The Wuhan Virus Reminds Us: Beware Scientism and the Technocrats

It was not unusual in ancient times for individuals to sell themselves into servitude—as “bondservants”—which was often described as a form of slavery. Usually this was due to excessive debt, but sometimes it was done simply to have a roof over one’s head and food in one’s belly. In other words, for millennia, in order to satisfy their most basic needs, human beings have often been willing to suffer under many a heavy yoke. As C.S. Lewis put it, “A hungry man thinks about food, not freedom.”

In today’s Wuhan virus-driven hysteria, a corollary to Lewis’s above quote would be, “One living in a pandemic thinks about remaining healthy, not about freedom.” Writing about the “great issues” of his day, Lewis wrote in 1940, “Lord! How I loathe great issues…Could one start a Stagnation Party— which at General Elections would boast that during its term of office no event of the least importance had taken place?”

Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, John G. West, writes that, “According to stepson David Gresham, Lewis was skeptical of politicians and not really interested in current events. His concern was not policy but principle; political problems of the day were interesting to him only insofar as they involved matters that endured.”

Nevertheless, West adds that Lewis did indeed have a “great deal” to say about politics, writing about such things as crime, obscenity, capital punishment, communism, fascism, socialism, war, the welfare state, and so on. Lewis’s political efforts resulted in “enduring political standards for all time.”

Nowhere is this clearer, West states, than in Lewis’s writings on tyranny and morality. According to West, Lewis was particularly concerned with the tyranny that could result from the union of modern science and the modern state. With the Wuhan virus pandemic, we are currently living a lesson in this.

Lewis disputed the notion that we must exclusively rely on the counsel of scientists because only they have the answers to today’s complicated problems. He did not dispute their knowledge, but he concluded that most of it was irrelevant. In West’s words, “Political problems are preeminently moral problems, and scientists are not equipped to function as moralists.” Lewis added that,

I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value.

What such “specialists in power” often do is give a Big Government, which is already too willing to encroach on our lives, even more of a reason for doing so. This is especially true in times of crisis. Few things illustrate this better than our current “crisis” that is the Wuhan virus pandemic. “What things are worth having at what price” is currently a question of great concern to Americans and all freedom-loving people the world over, and such a question should never be answered by relying only on the knowledge of scientists. Sadly, in such times many of us are far too eager to become what Lewis called in 1958 “Willing Slaves of the Welfare State.”

Typically, in order for any oligarchy effectively to rise and rule, it needs some “extreme peril,” something to cure, some desperate need that the rulers promise to fulfill. As Lewis asked, is this not “the ideal opportunity for enslavement?”

When a generation lives in fear or dread of some looming crisis or when a society is made to believe that someone else can provide the things that it cannot live without, is this not the opportunity for those who seek to rule over us to be seen as liberators rather than the tyrants that they are? Were not Stalin and Hitler first seen as saviors and deliverers?

Following two world wars and in the midst of a cold war, Lewis wrote that

The increasing complexity and precariousness of our economic life have forced Government to take over many spheres of activity once left to choice or chance…Read Montaigne; that’s the voice of a man with his legs under his own table, eating mutton and turnips raised on his own land. Who will talk like that when the State is everyone’s schoolmaster and employer?

To “fix” our problems (whether real or perceived) and to exert the power and influence necessary, today’s ruling class often tells us that we must more and more rely on the “experts,” and also on their computer models. This means that the politicians must increasingly rely on the knowledge and advice of scientists, until, in the end, the politicians become “merely the scientists’ puppets.”

Thus, we get the motto of the technocrats: “only science can save us now” or “science is the way out” of our Wuhan virus crisis. Whether it is a global pandemic, global warming, stem-cell research, the beginning of life, healthcare, crime, homosexuality and marriage, or even gun control or economic policies, the technocrats claim to have the answers. After all, as Lewis also noted, “If we are to be mothered, mother must know best.”

In other words, in times of crisis, many of our politicians (and scientists alike) are surrendering themselves to scientism. Scientism is not science. It is an ideology that is often confused with science. It is, rather, an abuse of the scientific method and scientific authority.

In other words, scientism is a religion with many denominations: Darwinism, environmentalism, feminism, hedonism, humanism, Marxism, socialism, and so on. How many Americans now find their fulfillment and purpose in these movements? They celebrate Earth Day and Darwin Day. They boldly assert, “Science is my Savior.”

Also, scientism arrogantly attempts to lift itself above all other beliefs and disciplines—philosophy and theology included. Thus, as we see, scientism seeks to elevate the methods of natural science to a level where it is the bar by which every other intellectual discipline is held. Scientism ridicules faith and religion and tells us that “God is dead.” Scientism tells us that the “debate is over,” so shut up and get in line.

And, of course, scientism leads us to technocracy. “I dread government in the name of science,” said Lewis. “That is how tyrannies come in.” What a profound conclusion! How many of us have been duped in the name of “science”? How many of us cower and yield—or “shelter at home”—because, well, if the “scientists” (and then the politicians) tell us to do so, then we must do so?

We have long seen the results: generations are taught that life began without God; that the use of fossil fuels is warming the earth; that homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable; that abortion is not really the taking of a life; that marriage is whatever we want it to be; that confiscating the wealth of some to give to others is “fair;” that guns are evil; and so on. Of course, we then get laws and official government policy based on such conclusions.

Sadly, too many of us then grow accustomed to our chains. We become children, or pupils of the State (like “Julia”). We continue to elect leaders who perpetuate the cycle of the “Welfare State,” based significantly on the lies of scientism. It’s time for Americans to wake up to this perversion of science and return science, faith, philosophy, and by all means, common sense, to their proper place. This is especially true in times of crisis.

(See this column at American Thinker and at Climate Depot.)

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Dreadful Duty of Forgiveness

One of the most unpopular and difficult virtues of Christianity is forgiveness. As C.S. Lewis put it, “Every one says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive.” Sadly, our personal lives recently have been an exercise in forgiving the unforgivable.

On May 4 of this year, while cycling near his home, my father-in-law David was struck and killed by an impaired (alcohol and drugs) hit-and-run motorist. David was a beloved man. He was a husband, a father of four, and a grandfather of 11. He was also a kind and caring brother to four siblings, and a loving son to his parents, all of whom survive him. David was lovingly and intimately involved in each of these lives. He was also a pastor, counselor, and middle school teacher at a Christian academy. He was 64 years old and in very good health (which cycling helped him maintain.)

David was especially involved in our lives. For over 14 years, we’ve attended the church where he pastored. Our four children attend the Christian homeschool academy where he taught. My oldest son Caleb (13 years old), David’s oldest grandchild, was in his Papa’s class. Thus, David was Caleb’s teacher, his pastor, and his Papa. My wife Michelle is the administrator at the same homeschool academy. Including church on Sundays, she spent at least four days a week with her dad.

I spoke at David’s funeral. Much of what I said about his amazing life is here. A wonderful video testimony is here. Michelle wrote a blog post about her dad here.

As I said at the funeral, “Sometimes death does not surprise us. Sometimes it is even welcome. Of course, David’s death does not feel that way at all. Don’t we feel robbed right now? It’s as if something precious to us was taken by a thief in the night. Is that not how death often comes? All those ways that God used David to enrich our lives have so rudely been taken from us.”

Such a loss can certainly leave one angry. This is especially the case when the death occurs at the hands of a remorseless criminal during the commission of a crime. Our ability to forgive has been tested like never before.

We understand well what the families of those slain in Charleston, the family of New Orleans police officer Gary Flot, the families of those slaughtered by ISIS, and the like are going through. The sad truth is, if we live long enough, each of us will have dire things to forgive. What’s more, live just a few short years in this fallen world, and we will all do plenty that will require the forgiveness of others.

As Lewis implied in Mere Christianity, the notion of forgiveness is about as popular as the Christian teaching on sexual morality. In fact, if a man was on trial for his Christian faith (an event that many alive today may get to witness), his thoughts on forgiveness would certainly be a line of questioning the prosecutor would pursue.

Such thinking has long been a part of evangelical America. During the first “Great Awakening,” which occurred during the early to middle part of the 18th century, powerful Spirit-inspired preaching by men like Jonathan Edwards, Gilbert Tennent, and George Whitefield produced a tremendous evangelical harvest in Colonial America.

As noted in A Wonderful Work of God: Puritanism and the Great Awakening, in order to distinguish between the counterfeit works of Satan and the authentic works of the Holy Spirit, one of the “marks” that was considered a “major test” was “the capacity to forgive one’s enemies.”

The recent events in Charleston offer a great example of how followers of Jesus are different from those still lost in the darkness of this world. After Dylann Roof’s heinous act of violence took the lives of nine Christians at a Bible study in Charleston, and after his capture the morning after the attack, the next event that garnered the most attention happened two days after the murders. At Roof’s bond hearing, one-by-one, the friends and family of Roof’s victims were given the chance to speak. For the most part, the media was aghast, for each of these followers of Christ did the unthinkable for those who are guided by a liberal worldview: they offered forgiveness to Dylann Roof.

“We already forgive him for what he’s done, and there’s nothing but love from our side of the family,” said Chris, the teenage son of victim Sharonda Coleman-Singleton. Anthony Thompson, the grandson of victim Myra Thompson, told Roof, “I forgive you, my family forgives you.” The daughter of Ethel Lance said, “I will never talk to her ever again. I will never hold her ever again. You hurt me. You hurt a lot of people. But God forgives you. I forgive you.”

On forgiveness, Lewis also noted, “to mention the subject at all is to be greeted with howls of anger. It is not that people think this too high and difficult a virtue: it is that they think it hateful and contemptible. ‘That sort of talk makes them sick,’ they say.” After the terrible events in Charleston, several pundits corrupted by liberalism proved Lewis correct.

“Black America should stop forgiving white racists,” was the title of a piece by Stacey Patton in the Washington Post. Patton declared that such forgiveness was “disconcerting.” Seeking to keep the fires of racism stoked, she added, “The almost reflexive demand for forgiveness, especially for those dealing with death by racism, is about protecting whiteness, and America as a whole.”

“I do not forgive Dylann Roof,” began Roxane Gay in The New York Times. She later added, “I do not foresee ever forgiving his crimes, and I am wholly at ease with that choice… My lack of forgiveness serves as a reminder that there are some acts that are so terrible that we should recognize them as such. We should recognize them as beyond forgiving.”

Gay’s refusal to forgive is also tied to her desire to perpetuate the racism meme so loved by today’s liberals. She wrote, “The call for forgiveness is a painfully familiar refrain when black people suffer. White people embrace narratives about forgiveness so they can pretend the world is a fairer place than it actually is, and that racism is merely a vestige of a painful past instead of this indelible part of our present.”

An L.A. Times op-ed says that we should put conditions on forgiveness. Edward E. Baptist writes, “It's one thing for a survivor of trauma to tell a handcuffed and doomed perpetrator that you forgive him. It's another thing to forgive those who can still harm you. You don't do that without a good reason to believe that the person who harmed you has changed into someone who will not do so again.”

Of course, this is not what Jesus taught. When Peter famously asked Jesus if we should forgive up to seven times, Jesus replied “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.” In other words, as often as is necessary. One of the last lessons Jesus taught us was on forgiveness. In agony, as He was mercilessly and unjustly dying on the cross, Jesus asked His heavenly Father to forgive his executioners.

In February 1944, because they were hiding Jews from the Nazis, the ten Boom home was raided by German police. Corrie, along with her father, brother, two sisters, and several other family members were arrested. Shortly after the arrest, all of the family was released except Corrie, her father Casper, and her sister Betsie. Casper got sick and died within ten days of arrest. Corrie and Betsie remained in prison and were later transferred to the Ravensbrueck concentration camp in Germany. Betsie would die there, while Corrie was accidently released.

The ten Booms were devoted Christians who believed what the Bible taught, not only about the Jewish people, but also about forgiveness. Corrie had a long career after WWII, ministering to the mentally disabled, foster children, and the like, along with speaking and writing on the Christian faith. She was especially noted for her forgiveness of the Nazis who imprisoned her and her family.

On forgiveness, ten Boom wrote, “Forgiveness is an act of the will, and the will can function regardless of the temperature of the heart.” In other words, like we have been taught about love, forgiveness does not depend on how we feel about any particular person or situation.

Therefore, and thankfully, we do not have to have pleasant feelings about those who have wronged us. Neither must we “think them nice.” We are simply to do and say the things that forgiveness requires. We are also not to reduce by even the slightest measure our contempt for wicked things such as murder, racism, lust, greed, and the like. And we must hate such things in ourselves as much as we hate them in others.

Lastly, and “one step further,” showing true love and forgiveness does not mean that we can’t punish—even unto death—those who have done wrong. Christianity teaches that we all live forever (somewhere), thus if justice requires death in this life, so be it. What ultimately matters most is that the condemned be presented with the opportunity to accept the final forgiveness and atonement offered by the final Judge that we all will face and that we all have offended.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

God's Not That Concerned with Your Happiness

In We Have No ‘Right to Happiness’ from God in the Dock, C.S. Lewis noted that when his acquaintance “Clare” spoke of “happiness” she “simply and solely” meant “sexual happiness.” Because, as Lewis noted, “[W]omen like Clare never use the word ‘happiness’ in any other sense.” Additionally, Clare never spoke of the “right” to any other kind of happiness. She was, after all, “rather leftist in her politics, and would have been scandalized if anyone had defended the actions of a ruthless man-eating tycoon on the ground that his happiness consisted in making money and he was pursuing his happiness.”

We Have No ‘Right to Happiness’ was the last published article by Lewis before his death in 1963. Thus, almost certainly “Clare” was a product of the sexual revolution. The piece begins with Clare concluding that “Mr. A” and “Mrs. B,” who each divorced their spouses to marry one another, were justified because “they had a right to happiness.”

Many a trespass prospers these days in the name of someone’s “happiness.” (“Clap along if you feel like happiness is the truth!”) Of course, today there are “Clares” all around us—millions of times over—peddling this “right to happiness” philosophy. And just like the early 1960s, this is especially true of things in the sexual realm.

Jay Bookman, liberal columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, recently wrote about conflicting rulings on same-sex marriage. (FINALLY, a federal judge with some backbone and sense!) A comment under his piece summed up perfectly the rationale for so many Americans when it comes to same-sex marriage: “For the life of me I can't understand WHY anyone would want to keep someone from marrying anyone they choose as long as they are of legal age and can give consent. Many states also allow 1st cousins to marry now. I just don't understand depriving anyone the right to be happy.”

Such juvenile thought has also invaded circles inhabited by those who should know better. As I pointed out last year, Republican Senator Rob Portman from Ohio, who, over the last several years, has been in the conversation as a candidate for the White House, reversed himself and became a supporter of same-sex marriage. (For which he is now rightly paying a political price.)

According to Portman’s own words, his conversion on this grave issue was due to the fact that, in 2011, his son Will announced that he was gay. Thus Senator Portman, not wanting to stand in the way of his son’s opportunity “to pursue happiness and fulfillment,” decided to join the “Happy Gang” on same-sex marriage.

The Happy Gang has corrupted more than marriage. Many have decided to capitulate on a wide range of homosexual-related issues because of the perceived “right to happiness.” Tragically, and in most cases to please the pro-homosexual crowd, just as with the perverse notion of modern-day tolerance, the “right to happiness” philosophy has invaded the church—even the (supposed) evangelical church.

Just days ago Victoria Osteen—wife of Joel Osteen, pastor of Lakewood Church, the largest Protestant church in the U.S.—was videoed boldly declaring, “I just want to encourage every one of us to realize when we obey God, we’re not doing it for God–I mean, that’s one way to look at it–we’re doing it for ourselves, because God takes pleasure when we are happy. . . . That’s the thing that gives Him the greatest joy. . . .”

She continued: “So, I want you to know this morning — Just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy. . . . When you come to church, when you worship him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy. Amen?”

In other words, “Take up your happiness and follow Jesus!” Or, “My yoke is easy because I just want to make you happy.” Poor Mrs. Osteen has taken her lumps for this, so I don’t want to pile on. (It wouldn’t be very Christ-like anyway.) As Al Mohler deftly put it, “America deserves the Osteens.” Not only that, but America, along with much of the rest of the world, craves the Osteen’s brand of Christianity—or religion—or whatever you choose to call it.

It makes it so much easier to decide what’s right and wrong when all you have to ask is, “Does it make you happy?” Is there any wonder that we have become a culture virtually bereft of shame? Is there anyone in liberal America who knows sin for what it really is? Has it occurred to the Happy Gang to weigh the “happiness” of the beheading-butchers of ISIS, as they cut off the heads of “infidels,” before we decide to do anything about them?

Don’t get me wrong, like Phil Robertson and the Duck Dynasty crowd, I love me some “happy, happy, happy.” However, as Lewis reminds us, when our founding fathers wrote of the right to the “pursuit of happiness,” that “august declaration” was tempered by the notion that our pursuits are limited by means sanctioned according to the eternal Law of Nature. In other words, we are not to seek happiness simply according to our own whims and desires.

Also, though I believe that God enjoys us being happy, that is certainly not His main concern—even when our pursuits are noble. As my lovely wife wisely put it, He’s much more concerned with our holiness than our happiness. This is accomplished only through the redemptive work of Jesus.

To get us to see this, to see the only path to holiness (“the Way” as Jesus put it), and hopefully choose that path, is God’s main concern. Whether we’re rich or poor, hungry or fed, clothed or naked, sick or well, happy or sad, we should seek this path. Some of us will follow this path though our family will forsake us as a result; for others we follow this path “even unto death,” because we know that, in spite of what we may face in this world, one day there will be no more sadness, and not just happiness, but perfect joy.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Legislating Morality

Being a lifelong fan of football, I have never had a problem with NFL instant replay. I’m in my early forties, so I can remember well the days before instant replay. Whatever the shortcomings of instant replay—and there were some significant ones in the early days—to me, the benefit of the official getting the call right always trumped any inconvenience that might result from a video review of a play.

Unsurprisingly, I find that most NFL fans approve of replay—especially when it is their team on the wrong end of a bad call. Don’t we all wish that there was an “instant replay” for life—a chance for an “official review” always to get things right?

Of course, “getting it right” means that there is a standard, much like the rules in the NFL, to which we all are (or should be) held. Despite notions to the contrary, as we argue and debate the issues of our day, ultimately each of us relies on such a standard, or some notion of right and wrong, or fair play, or rules, or morality, or whatever you want to call it.

What’s more, the very foundation of our government depends upon such a notion. In fact, the foundation of any good government, culture, society, or virtually any situation where human beings interact with one another rests upon what used to be called Natural Law.

Our Founding Fathers understood this well. However, the idea that liberty, good government, and just laws have their roots in Natural Law, or “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” did not begin with the founding of America. For millennia many philosophers, politicians, priests, and lay people alike knew the role that Natural Law should play in the “Governments [that] are instituted among men.”

Jim Powell, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and an expert in the history of liberty, credits the Roman philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 B.C. to 43 B.C.) with expressing the “principles that became the bedrock of liberty in the modern world.” Cicero was the leading lawyer of his time, and Thomas Jefferson credits him not only with influencing the Declaration of Independence, but also with informing the American understanding of “the common sense” basis for the right of revolution.

“True law,” as Cicero called it, is the “one eternal and unchangeable law [that] will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law…”

“[The] Law of Nature” wrote English philosopher John Locke (who also profoundly influenced our Founders), “stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions must…be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e. to the will of God…”

Sir William Blackstone, another renowned and favorite English jurist of our Founders, declared in his presuppositional basis for law that, “These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil…This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this…”

C.S. Lewis concludes that, “Natural Law or Traditional Morality [whatever one chooses to call it]…is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained.”

Throughout the early colonies, the incorporation of Natural (or “Divine”) Law was prevalent. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (the first constitution written in America), as well as similar documents in Rhode Island and New Haven, specifically mentioned that their civil law rested upon “the rule of the word of God,” or “all those perfect and most absolute laws of His.”

References to, not vague religious babble, but specific biblical texts, such as the Ten Commandments, can be found in the civil law of every original U.S. Colony. It is a fact of history that throughout our pre-Colonial, Colonial, Revolutionary period and beyond, America’s lawmakers and laws were steeped in Natural Law.

Thus we can conclude that from the beginning our government has been “legislating morality.” All law is rooted in morality. “Laws without morals are in vain,” said Ben Franklin. Not only that, but as I implied above, every debate we have is rooted in morality.

It is absurd and ignorant to lament conservative Christian efforts when it comes to abortion, marriage, and so on as some attempt to “legislate morality.” The other side is attempting the very same thing! In fact, the lamenter (whatever his political persuasion) has also taken a moral stand. Thus, he is like the bank robber who calls the police because his get-away car gets stolen.

What’s more, those who attack Natural Law (because an attack on a position that stems from Natural Law is an attack on Natural Law) do so with arguments that are derived from Natural Law. It is a self-defeating effort. They are attempting to saw off the limb upon which they are sitting.

As Lewis puts it, “The effort to refute [Natural Law] and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There never has been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or (as they now call them) ‘ideologies,’ all consist of fragments from [Natural Law] itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to [Natural Law] and to it alone such validity as they possess.”

Sadly, recent examples of such nonsense come not from Democrats or their liberal friends in the media, but from self-described “Orthodox Christians” within the GOP. Michigan GOP representative Justin Amash recently complained that “We can't legislate morality and force everyone to agree with us.” It appears that Amash was trying to impress John Stossel and his gathering of a “thousand young libertarians.”

Stossel likes the fact that “Amash focuses on government spending.” In addition, conservative author Arthur Brooks implores republicans to focus on “improving the lives of vulnerable people” through the appropriate conservative policies instead of “imposing an alien ‘bourgeois’ morality on others.”

Libertarians and their like-minded friends want to focus on government spending or conservative fiscal policies, but they often fail to realize that one does not leave morality at the door when entering the realm of economics. If you want to make the moral arguments in favor of proper (“right and good”) economic policy (which, of course, are ultimately based in Natural Law), then you must accept the other moral conclusions (killing a child in the womb is wrong; marriage is only between a man and a woman) that go along with them.

In other words, it is folly to make moral arguments in favor of sound fiscal policy, all the while turning a blind eye toward killing children in the womb or the evils of homosexual behavior.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Beware Technocracy (The Allure and Danger of Scientism)

It was not unusual in ancient times for individuals to sell themselves into servitude (as “bondservants”), which was often described as a form of slavery. Usually this was due to excessive debt, but sometimes it was done simply to have a roof over one’s head and food in one’s belly. In other words, for millennia, in order to satisfy their basest needs, human beings have often been willing (not forced) to suffer under many a heavy yoke. As C.S. Lewis put it, “A hungry man thinks about food, not freedom.”

Writing for The Observer in 1958, Lewis bemoaned the “extreme peril of humanity at present” that leads to the “Willing Slaves of the Welfare State.” Typically, in order for any oligarchy effectively to rise and rule, it needs some “extreme peril,” something to cure, some desperate need that the rulers promise to fulfill. As Lewis asked, is this not “the ideal opportunity for enslavement?”

When a generation lives in fear or dread of some looming crisis or when a society is made to believe that someone else can provide the things that it cannot live without, is this not the opportunity for those who seek to rule over us to be seen as liberators rather than the tyrants that they are? Were not Stalin and Hitler first seen as saviors and deliverers?  

Following two world wars and in the midst of a cold war, Lewis wrote that “The increasing complexity and precariousness of our economic life have forced Government to take over many spheres of activity once left to choice or chance…The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good…Read Montaigne; that’s the voice of a man with his legs under his own table, eating mutton and turnips raised on his own land. Who will talk like that when the State is everyone’s schoolmaster and employer?”

To “fix” our problems (whether real or perceived) and to exert the power and influence necessary, the new ruling class must more and more rely on the “experts.” This means that the politicians must increasingly rely on the knowledge and advice of scientists, until, in the end, the politicians become “merely the scientists’ puppets.”

Thus, we get the motto of the technocrats: “only science can save us now.” Whether it is global warming, stem-cell research, the beginning of life, healthcare, crime, homosexuality, or even gun control or economic policies, the technocrats have the answers. After all, as Lewis also noted, “If we are to be mothered, mother must know best.”

In other words, many of our politicians are surrendering themselves to scientism. Scientism is not science. It is an ideology that is often confused with science. It is, rather, an abuse of the scientific method and scientific authority.

Scientism can also be classified as a religion. It is a religion with many denominations: Darwinism, environmentalism, feminism, hedonism, humanism, Marxism, socialism, and so on. How many Americans now find their fulfillment and purpose in these movements? They celebrate Earth Day and Darwin Day. They boldly assert, “Science is my Savior.”

Also, scientism arrogantly attempts to lift itself above all other beliefs and disciplines—philosophy and theology included. “Philosophy is dead,” declared Stephen Hawking in his 2010 book The Grand Design. It is dead because, “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.”

Thus, as we see, scientism seeks to elevate the methods of natural science to a level where it is the bar by which every other intellectual discipline is held. Scientism ridicules faith and religion and tells us that “God is dead.” Scientism tells us that the “debate is over,” so shut up and get in line.

And, of course, scientism leads us to technocracy. “I dread government in the name of science,” said Lewis. “That is how tyrannies come in.” What a profound conclusion! How many of us have been duped in the name of “science?” How many of us cower and yield, because, well, if the “scientists” (and then the politicians) tell us so, then it must be so?

We can see the results: generations are taught that life began without God; that the use of fossil fuels is warming the earth; that homosexuality is genetic; that abortion is not really the taking of a life; that marriage is whatever we want it to be; that confiscating the wealth of some to give to others is “fair;” that guns are evil; and so on. Of course, we then get laws and official government policy based on such conclusions.

Sadly, too many of us then grow accustomed to our chains. We become children, or pupils of the State (like “Julia”). We continue to elect leaders who perpetuate the cycle of the “Welfare State” based significantly on the lies of scientism. It’s time for Americans to wake up to this perversion of science and return science, faith, philosophy, and by all means, common sense, to their proper place.

(Read this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com

The Resurrection

At this time of year Christians celebrate Easter, or as I prefer, Resurrection Sunday. As one scans history, no other date put such a mark in time as when Jesus Christ shed His grave-clothes and departed the tomb.

Of all the religions of the world, only Christianity claims an empty tomb for its founder. The physical resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity. British theologian Michael Green said it well when he noted, “Without faith in the resurrection there would be no Christianity at all.” Noted biblical scholar, professor, and author Wilbur M. Smith said that, “The resurrection of Christ is the very citadel of the Christian faith. This is the doctrine that turned the world upside down…” Indeed it did.

According to C.S. Lewis, “In the earliest days of Christianity an ‘apostle’ was first and foremost a man who claimed to be an eyewitness of the Resurrection,” or more accurately, a witness of the resurrected Christ. He adds that, “to preach Christianity meant primarily to preach the Resurrection.” And preach they did.

The transformation of the disciples of Jesus is one of the greatest evidences of His resurrection. For decades following Jesus’ death and resurrection they preached His “good news.” Biblical references and strong extra-biblical sources have almost all of the disciples dying martyrs’ deaths. James, the son of Zebedee, according to Scripture was, “put to death by the sword (probably beheaded).” According to early church historians Peter was crucified in Rome, and Paul (of course not one of the original 12, but an apostle nonetheless) was beheaded there. Strong church tradition has Thomas, the “doubting” disciple, being run through with a spear.

The manner of martyrdom of the other disciples is less clear, but strong evidence suggests all, save John, died horrific deaths because of their faith. Their unwavering efforts spread the gospel to many regions of the world, including Rome, Greece, Armenia, Persia, Syria, India, Egypt, Libya, Arabia, and North Africa.

The faith of Jesus’ Apostles spread to thousands upon thousands in a relatively short period of time. Many of the early believers suffered intense persecution as well. Fulton Oursler, in The Greatest Faith Ever Known, notes that “Thousands of these men and women would die themselves in the arena, burning on pitch-soaked pyres, crucified, they would die for Jesus Christ, and for the Faith, the Church that Christ founded.”

The persecution of the church continued for centuries. After Constantine’s conversion in the year 312 the church passed from persecution to privilege. Councils were called, the Scriptures were translated into various languages, and missionaries carried the gospel to ever farther reaches of the world.

The impact that Christianity has had on the world can be measured in practically every facet of life. Everything from the family, to science, government, medicine, art, literature, business, and so on, has felt the impact of the message of the Resurrection of Christ.

The world’s first university, birthed in 1088, was The University of Bologna in Italy. It was founded to teach canon law. The second oldest university, The University of Paris, grew out of the cathedral schools of Notre-Dame and soon became a great center for Christian orthodox studies. Dr. Alvin J. Schmidt, in his book Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization, points out that every college established in colonial America, except the University of Pennsylvania, was founded by some denomination of Christianity. He adds that, preceding the Civil War, 92 percent of the 182 colleges and universities in the U.S. were established by some branch of the church.

Many of the greatest artists in history: Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Donatello, Da Vinci, and Salvador Dali were Christians. This is evident in that many of the great works they produced were scenes or characters from Scripture. Beethoven, considered by many to be the world’s greatest composer, composed some of the most profound Christian masterpieces of history. Johann Sebastian Bach was, as one scholar put it, indeed “a Christian who lived with the Bible.”

Take note of the number of influential charities inspired by Christianity. Among them are The Salvation Army, Campus Crusade, Catholic Charities, Habitat for Humanity, and the YMCA. Also, about 25% of U.S. hospitals are Christian.

The great nation that we inhabit was founded almost exclusively by Christians and upon Christian principles. The United States has become perhaps the most influential nation in world history. Standing for freedom and justice and operating out of love, this nation, whether through its government or private citizens, has come to the aid and rescue of billions of people around the world.

The current year is 2008. This is not 2008 years from Caesar, Buddha, or Mohammed, but from the birth of Jesus Christ. Dan Flynn notes that, “The attempt to replace Anno Domini (AD) and BC (Before Christ) with BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era) is yet another exercise in futility. Doesn't this Common Era, after all, begin with the life of Christ?”

The impact of Christ’s resurrection can be seen in institutions and nations, in virtually every facet of life, as I said earlier, but I think it is most noticeable in the lives of individuals. We may measure our years from His birth, but our hope is in His resurrection.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com