the possibility that materialism describes an incomplete universe- what would the ultimate effect be on the welfare and advancement of human knowledge? Could a species so completely dependent upon conceptual and abstract thought tolerate a mode of thinking that always can but sometimes won’t yield truthful knowledge, without inviting some sort of societal catastrophe?
In this the esteemed scholar Hannah Arendt, in her 1958 book The Human Condition, offers us insight as she recognized early in the Cold War era the peril to the traditional integrity of Western thought as modern science delved ever more deeply into the universe and the atom.
Concerning what she termed the ‘truths’ of the modern scientific worldview, Ms. Arendt noted the increasing inability of leading scientists in the Cold War era to express in common speech and thought what they otherwise could represent mathematically. The consequent divide to which she refers- between knowledge and thought- might be understood more clearly as a fracture ultimately separating the qualitative from the quantitative realms of nature which the human intellect formerly perceived jointly.
“If it should turn out to be true that knowledge (in the modern sense of know-how) and thought have parted company for good, then we would indeed become the helpless slaves, not so much of our machines as of our know-how, thoughtless creatures at the mercy of every gadget which is technically possible, no matter how murderous it is.”*
Ominous indeed are the consequences to humanity if knowledge (understood as know-how) and thought are separated, this being a prelude to an ever more ruinous situation in which scientists selectively disassociate the empirical side of science from the rational, thereby producing rival descriptions of the same universe. In essence, establishing incompatible or conflicting explanations of what is real; contemplated- but never reconciled- through Orwellian doublethink. Ultimately, we would witness a tragicomedy in which science demands we adhere only to the empirical evidence the universe displays, even as they flout this very evidence in practice.
One reality would entail conventional know-how and technology suited to the everyday needs of the practical world; another reality would accommodate scientists' unrestrained speculations on the origin and nature of the existing universe. In such a situation empirical-rationalism would no longer represent that coherently reliable method it once had been in promoting the cause of truth: the truth of an expansive yet circumscribed universe existing independently of the observer, and the truthful thoughts the observer entertains about that universe.
Part 8
In the Western intellectual tradition, empirical-rationalism was regarded as the most effective means of defining the universe, because it firmly established the language and method of the scientific enterprise. As the language of science is mathematical- involving the numerical (or quantitative) description and measurement of material objects and processes of the physical universe- so the method of science, according to which the mathematics should conform, is appropriately delegated to the philosophical.
Ordinarily, this notion of a philosophical method of science is almost unknown by the mass of America’s students. But of critical importance- and what so engrosses this observer- is that this philosophical method of science is virtually ignored amongst the scientific community; that is, by those who are extensively educated enough to know better.
Routinely, scientists incorrectly presume both the language and method of science fall entirely within the realm of mathematics. Aside from the fact that the study of philosophy is conspicuously held in disdain by scientists- even as they all continue to philosophize- there really is no objective justification to presume a strictly quantitative or mathematical universe.
According to this philosophical method every scientific theory, without exception, is framed syllogistically. That is, from a set of known facts called premises, we derive a previously unknown factual conclusion; all such conclusions are, without exception, inductive in nature. For a scientific conclusion to be considered acceptable, it must follow from and be supported by true premises. Otherwise, the proposition or conclusion has no basis for, nor claim to, acceptability.
To the extent a set of premises contain increasing evidential proof, the conclusion has an increasingly greater claim to validity. Herein lay the philosophical strength and flexibility of scientific speculation. Because the scientific method proceeds inductively, additional empirical evidence gathered affords the scientist the opportunity to reinforce, revise or alter entirely the conclusion.
Here we may distinguish these inductive scientific explanations- being tentative by reason of their probable truthfulness- from deductive conclusions, which are certainly and necessarily true. Only in a deductive syllogism do the premises provide indisputable grounds for the truth of their conclusions, while at the same time establishing a relationship between the conclusion and its premises, such “that it is absolutely impossible for the premisses to be true unless the conclusion is true also.”** In the study of logic, the only philosophical impossibility is an argument which contains true premises and a false conclusion.
What follows in all of this, and what elevates this issue from the purely academic to the immediately practical is the skewed habit of mind supporting the current modern scientific material worldview. This skewed- and illegitimate- habit of mind confuses the tentative and probable nature of inductive conclusions with the certain and necessarily true conclusions characteristic of deductive arguments.
A perfect example of this illicit tendency to treat an inductive scientific proposition as if it were a deductive conclusion is the Darwinian “theory of descent with modification”: biological evolution. Modern science prospers greatly by the placement of preferred or culturally popular theories such as Darwinian evolution, firmly in a category that is above debate and beyond dispute.
Compounding this philosophical confusion brought about by mistaking inductive propositions for deductive conclusions is the equally deceptive practice of selectively interpreting the empirical evidence supporting a theory. To selectively interpret evidence, scientists acknowledge only that data which tends to support their preferred theories, while discounting or ignoring evidence which might call into question or dispute such theories.
In formal logic this skewed habit of mind and the selective interpretation of evidence combine to inaugurate a perpetuating chain of fallacious reasoning, properly termed the fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, in which “...one assumes as a premiss for an argument the very conclusion it is intended to prove…”*** That assumption, that initial premise goes by the name of philosophic materialism.
In the modern scientific worldview the universe is defined and studied according to material criteria, by which all that exists is either matter, or some property or function of matter: the material world is the ultimate reality. In the service of philosophic materialism the function of empirical evidence is to confirm "…the concept of nature as a law-bound system of matter in motion"****; a closed system of material cause and effect, eliciting only natural- as opposed to supernatural- phenomena and processes.
Such a strict materialist perspective toward the universe had been observed as far back as Greek antiquity, having been advocated by Democritus and Epicurus in the fifth through third centuries before Christ, and by the Roman philosopher Lucretius in the first century B.C. But as a practical device for scientific reasoning, materialism proved conceptually useful beginning with the thought of Rene Descartes.
In his 1632 work Le Monde, the Discours de la Methode in 1637, his Meditationes de Prima Philosophia (Meditations) in 1641 and the Principia Philosophiae (Principles) in 1644, Descartes reasoned in the historical climate of the philosophic transition from Medieval to Enlightenment thought- the dawning of the Scientific Revolution. At that time, a material worldview simply acknowledged that all the observable and mathematically measurable things in the universe are material objects.
Notes
*Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958, 1989) 3.
**Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic: Sixth Edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1982) 51.
***Ibid., p. 107.
****John C. Greene, The Death of Adam; Evolution and Its Impact on Western Thought (Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1959) Preface.
Montag
Sunday, April 15, 2012
The American Crisis: Origins-
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Parts 5 & 6
Journal Entry #23
Much is spoken today about the power of science, and rightly. It is awesome. But little is said about the inherent limitations of science, and both sides of the coin need equal scrutiny. –Vannevar Bush
One of the severest tests of a scientific mind is to discern the limits of the legitimate application of scientific methods. –James Clerk Maxwell
-quotes are from The Relevance of Physics, Stanley Jaki, Ph D Physics; Benedictine monk. cf. Journal Entry #16.
If science stands opposed to religion, it is not because of anything contained in either the premises or the conclusions of the great scientific theories…Confident assertions by scientists that…they have demonstrated that God does not exist have nothing to do with science, and even less to do with God’s existence. –The Devil’s Delusion; Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions; xiv; David Berlinski, Ph D Mathematics.
Then the Lord answered Job out of the storm. He said: “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.” –Job 38: 1-4.
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 5
There can be little argument that Western Civilization has by any measure enjoyed abundant and valuable gains through the cultivation of reason, scientific experimentation and industry. The advancements made in the history of scientific research are nothing short of spectacular. And as science has been the impetus to seemingly unbounded industrial and technological progress, it is not unreasonable to say the history of science is a singular one of unparalleled intellectual achievement. Through the strict observance of the techniques born of empirical-rationalism, modern science has derived its strength, flexibility and reach.
Merely witness the difference between the United States as a fledgling association of provincial and primarily agrarian colonies in 1789, and the considerable position it occupied and the power it wielded in 1969- a span of merely 180 years- when it projected its national will through military force to the other side of the planet in Southeast Asia, as America opposed the extension of the Marxist ideology of North Vietnam and its formidable sponsors, Soviet Russia and the Peoples Republic of China.
And this while it simultaneously engaged in the most impressive scientific, industrial and engineering feat in the history of any and all civilizations: the placing of human beings- along with their native atmosphere- upon a foreign and inhospitable planetary body, far removed in space from Earth. Aside from the question of the effectiveness, or even the desirability of these national efforts, such achievements clearly and undeniably bespeak the existence of a most advanced scientific, industrial and technological cultural base.
A momentous- and most revealing- step taken along this road to scientific advancement is described in the extremely lucid work, Oxford History of the Twentieth Century, as John Maddox explains in the fourth chapter, "The Expansion of Knowledge":
“In the twentieth century, the mechanism of life itself has been explained in terms of physics and chemistry. That is the significance of the proposal, by James D. Watson and Francis H.C. Crick in April 1953, of what proved to be a correct atomic structure of the chemical material called DNA...Not since Copernicus, in 1545, put the sun rather than the earth at the centre of the solar system has a discovery so profoundly changed peoples' conception of the place they occupy in the world.”*
Now what has been said here is certainly true enough, and it is not an unreasonable analogy to which Mr. Maddox has resorted, associating the functioning of DNA with that of a working machine, as it represents "an assembly of moving parts" and assumes the role of an "agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished", in this case to extend genetic inheritance with each generation. At a more profound level, however, a great deal more is being asserted here which speaks directly to the content of the modern political and social ideologies which we have now come to identify with total war. Even more so as Mr. Maddox extends the analogy further, as he refers also to the "mechanism of consciousness".
Philosophically, the idea of mechanism proceeds from that doctrine developed by the French philosopher and mathematician, Rene Descartes (1596-1650), by which he sought to eliminate from scientific explanations the scholastic concept of "real qualities" in the physical objects of the universe, and rely on a more unambiguous foundation of "quantitative analysis" in the process of scientific investigation. Such a trend in western thought represents a significant departure from the ideas of medieval philosophy and certain hypotheses of classical Aristotelian physics. While such a development proved indispensable and immensely beneficial to the progress of modern scientific inquiry and the empirical-rationalism which lay at the heart of the European Enlightenment, there was also inherent in this mechanistic worldview a most profound danger.
As scientific thought increasingly compared the universe to some sort of mechanical model, everything within it similarly came to be regarded as an assembly of moving parts- material parts- by which various self-sustaining effects and purposes are accomplished. What began as a useful intellectual method for acquiring positive knowledge of the universe and its contents, became over time a habit of mind first and thereafter a very exclusive worldview. That is, a specific and distinct definition of the universe and its contents that excluded everything but a strictly material interpretation.
Part 6
The emerging danger in this materialist worldview arose as science shifted in this comparative method from the quite rational (and defensible) position that all the existing things observable- and measurable- in the universe are material objects, to the irrational (because it’s indefensible) position which presumes all the existing things in the universe are material objects. It is a subtle but profound shift in outlook, born of the practical, day-to-day needs of scientific investigation to account for the things and processes of nature within identifiable material limits. Also, by virtue of the vast, all-encompassing scale of the material universe, and the extent of the intellectual penetration of it, it is understandable, if not quite justifiable, that a strict material outlook should grow in stature; from merely a method to a virtual article of faith.
Consequently, we should expect to see such a material outlook permeating the statements of most working scientists. For example, Dr. Carl Sagan- an otherwise sound and distinguished astronomical scientist- affirmed in one of his last written works; “Again, we know a great deal about the existence and properties of matter. If a given phenomenon can already be plausibly understood in terms of matter and energy, why should we hypothesize that something else- something for which there is as yet no other good evidence- is responsible?”** If Dr. Sagan had conceived his question less rhetorically, he might have recognized the empirical necessity of admitting to his readership the distinct possibility that the existence of matter may very well imply, or indeed, require more than strictly material properties.
Beyond that, we find reflected in the statement of this accomplished scientist evidence of the fundamental features of a strict materialism: the sufficiency of matter- and its variant form, energy- to adequately define the phenomena of the universe. Moreover, we see at bottom that subtle but extremely potent, though unspoken, assumption supporting the practice of a thoroughgoing materialism: the identification of existence with matter. To a small degree this is a practical and legitimate identification, for most would agree objects like our moon or that particular star materially exist.
What requires further elaboration, however, is the degree of this identification of matter with existence. Is it a complete or merely a partial correspondence? We know all material things exist, but are all existing things material? What appears crucial to the continued usefulness of the materialist worldview in all areas of the physical sciences, therefore, is the quite necessary clarification the community of scientists has yet to establish: whether or not the two phenomena, matter and existence, are really one and the same- or, identical.
In other words, are all the objects within the class of existence, also contained in the class of matter? Are the two classes coextensive? Or is the class of existence possessed of objects both within and outside the boundaries of the class of matter?
If it is the case that the class of existence includes things beyond the class of matter as well as within it, then are those nonmaterial existing things- though indefinable scientifically- nevertheless understandable by the human intellect via empirical-rationalism? And beyond rendering them understandable, could empirical-rationalism determine the relevance of this nonmaterial realm to the material order with which we are most familiar? If Professor Sagan’s view of the issue is to be considered representative, modern science simply disregards the entire subject, though the very legitimacy of human reason- and the utility of science- hang in the balance.
Because all material things in the universe are existing things, are we entitled to presume that all existing things in the universe are material things? Scientists have simply ignored the empirical necessity- to say nothing of the profound importance- of answering the question, notwithstanding the fact that the answer may or may not support the theory of evolution. As a result, scientific reasoning has become increasingly inaccurate and tenuous, if not completely unreliable. Why should this be? Logically, if science cannot define what exists, then neither can science speak to what doesn’t exist. Eventually, the two become confused.
Consequently, it is problematic whether modern science continues to represent an intellectual exercise which offers tentative approximations of truth. If not, scientific thought will certainly become arbitrary and, along with it, the entirety of human thought. This fact bears heavily upon the stability and longevity of human society and government; and human freedom.
Notes
*Edited by Michael Howard & Wm. Roger Louis, The Oxford History of The Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1998) 35. Italics are mine.
**Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World; Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997) 301. Italics are mine.
Montag
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Parts 5 & 6
Journal Entry #23
Much is spoken today about the power of science, and rightly. It is awesome. But little is said about the inherent limitations of science, and both sides of the coin need equal scrutiny. –Vannevar Bush
One of the severest tests of a scientific mind is to discern the limits of the legitimate application of scientific methods. –James Clerk Maxwell
-quotes are from The Relevance of Physics, Stanley Jaki, Ph D Physics; Benedictine monk. cf. Journal Entry #16.
If science stands opposed to religion, it is not because of anything contained in either the premises or the conclusions of the great scientific theories…Confident assertions by scientists that…they have demonstrated that God does not exist have nothing to do with science, and even less to do with God’s existence. –The Devil’s Delusion; Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions; xiv; David Berlinski, Ph D Mathematics.
Then the Lord answered Job out of the storm. He said: “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.” –Job 38: 1-4.
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 5
There can be little argument that Western Civilization has by any measure enjoyed abundant and valuable gains through the cultivation of reason, scientific experimentation and industry. The advancements made in the history of scientific research are nothing short of spectacular. And as science has been the impetus to seemingly unbounded industrial and technological progress, it is not unreasonable to say the history of science is a singular one of unparalleled intellectual achievement. Through the strict observance of the techniques born of empirical-rationalism, modern science has derived its strength, flexibility and reach.
Merely witness the difference between the United States as a fledgling association of provincial and primarily agrarian colonies in 1789, and the considerable position it occupied and the power it wielded in 1969- a span of merely 180 years- when it projected its national will through military force to the other side of the planet in Southeast Asia, as America opposed the extension of the Marxist ideology of North Vietnam and its formidable sponsors, Soviet Russia and the Peoples Republic of China.
And this while it simultaneously engaged in the most impressive scientific, industrial and engineering feat in the history of any and all civilizations: the placing of human beings- along with their native atmosphere- upon a foreign and inhospitable planetary body, far removed in space from Earth. Aside from the question of the effectiveness, or even the desirability of these national efforts, such achievements clearly and undeniably bespeak the existence of a most advanced scientific, industrial and technological cultural base.
A momentous- and most revealing- step taken along this road to scientific advancement is described in the extremely lucid work, Oxford History of the Twentieth Century, as John Maddox explains in the fourth chapter, "The Expansion of Knowledge":
“In the twentieth century, the mechanism of life itself has been explained in terms of physics and chemistry. That is the significance of the proposal, by James D. Watson and Francis H.C. Crick in April 1953, of what proved to be a correct atomic structure of the chemical material called DNA...Not since Copernicus, in 1545, put the sun rather than the earth at the centre of the solar system has a discovery so profoundly changed peoples' conception of the place they occupy in the world.”*
Now what has been said here is certainly true enough, and it is not an unreasonable analogy to which Mr. Maddox has resorted, associating the functioning of DNA with that of a working machine, as it represents "an assembly of moving parts" and assumes the role of an "agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished", in this case to extend genetic inheritance with each generation. At a more profound level, however, a great deal more is being asserted here which speaks directly to the content of the modern political and social ideologies which we have now come to identify with total war. Even more so as Mr. Maddox extends the analogy further, as he refers also to the "mechanism of consciousness".
Philosophically, the idea of mechanism proceeds from that doctrine developed by the French philosopher and mathematician, Rene Descartes (1596-1650), by which he sought to eliminate from scientific explanations the scholastic concept of "real qualities" in the physical objects of the universe, and rely on a more unambiguous foundation of "quantitative analysis" in the process of scientific investigation. Such a trend in western thought represents a significant departure from the ideas of medieval philosophy and certain hypotheses of classical Aristotelian physics. While such a development proved indispensable and immensely beneficial to the progress of modern scientific inquiry and the empirical-rationalism which lay at the heart of the European Enlightenment, there was also inherent in this mechanistic worldview a most profound danger.
As scientific thought increasingly compared the universe to some sort of mechanical model, everything within it similarly came to be regarded as an assembly of moving parts- material parts- by which various self-sustaining effects and purposes are accomplished. What began as a useful intellectual method for acquiring positive knowledge of the universe and its contents, became over time a habit of mind first and thereafter a very exclusive worldview. That is, a specific and distinct definition of the universe and its contents that excluded everything but a strictly material interpretation.
Part 6
The emerging danger in this materialist worldview arose as science shifted in this comparative method from the quite rational (and defensible) position that all the existing things observable- and measurable- in the universe are material objects, to the irrational (because it’s indefensible) position which presumes all the existing things in the universe are material objects. It is a subtle but profound shift in outlook, born of the practical, day-to-day needs of scientific investigation to account for the things and processes of nature within identifiable material limits. Also, by virtue of the vast, all-encompassing scale of the material universe, and the extent of the intellectual penetration of it, it is understandable, if not quite justifiable, that a strict material outlook should grow in stature; from merely a method to a virtual article of faith.
Consequently, we should expect to see such a material outlook permeating the statements of most working scientists. For example, Dr. Carl Sagan- an otherwise sound and distinguished astronomical scientist- affirmed in one of his last written works; “Again, we know a great deal about the existence and properties of matter. If a given phenomenon can already be plausibly understood in terms of matter and energy, why should we hypothesize that something else- something for which there is as yet no other good evidence- is responsible?”** If Dr. Sagan had conceived his question less rhetorically, he might have recognized the empirical necessity of admitting to his readership the distinct possibility that the existence of matter may very well imply, or indeed, require more than strictly material properties.
Beyond that, we find reflected in the statement of this accomplished scientist evidence of the fundamental features of a strict materialism: the sufficiency of matter- and its variant form, energy- to adequately define the phenomena of the universe. Moreover, we see at bottom that subtle but extremely potent, though unspoken, assumption supporting the practice of a thoroughgoing materialism: the identification of existence with matter. To a small degree this is a practical and legitimate identification, for most would agree objects like our moon or that particular star materially exist.
What requires further elaboration, however, is the degree of this identification of matter with existence. Is it a complete or merely a partial correspondence? We know all material things exist, but are all existing things material? What appears crucial to the continued usefulness of the materialist worldview in all areas of the physical sciences, therefore, is the quite necessary clarification the community of scientists has yet to establish: whether or not the two phenomena, matter and existence, are really one and the same- or, identical.
In other words, are all the objects within the class of existence, also contained in the class of matter? Are the two classes coextensive? Or is the class of existence possessed of objects both within and outside the boundaries of the class of matter?
If it is the case that the class of existence includes things beyond the class of matter as well as within it, then are those nonmaterial existing things- though indefinable scientifically- nevertheless understandable by the human intellect via empirical-rationalism? And beyond rendering them understandable, could empirical-rationalism determine the relevance of this nonmaterial realm to the material order with which we are most familiar? If Professor Sagan’s view of the issue is to be considered representative, modern science simply disregards the entire subject, though the very legitimacy of human reason- and the utility of science- hang in the balance.
Because all material things in the universe are existing things, are we entitled to presume that all existing things in the universe are material things? Scientists have simply ignored the empirical necessity- to say nothing of the profound importance- of answering the question, notwithstanding the fact that the answer may or may not support the theory of evolution. As a result, scientific reasoning has become increasingly inaccurate and tenuous, if not completely unreliable. Why should this be? Logically, if science cannot define what exists, then neither can science speak to what doesn’t exist. Eventually, the two become confused.
Consequently, it is problematic whether modern science continues to represent an intellectual exercise which offers tentative approximations of truth. If not, scientific thought will certainly become arbitrary and, along with it, the entirety of human thought. This fact bears heavily upon the stability and longevity of human society and government; and human freedom.
Notes
*Edited by Michael Howard & Wm. Roger Louis, The Oxford History of The Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1998) 35. Italics are mine.
**Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World; Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997) 301. Italics are mine.
Montag
Sunday, March 18, 2012
The American Crisis: Origins-
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Parts 3 & 4
Journal Entry #22
“You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” “What is truth?” Pilate asked. –John 18:37, 38
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 3
The term ideology is broadly defined as "the body of doctrine of a social movement, institution, class or large group...with reference to some political and cultural plan, along with the devices for putting it into operation". At the core of an ideology is found a systematic explanation for the nature, structure and function of human society. From this general definition we gain perspective on Marxism and Aryan or Germanic racial supremacy as the operative ideologies associated with the Second World War-era governments and societies of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
Both ideologies were profoundly products of a nineteenth century cultural and intellectual revulsion to and repudiation of the “spirit of industrial civilization”, rationalism, egalitarianism, capitalism and parliamentary democracy. And both ideologies were sustained and propelled by their faith in materialism and some form of evolutionary model.
As the militant ideologies of the class struggle and racial purity grew and flourished from the public approval so indispensable to any widely influential body of doctrine, the practitioners of these ideologies labored to bring to life their respective political and cultural plans, seeking to subordinate the surrounding social order to their visions. If rival ideologies were encountered domestically, as so often was the case, these were brushed- or shoved- aside and forced to yield their claims to legitimacy and power.
Inasmuch as these militant ideologies thereafter continued to grow in their social and political power and prestige, their respective dogmas soon sought to inspire the international policies of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. For what was initially considered a desirable national political and cultural plan, would eventually come to represent also a beneficial plan according to which the entire world order should conform. Predictably, a violent collision with the rival international views of the surrounding countries was certain to occur, as indeed the historical record has shown.
Because of the allegiance- even the faith- these ideologies inspired within Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, tolerance of any opposing social or political views would be short lived, so that international tensions and disputes resulting from such friction finally became impossible to resolve by traditional diplomatic negotiation. Consequently, international diplomacy shortly gave way to a desperate grab for regional hegemony and eventual world superiority, ending quite literally in a life and death struggle between the great European powers; thus world war.
Any thought of the continued competition or interference of their ideological goals by any rival nation was considered simply intolerable in Moscow and Berlin, and so, by association, would be the continued existence of that population group who supported and advanced such interference. It is to this extent- planetary dominance and supremacy according to a particular and exclusive ideology- that the equation of total war is made complete.
Understood in this way, we can therefore see that World War Two and the Cold War are unique historical events, products of that spectacular collision between those widely divergent ideologies that we know by the familiar names of Communism and Nazism, each of which having violently competed with the other- and finally both with democratic government- for dominion over the limited geopolitical regions and peoples of earth.
Part 4
But what exactly is it about ideology that makes a people's faith in it so unshakable, and at the same time makes so resolute and violent their desire to cultivate and extend it both beyond their own borders, and beyond their own time? The answer consists in the similar function which all ideologies finally come to exercise. That is, a similar function beyond that which we have just observed: a body of dogma with reference to some political and cultural plan, along with the means of putting it into operation.
Similar is the function of ideology generally to offer a more or less complete, all-encompassing definition of reality- what actually exists, and what does not- coupled with the presumed authority to establish a world order consistent with this definition. This is a tremendously powerful function that cannot be overestimated, for it allows ideology to tell the collective human mind quite literally that what we see is not necessarily what really exists and thus, comes finally to oppose and even suppress the more rational and reasonable observations of empirical science.
It is, incidentally, precisely because of this comprehensive function and authority that ideology cannot possibly be considered just one aspect of many of the Cold War, as Messrs. Isaacs and Downing suggest in their book. When wielded, such presumption and power elevates ideology rather to the considerable status of being both a primary cause and the chief beneficiary of total war.
While we may endlessly debate whether or not the end of the Cold War was truly occasioned by the demise of Soviet Russia- notwithstanding the Peoples Republic of China endures and fundamentally opposes democracy- the historical shockwaves of ideology which generated the Second World War and the Cold War have nevertheless not yet spent themselves. These shockwaves are still very much in evidence today not only in the international arena, but within particular societies as well- even American society, as we shall see. Thus, "the central story of our times" has hardly come to an end. Indeed, it continues apace.
My purpose therefore, is to reengage our attention upon this story in order to perceive the direction history is heading- with its implications to democracy- in accordance with the ongoing press of ideological forces. Of significance to the citizenry of the United States- in the context of our political, scientific and educational institutions- are the philosophical reasons in this story which caused the destruction of, at least, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
The Second World War was much more than a colossal military conflict; it was every bit as much a titanic struggle between those who would henceforth decide Truth, Goodness and Beauty in Western Civilization. The former was settled on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri on Tokyo Bay, September 2, 1945; the latter has yet to be resolved.
Certainly ideology attempts to define the world and reality, but what separates ideology from mere insightful speculation is its claim to scientific legitimacy. Ideology’s scientific pretensions are plausible and persuasive, yet fallaciously and destructively drawn. By replacing the true nature of reality with what amounts to a counterfeit version, ideology immediately comes into conflict with firmly established physical laws, and ultimately stands in violent opposition to empiricism and philosophical rationalism.
As I have said before, whatever cannot be sustained by reason, will surely be maintained by force. When empiricism and rationalism are abrogated, Truth is also nullified. Without Truth- especially the self-evident kind- democracy perishes.
Montag
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Parts 3 & 4
Journal Entry #22
“You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” “What is truth?” Pilate asked. –John 18:37, 38
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 3
The term ideology is broadly defined as "the body of doctrine of a social movement, institution, class or large group...with reference to some political and cultural plan, along with the devices for putting it into operation". At the core of an ideology is found a systematic explanation for the nature, structure and function of human society. From this general definition we gain perspective on Marxism and Aryan or Germanic racial supremacy as the operative ideologies associated with the Second World War-era governments and societies of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
Both ideologies were profoundly products of a nineteenth century cultural and intellectual revulsion to and repudiation of the “spirit of industrial civilization”, rationalism, egalitarianism, capitalism and parliamentary democracy. And both ideologies were sustained and propelled by their faith in materialism and some form of evolutionary model.
As the militant ideologies of the class struggle and racial purity grew and flourished from the public approval so indispensable to any widely influential body of doctrine, the practitioners of these ideologies labored to bring to life their respective political and cultural plans, seeking to subordinate the surrounding social order to their visions. If rival ideologies were encountered domestically, as so often was the case, these were brushed- or shoved- aside and forced to yield their claims to legitimacy and power.
Inasmuch as these militant ideologies thereafter continued to grow in their social and political power and prestige, their respective dogmas soon sought to inspire the international policies of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. For what was initially considered a desirable national political and cultural plan, would eventually come to represent also a beneficial plan according to which the entire world order should conform. Predictably, a violent collision with the rival international views of the surrounding countries was certain to occur, as indeed the historical record has shown.
Because of the allegiance- even the faith- these ideologies inspired within Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, tolerance of any opposing social or political views would be short lived, so that international tensions and disputes resulting from such friction finally became impossible to resolve by traditional diplomatic negotiation. Consequently, international diplomacy shortly gave way to a desperate grab for regional hegemony and eventual world superiority, ending quite literally in a life and death struggle between the great European powers; thus world war.
Any thought of the continued competition or interference of their ideological goals by any rival nation was considered simply intolerable in Moscow and Berlin, and so, by association, would be the continued existence of that population group who supported and advanced such interference. It is to this extent- planetary dominance and supremacy according to a particular and exclusive ideology- that the equation of total war is made complete.
Understood in this way, we can therefore see that World War Two and the Cold War are unique historical events, products of that spectacular collision between those widely divergent ideologies that we know by the familiar names of Communism and Nazism, each of which having violently competed with the other- and finally both with democratic government- for dominion over the limited geopolitical regions and peoples of earth.
Part 4
But what exactly is it about ideology that makes a people's faith in it so unshakable, and at the same time makes so resolute and violent their desire to cultivate and extend it both beyond their own borders, and beyond their own time? The answer consists in the similar function which all ideologies finally come to exercise. That is, a similar function beyond that which we have just observed: a body of dogma with reference to some political and cultural plan, along with the means of putting it into operation.
Similar is the function of ideology generally to offer a more or less complete, all-encompassing definition of reality- what actually exists, and what does not- coupled with the presumed authority to establish a world order consistent with this definition. This is a tremendously powerful function that cannot be overestimated, for it allows ideology to tell the collective human mind quite literally that what we see is not necessarily what really exists and thus, comes finally to oppose and even suppress the more rational and reasonable observations of empirical science.
It is, incidentally, precisely because of this comprehensive function and authority that ideology cannot possibly be considered just one aspect of many of the Cold War, as Messrs. Isaacs and Downing suggest in their book. When wielded, such presumption and power elevates ideology rather to the considerable status of being both a primary cause and the chief beneficiary of total war.
While we may endlessly debate whether or not the end of the Cold War was truly occasioned by the demise of Soviet Russia- notwithstanding the Peoples Republic of China endures and fundamentally opposes democracy- the historical shockwaves of ideology which generated the Second World War and the Cold War have nevertheless not yet spent themselves. These shockwaves are still very much in evidence today not only in the international arena, but within particular societies as well- even American society, as we shall see. Thus, "the central story of our times" has hardly come to an end. Indeed, it continues apace.
My purpose therefore, is to reengage our attention upon this story in order to perceive the direction history is heading- with its implications to democracy- in accordance with the ongoing press of ideological forces. Of significance to the citizenry of the United States- in the context of our political, scientific and educational institutions- are the philosophical reasons in this story which caused the destruction of, at least, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
The Second World War was much more than a colossal military conflict; it was every bit as much a titanic struggle between those who would henceforth decide Truth, Goodness and Beauty in Western Civilization. The former was settled on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri on Tokyo Bay, September 2, 1945; the latter has yet to be resolved.
Certainly ideology attempts to define the world and reality, but what separates ideology from mere insightful speculation is its claim to scientific legitimacy. Ideology’s scientific pretensions are plausible and persuasive, yet fallaciously and destructively drawn. By replacing the true nature of reality with what amounts to a counterfeit version, ideology immediately comes into conflict with firmly established physical laws, and ultimately stands in violent opposition to empiricism and philosophical rationalism.
As I have said before, whatever cannot be sustained by reason, will surely be maintained by force. When empiricism and rationalism are abrogated, Truth is also nullified. Without Truth- especially the self-evident kind- democracy perishes.
Montag
Monday, February 13, 2012
The American Crisis: Origins-
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 2
Journal Entry #21
You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh… - Galatians 5:13
Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. - 1 Peter 2:16
Recently we heard Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal remark in an interview that, based upon the new unemployment numbers and the current economic growth rate, the economy will surely remain the primary issue for American voters. And this view seems entirely reasonable, coming as it does the day after Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney for the presidency, an event that appeared more like a papal anointing than a political recommendation.
To repeat, focusing primarily upon our economic problems in this election season can only produce for us three results, all of which will prove disastrous. First, to emphasize economic issues is to misjudge the nature of the American Crisis. Second, only economic remedies will then be considered useful to solve our Crisis. Third, by focusing only upon the economy the true source of the American Crisis will remain utterly obscured. Consequently the true remedy for our Crisis will not be applied. The American Crisis will continue; indeed, it will worsen due to its cumulative progress.
The American Crisis is not economic in nature, nor is it even a political crisis- in the sense that the U.S. Constitution is being largely transgressed- though these areas certainly are all adversely affected. No, these are NOT the true source of the American Crisis; rather these are all symptoms of a deeper affliction.
The University of Chicago, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman guides our thinking as we consider the relative importance of economics to a free society. He states in his seminal work Capitalism and Freedom (1962): “History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition…It is therefore clearly possible to have economic arrangements that are fundamentally capitalist and political arrangements that are not free.” We see this exemplified in the present day Communist Peoples Republic of China and Socialist Venezuela, or that strange political hybrid Russia.
Freedom of thought is the sufficient condition by which political freedom has been secured in America since 1776. The true source and nature of our Crisis therefore, is the absence of intellectual freedom in America today. That is to say, we as a society of free citizens no longer permit ourselves to entertain truth in its purest form- absolute Truth- as it is expressed in our most esteemed national document, the Declaration of Independence.
It is within this matrix of absolute Truth that the Founders justified the American Cause, as well as the subsequent Republic. Indeed, it was a standard of Truth by which all other truths would thenceforth be measured. Thomas Jefferson wrote that “we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator…” The terms “all men are created” and “endowed by their Creator” were meant to be every bit as important in the Declaration as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, but modern science- particularly biological evolution- has eliminated the concept of creation.
The appalling consequences of this elimination of creation and the Creator came to terrifying maturity in the early 20th century, in the totalitarian states of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. These societies murdered and imprisoned millions as well as generated a global war for the ascendancy of their worldviews. The historical shockwaves emanating from this horrific World War are still felt to this day.
And the ideas of brute material evolution and secularism continue to mesmerize a whole new intelligentsia- a “sophisticated” intellectual class- in America today. This intellectual class has come to inhabit and direct our scientific community, the university, our primary and secondary educational system, and our government. This is the American Crisis. It will not be resolved by politics nor by economics. Only by a reaffirmation of Truth will we escape Tyranny.
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 2
In the impressively written book Cold War: An Illustrated History, Isaacs and Downing masterfully execute Ted Turner's 1994 commission to commemorate the end of the Cold War by telling its story. In its preface, these accomplished scholars begin their task by saying;
"This book tells the central story of our times...the series of events that shaped the second half of the twentieth century: the confrontation- military, economic, ideological- between two great power blocs, the United States and the Soviet Union, that began at the close of the Second World War and ended with the dissolution of the USSR...the story has a beginning, a middle, and an ending. We show not only how key strategic decisions were made, but their impact on ordinary lives, West and East."
"The Cold War was more than an arms race. It touched many aspects of life- ideology and science, culture and sport. It influenced the images we saw, the songs we sang, and the very language we used for nearly half a century. It helped fix the standard of living in East and West. In the book we recount in detail crises...that brought us, more than once, to the brink of nuclear war...At crisis after crisis parents worried their families might not live to see another day. Yet, as the story ends, humanity has survived."i
To a large extent, the Cold War is the central story of the later twentieth century, and its effects were keenly felt throughout all of American, European and Soviet societies, so that even the commonest citizen furthest removed from the centers of governmental power found their surrounding life affected by it. This was so because the historical events which we understand as the Cold War were, in fact, the subsequent acts of that uniquely modern drama which some historians have come to call total war.
While extensive land and sea battles waged between countries in the furtherance of national objectives have long been a prominent feature of human history, the concept of total war nevertheless distinguishes World War Two and the Cold War from those past conflicts, in the sense that all elements of society- economic, political, social and intellectual- were completely mobilized and implemented toward the prosecution of these latter wars. And, because of the comprehensive scope of this war effort, all segments of society- and the citizens located therein- were accordingly considered legitimate targets for attack by their adversaries.
The historical roots of total war can certainly be traced back to eighteenth century Europe and Revolutionary France and the subsequent European wars of the early nineteenth century, particularly as Emperor Napoleon effectively consolidated political and military power, and mobilized French society for the prosecution of vast military campaigns to secure empire.
More recently, the nature and scope of total war became increasingly pronounced in the First World War, when Imperial Germany's unrestrained submarine warfare- employed to eliminate Britain's commercial and economic ability to wage war- counted as one of its casualties the British civilian passenger liner Lusitania in May, 1915, killing more than a thousand non-combatants. Here we see the line separating civilian and soldier henceforth blurred. And the Treaty of Versailles, ending World War One, held the entire German government and people responsible for the destruction and carnage caused by the war, requiring them to pay staggering amounts of money and material in compensation.
To be sure then, total war is very much characterized by the comprehensive mobilization of entire societies, with their political, economic and social segments being brought to bear in the war effort. And with the emergence later of advanced and sophisticated technology- radar, sonar, long range bombers outfitted with precision bomb sites, satellites, guided missiles and ICBM's, computerized weapons systems and, of course, fission and fusion nuclear weapons- the forward battle line was quite literally extended to the very doorstep of the most removed civilian population centers, no longer to enjoy the relative safety and peace formerly provided by geographic distance away from the immediate theater of battle.
But there is still one more feature of the Second World War and the Cold War era which completely distinguishes these from all previous conflicts in human history, making total war what it truly is. This would be the very much vital and active presence of ideology.
i. Jeremy Isaacs & Taylor Downing, Cold War: An Illustrated History, 1945-1991 (New York: Little, Brown & Company, 1998) ix.
Montag
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 2
Journal Entry #21
You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh… - Galatians 5:13
Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. - 1 Peter 2:16
Recently we heard Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal remark in an interview that, based upon the new unemployment numbers and the current economic growth rate, the economy will surely remain the primary issue for American voters. And this view seems entirely reasonable, coming as it does the day after Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney for the presidency, an event that appeared more like a papal anointing than a political recommendation.
To repeat, focusing primarily upon our economic problems in this election season can only produce for us three results, all of which will prove disastrous. First, to emphasize economic issues is to misjudge the nature of the American Crisis. Second, only economic remedies will then be considered useful to solve our Crisis. Third, by focusing only upon the economy the true source of the American Crisis will remain utterly obscured. Consequently the true remedy for our Crisis will not be applied. The American Crisis will continue; indeed, it will worsen due to its cumulative progress.
The American Crisis is not economic in nature, nor is it even a political crisis- in the sense that the U.S. Constitution is being largely transgressed- though these areas certainly are all adversely affected. No, these are NOT the true source of the American Crisis; rather these are all symptoms of a deeper affliction.
The University of Chicago, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman guides our thinking as we consider the relative importance of economics to a free society. He states in his seminal work Capitalism and Freedom (1962): “History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition…It is therefore clearly possible to have economic arrangements that are fundamentally capitalist and political arrangements that are not free.” We see this exemplified in the present day Communist Peoples Republic of China and Socialist Venezuela, or that strange political hybrid Russia.
Freedom of thought is the sufficient condition by which political freedom has been secured in America since 1776. The true source and nature of our Crisis therefore, is the absence of intellectual freedom in America today. That is to say, we as a society of free citizens no longer permit ourselves to entertain truth in its purest form- absolute Truth- as it is expressed in our most esteemed national document, the Declaration of Independence.
It is within this matrix of absolute Truth that the Founders justified the American Cause, as well as the subsequent Republic. Indeed, it was a standard of Truth by which all other truths would thenceforth be measured. Thomas Jefferson wrote that “we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator…” The terms “all men are created” and “endowed by their Creator” were meant to be every bit as important in the Declaration as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, but modern science- particularly biological evolution- has eliminated the concept of creation.
The appalling consequences of this elimination of creation and the Creator came to terrifying maturity in the early 20th century, in the totalitarian states of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. These societies murdered and imprisoned millions as well as generated a global war for the ascendancy of their worldviews. The historical shockwaves emanating from this horrific World War are still felt to this day.
And the ideas of brute material evolution and secularism continue to mesmerize a whole new intelligentsia- a “sophisticated” intellectual class- in America today. This intellectual class has come to inhabit and direct our scientific community, the university, our primary and secondary educational system, and our government. This is the American Crisis. It will not be resolved by politics nor by economics. Only by a reaffirmation of Truth will we escape Tyranny.
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 2
In the impressively written book Cold War: An Illustrated History, Isaacs and Downing masterfully execute Ted Turner's 1994 commission to commemorate the end of the Cold War by telling its story. In its preface, these accomplished scholars begin their task by saying;
"This book tells the central story of our times...the series of events that shaped the second half of the twentieth century: the confrontation- military, economic, ideological- between two great power blocs, the United States and the Soviet Union, that began at the close of the Second World War and ended with the dissolution of the USSR...the story has a beginning, a middle, and an ending. We show not only how key strategic decisions were made, but their impact on ordinary lives, West and East."
"The Cold War was more than an arms race. It touched many aspects of life- ideology and science, culture and sport. It influenced the images we saw, the songs we sang, and the very language we used for nearly half a century. It helped fix the standard of living in East and West. In the book we recount in detail crises...that brought us, more than once, to the brink of nuclear war...At crisis after crisis parents worried their families might not live to see another day. Yet, as the story ends, humanity has survived."i
To a large extent, the Cold War is the central story of the later twentieth century, and its effects were keenly felt throughout all of American, European and Soviet societies, so that even the commonest citizen furthest removed from the centers of governmental power found their surrounding life affected by it. This was so because the historical events which we understand as the Cold War were, in fact, the subsequent acts of that uniquely modern drama which some historians have come to call total war.
While extensive land and sea battles waged between countries in the furtherance of national objectives have long been a prominent feature of human history, the concept of total war nevertheless distinguishes World War Two and the Cold War from those past conflicts, in the sense that all elements of society- economic, political, social and intellectual- were completely mobilized and implemented toward the prosecution of these latter wars. And, because of the comprehensive scope of this war effort, all segments of society- and the citizens located therein- were accordingly considered legitimate targets for attack by their adversaries.
The historical roots of total war can certainly be traced back to eighteenth century Europe and Revolutionary France and the subsequent European wars of the early nineteenth century, particularly as Emperor Napoleon effectively consolidated political and military power, and mobilized French society for the prosecution of vast military campaigns to secure empire.
More recently, the nature and scope of total war became increasingly pronounced in the First World War, when Imperial Germany's unrestrained submarine warfare- employed to eliminate Britain's commercial and economic ability to wage war- counted as one of its casualties the British civilian passenger liner Lusitania in May, 1915, killing more than a thousand non-combatants. Here we see the line separating civilian and soldier henceforth blurred. And the Treaty of Versailles, ending World War One, held the entire German government and people responsible for the destruction and carnage caused by the war, requiring them to pay staggering amounts of money and material in compensation.
To be sure then, total war is very much characterized by the comprehensive mobilization of entire societies, with their political, economic and social segments being brought to bear in the war effort. And with the emergence later of advanced and sophisticated technology- radar, sonar, long range bombers outfitted with precision bomb sites, satellites, guided missiles and ICBM's, computerized weapons systems and, of course, fission and fusion nuclear weapons- the forward battle line was quite literally extended to the very doorstep of the most removed civilian population centers, no longer to enjoy the relative safety and peace formerly provided by geographic distance away from the immediate theater of battle.
But there is still one more feature of the Second World War and the Cold War era which completely distinguishes these from all previous conflicts in human history, making total war what it truly is. This would be the very much vital and active presence of ideology.
i. Jeremy Isaacs & Taylor Downing, Cold War: An Illustrated History, 1945-1991 (New York: Little, Brown & Company, 1998) ix.
Montag
Sunday, January 8, 2012
The American Crisis: Origins-
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 1
Journal Entry #20
I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray…Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray.
-1 John 2:26, 3:7
On the Home and Garden cable channel (HGTV) are found many programs that highlight the repair and restoration of older- and really old- homes. From the foundation, to the superstructure, roof and chimney, to the electrical wiring, plumbing and even various retaining walls, these stately old homes to a greater or lesser extent manifest signs of disrepair and the pronounced need for renovation.
It would not be a great leap therefore, to liken these homes and their need for repair and renovation to the current status of our American Republic- another sort of stately old house certainly in need of restoration after 236 years of hard, though faithful service. And like those older houses on HGTV, our democracy- our unique experiment in self government- will endure to the extent we restore and improve its structure. Otherwise, it will collapse. There is no middle ground, no half measures (no political solutions, no economic solutions); the moment my fellow citizens realize this, the sooner we can get to work and set things right.
Most would argue that the greatest dilemma threatening the health and future of the United States these days is economic in nature. The federal government’s unrestrained deficit spending habits and the attendant staggering debt burden, coupled with high unemployment and flat economic growth are all cited as the focus of greatest concern to the American people, and dominate debate as we approach the 2012 election. The national political discussion seldom rises above the economic, even as the economic discussion rarely rises above the political.
To be sure, these national economic problems are real enough and the political connections and subsequent social implications of these imprudent economic policies are undeniable, but these are NOT the source of the American Crisis. More accurately, these are symptoms of the Crisis. The true source is more profoundly elemental than politics or economics: it derives from the absence of freedom of thought in America.
The United States has been embroiled in a Historical Crisis since the end of WWII, brought about by the corruption of our Western intellectual tradition, the most conspicuous indication of which is the de facto prohibition on intellectual freedom. In brief, we are no longer permitted as a society to speak of, think about or teach our children absolute Truth. And it is precisely according to absolute Truth that the Founders justified the American Cause and the eventual Republic.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence “We hold these Truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator…” and the universal, immutable, intellectual basis for all that was to follow was articulated and established by the Founders; for all subsequent generations, for all time. The Declaration was certainly intended to be much more than merely a political and social manifesto or compact.
As I mentioned in an earlier journal entry, the American philosopher Mortimer Adler defined a “self-evident truth” as a truth the opposite of which it is impossible to conceive, so that to even suggest that all men are not equal would be tantamount to saying that “all men are not men”- which is, of course, a philosophical absurdity. What is also forgotten in this quotation from this seminal document is the term “Creator”, who- in a Jewish and Christian sense- is the only being capable, because He is wise and powerful enough, to establish the physical universe and human beings as well as the absolute Truths sustaining both.
It is this Jewish and Christian sense of the term “Creator” that Professor Russell Kirk contemplated when he referred to America not only as an association of free citizens, but a “community of souls” as well. You will notice that at the critical junctures in American history- the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and World War Two- these ideas were violently challenged and much slaughter ensued.
Indeed, these violent confrontations- these horrendous wars, these societal conflicts- are undeniable testimony to what this Creator in the person of Jesus Christ would further decree as a logical corollary to these “self evident Truths”: that not all men would remain equal- spiritually. The immense and disastrous instability of human governments, institutions and societies throughout history have as their source this schism between those who accept the existence of absolute Truth and those who vociferously disparage and deny absolute Truth.
This latter group, those who deny and disparage absolute Truth, have insinuated their way into the halls of science and, ultimately into the corridors of social and political power. By advocating the existence of a physical universe bound by a closed system of material cause and effect, they have persuasively disposed of absolute Truth and the God of Israel who established it.
And in so doing, they have removed the solid foundation upon which rested the American Republic. Thus comes our current societal disequilibrium- our current social, economic and political instability. This is the failure of modern science and with it, the gathering failure of freedom and democracy. The paper you are about to read, The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma, is the logical response intended to reestablish the veracity of God and His absolute Truth.
Since 2005 this paper has been sent to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, their Vice Presidents, as well as to key Senators and Congressman of both political parties, and to individuals of the national media: it has been ignored by all of them. Perhaps this will serve as a fitting epitaph for our national folly.
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
“Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord.
Isaiah 1: 18
“What a lovely thing a rose is!…There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion,” said he. “It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things, our powers, our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its colour are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers.”
Sherlock Holmes, Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes; The Naval Treaty
“You will not apply my precept,” he said, shaking his head. “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”
Sherlock Holmes, The Sign Of Four
Therefore I said, “Turn away from me; let me weep bitterly. Do not try to console me over the destruction of my people.”
Isaiah 22: 4
Part 1
Can history permit us a look ahead, to see whether democratic government will endure the test of time? Will America, through popular rule and strengthened by its scientific, industrial and technological knowledge, be exempted from the decline and extinction that has befallen past civilizations?
More than academic speculation, the search for such answers is made with the clear understanding that even as there are certain historical conditions which permit the flowering of democracy, so must there also be circumstances which would cause it to wither and disappear. Such a search is joined, and the historical circumstances which endanger democratic government identified in the following study.
The story begins with the end of World War Two and the onset of the Cold War, as the United States formed alliances and enacted national policies designed to thwart Soviet strategic superiority in the post-war world. These are the years that represent a critical crossroads in U.S. history, as the sheer force of world events required momentous decisions to be made. In addition to defining the dimensions of international politics and law, and establishing a planetary balance of power for years to come, the path chosen by America would also certainly influence conditions domestically, eventually serving either to enhance or undermine the quality of democratic government.
Enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1958 was the National Defense Education Act, intended to fund schools and universities to step-up science and math education and increase the training of more scientists and engineers. Underlying this increased scientific emphasis in American public education were certain theories of biological and stellar development or evolution, vigorously endorsed by empirical science and based squarely upon the notion of materialism- the view that all that exists is either matter, or some function or property of matter.
Because history and philosophy were subsequently eclipsed in an educational climate increasingly defined by science, two glaring facts went unnoticed in the years that followed: these theories proved essential to the formation of such totalitarian societies as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and, these theories could clearly and empirically be disproved. It has been the goal of my book, History Remembered, History Forgotten to demonstrate both of these facts, and proceed from there to show that to the extent modern science in combination with U.S. education continue respecting these dubious theories, democratic government and society are unavoidably imperiled.
Montag
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Part 1
Journal Entry #20
I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray…Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray.
-1 John 2:26, 3:7
On the Home and Garden cable channel (HGTV) are found many programs that highlight the repair and restoration of older- and really old- homes. From the foundation, to the superstructure, roof and chimney, to the electrical wiring, plumbing and even various retaining walls, these stately old homes to a greater or lesser extent manifest signs of disrepair and the pronounced need for renovation.
It would not be a great leap therefore, to liken these homes and their need for repair and renovation to the current status of our American Republic- another sort of stately old house certainly in need of restoration after 236 years of hard, though faithful service. And like those older houses on HGTV, our democracy- our unique experiment in self government- will endure to the extent we restore and improve its structure. Otherwise, it will collapse. There is no middle ground, no half measures (no political solutions, no economic solutions); the moment my fellow citizens realize this, the sooner we can get to work and set things right.
Most would argue that the greatest dilemma threatening the health and future of the United States these days is economic in nature. The federal government’s unrestrained deficit spending habits and the attendant staggering debt burden, coupled with high unemployment and flat economic growth are all cited as the focus of greatest concern to the American people, and dominate debate as we approach the 2012 election. The national political discussion seldom rises above the economic, even as the economic discussion rarely rises above the political.
To be sure, these national economic problems are real enough and the political connections and subsequent social implications of these imprudent economic policies are undeniable, but these are NOT the source of the American Crisis. More accurately, these are symptoms of the Crisis. The true source is more profoundly elemental than politics or economics: it derives from the absence of freedom of thought in America.
The United States has been embroiled in a Historical Crisis since the end of WWII, brought about by the corruption of our Western intellectual tradition, the most conspicuous indication of which is the de facto prohibition on intellectual freedom. In brief, we are no longer permitted as a society to speak of, think about or teach our children absolute Truth. And it is precisely according to absolute Truth that the Founders justified the American Cause and the eventual Republic.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence “We hold these Truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator…” and the universal, immutable, intellectual basis for all that was to follow was articulated and established by the Founders; for all subsequent generations, for all time. The Declaration was certainly intended to be much more than merely a political and social manifesto or compact.
As I mentioned in an earlier journal entry, the American philosopher Mortimer Adler defined a “self-evident truth” as a truth the opposite of which it is impossible to conceive, so that to even suggest that all men are not equal would be tantamount to saying that “all men are not men”- which is, of course, a philosophical absurdity. What is also forgotten in this quotation from this seminal document is the term “Creator”, who- in a Jewish and Christian sense- is the only being capable, because He is wise and powerful enough, to establish the physical universe and human beings as well as the absolute Truths sustaining both.
It is this Jewish and Christian sense of the term “Creator” that Professor Russell Kirk contemplated when he referred to America not only as an association of free citizens, but a “community of souls” as well. You will notice that at the critical junctures in American history- the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and World War Two- these ideas were violently challenged and much slaughter ensued.
Indeed, these violent confrontations- these horrendous wars, these societal conflicts- are undeniable testimony to what this Creator in the person of Jesus Christ would further decree as a logical corollary to these “self evident Truths”: that not all men would remain equal- spiritually. The immense and disastrous instability of human governments, institutions and societies throughout history have as their source this schism between those who accept the existence of absolute Truth and those who vociferously disparage and deny absolute Truth.
This latter group, those who deny and disparage absolute Truth, have insinuated their way into the halls of science and, ultimately into the corridors of social and political power. By advocating the existence of a physical universe bound by a closed system of material cause and effect, they have persuasively disposed of absolute Truth and the God of Israel who established it.
And in so doing, they have removed the solid foundation upon which rested the American Republic. Thus comes our current societal disequilibrium- our current social, economic and political instability. This is the failure of modern science and with it, the gathering failure of freedom and democracy. The paper you are about to read, The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma, is the logical response intended to reestablish the veracity of God and His absolute Truth.
Since 2005 this paper has been sent to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, their Vice Presidents, as well as to key Senators and Congressman of both political parties, and to individuals of the national media: it has been ignored by all of them. Perhaps this will serve as a fitting epitaph for our national folly.
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
“Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord.
Isaiah 1: 18
“What a lovely thing a rose is!…There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion,” said he. “It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things, our powers, our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its colour are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers.”
Sherlock Holmes, Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes; The Naval Treaty
“You will not apply my precept,” he said, shaking his head. “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”
Sherlock Holmes, The Sign Of Four
Therefore I said, “Turn away from me; let me weep bitterly. Do not try to console me over the destruction of my people.”
Isaiah 22: 4
Part 1
Can history permit us a look ahead, to see whether democratic government will endure the test of time? Will America, through popular rule and strengthened by its scientific, industrial and technological knowledge, be exempted from the decline and extinction that has befallen past civilizations?
More than academic speculation, the search for such answers is made with the clear understanding that even as there are certain historical conditions which permit the flowering of democracy, so must there also be circumstances which would cause it to wither and disappear. Such a search is joined, and the historical circumstances which endanger democratic government identified in the following study.
The story begins with the end of World War Two and the onset of the Cold War, as the United States formed alliances and enacted national policies designed to thwart Soviet strategic superiority in the post-war world. These are the years that represent a critical crossroads in U.S. history, as the sheer force of world events required momentous decisions to be made. In addition to defining the dimensions of international politics and law, and establishing a planetary balance of power for years to come, the path chosen by America would also certainly influence conditions domestically, eventually serving either to enhance or undermine the quality of democratic government.
Enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1958 was the National Defense Education Act, intended to fund schools and universities to step-up science and math education and increase the training of more scientists and engineers. Underlying this increased scientific emphasis in American public education were certain theories of biological and stellar development or evolution, vigorously endorsed by empirical science and based squarely upon the notion of materialism- the view that all that exists is either matter, or some function or property of matter.
Because history and philosophy were subsequently eclipsed in an educational climate increasingly defined by science, two glaring facts went unnoticed in the years that followed: these theories proved essential to the formation of such totalitarian societies as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and, these theories could clearly and empirically be disproved. It has been the goal of my book, History Remembered, History Forgotten to demonstrate both of these facts, and proceed from there to show that to the extent modern science in combination with U.S. education continue respecting these dubious theories, democratic government and society are unavoidably imperiled.
Montag
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)