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.