So where were we? Ah, yes … “What if all of life, for everyone, is simply a pilgrimage? What if we are not yet home?” Does it not seem that the universal suspicion that this material “all we know” is not reality, not all there is, may well be at the root of our desperate a priori adherence to material causes, our worship of the material, rooted in our worship of our self? We feel if we just whistle loud enough the graveyard will go away and not be. Over on David Warren’s site today I found the following:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
The quote fell out of some article in the New York Review of Books, from nearly twenty years ago.
My own a priori argument is that this universal suspicion that there is more, perhaps much more, then “all we know” presupposes the existence of a supernatural reality of which our natural reality is a subset. I believe this because in every recorded culture in every recorded time man and his society has a spiritual dimension of more or less popularity in any given hour but solidly there no matter what the critics and unbelievers attempt to prove. I simply find it impossible to accept that I and my contemporaries know more, or are more “enlightened” than all those billions of souls who came before. I think the notion that modern man and modern “civilization” is more enlightened than those in the past is clinical evidence of mass psychopathy amongst our Illuminati.
So lets set the rules of engagement. On the face of it, I don’t think anyone would disagree with the idea that human beings have free will, that is, they are capable of making choices even if those choices are circumscribed by circumstances and the impact of other’s free will on the choices they can implement. Of course even not choosing is a choice, which pretty well covers the entire spectrum.
A second point which most folks would agree with is that, absent circumstances which force human beings to work hard, the human default in the short term is to take the easiest path regardless of the predictable long term consequences, so we can safely assume that whatever is the easiest path in the short term will be the path most traveled by free choice.
Thirdly, it is generally accepted that thinking clearly and acting logically is harder than thinking emotionally and acting on those emotional thoughts. More thinking = more work = harder. The easy path is that which requires the least thinking and it works fine as long as there is someone else to do the heavy lifting and look after you – somewhat like children depend on their parents.
A fourth generality would be be the observed almost universal belief that “I am right and that all sensible people think like me”. But we know from experience that there are an “awefull number of stupid people out there who don’t think like me”.
So we have:
- free will.
- always take the easiest path.
- don’t think too hard (see #2)
- I’m smart, and everyone who disagrees with me is stupid.
These four points are a simple set of observations, easily proved virtually anywhere in the modern western world. And that easy path of little thought, free will and depending on “experts” quickly gets cluttered up by rules and commandments originating ostensibly from the folks who are doing the heavy lifting and taking care of things, who, not surprisingly, want things to be made easier for them to take care of the less energetic members of the family, society, culture and of course to get their own needs met which is why they are doing the heavy lifting in the first place. But most often those commandments and rules and laws have their root in higher orders of authority and in “natural law” and religion. In other words, in spirituality and a belief in the supernatural.
Then we arrive at a place where some of the folks want some of the rules because those rules they like because they help them do what they want to do, but they don’t want some other rules because they interfere with what they want to do. This place is usually called something like “The Reformation” or “The Revolution” or something more obscure but implying that the “New” is much better than the “Old” way of doing things. Of course the folks who like the old way don’t agree and we get to politics and power and smorgasbord religion, and just who the Hell is in charge here anyway?
And as we go along, in many places, where folks believe in, or at least follow, a patrimony of natural law, we see the development of compromise and the acceptance of some rules we don’t like because on the whole the fabric of rules gives us a better, more comfortable, result than rejecting them all because we can’t get everything we want. There are of course other places where the opposite applies and they are less pleasant places to be if one happens to disagree with whoever is setting the rules.
Of course, eventually tolerance and compromise give way to some folks pushing for less and less rules or more and more rules about certain things which proves easier to do in the earlier stages of tolerance and compromise until people start to resist. Then things must move more and more towards the totalitarian “rule by fiat” model, thus moving towards the less pleasant model followed by less pleasant places.
One of the first stages of this move is to get rid of the importance of anything which cannot be “proved” materially, that is to say we must get rid of God and gods if we are ever going to get anywhere with this human perfection thing, and we get a lot of interesting “science” because “science” is the new “Opiate of the Masses” and now of the new Elites as well.
Quite possibly the loudest talkers about “scientific” methods have never done or applied any science in their life but the folks they are talking to don’t know that and don’t care anyway because the talking heads beating the “science” drum are offering a reason to let folks do what they want to do … at first. Hell, most of these authorities haven’t done any “science” since their Doctoral theses, after which they hit the talk circuit and were simply devoured in joy by their publishers, the deviant mass media and all their slobbering groupies. it’s probably a safe bet that “the more talk, the less science”.
I am not for a second positing that Real Science, as in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, with all the usual boring dry research and publication and STUDYING and hard work , is not a good and useful endeavour – obviously it has given us huge advances in understanding of how things work and in quality of life, just like all the fields of engineering have given us huge advances. Unfortunately, a lot of what is called “science” simply is not. It is just pseudo-intellectual baffle-gab, because as we all know, “Bullshit baffles brains”, especially if the brains in question are of the soft study tribe like most MSM characters, soft academics and guv’mint bureaucrats – you know, the PINK tribe who believe in magic. If real engineers and real scientists did some of what is passed off as “scientific” these days they would be out of business in an instant. Folks get understandably upset when buildings fall down, the toilets back up and the vaccines kill people. See #2 above for why most folks don’t understand what “science” is and swallow the B.S. hook, line, and sinker. Don’t take my word for it just click over to:
Anyway, if indeed man IS the pinnacle then there is no need of a higher moral authority to which man must defer. If man wants to do anything then man alone decides what is right and wrong and whether the behaviour is acceptable to society. This train left the station about the time of the enlightenment under the name “atheism” and really got rolling after the first world war with the rise of communism. Over the centuries, atheists have arrived at their point of view through a variety of avenues, including scientific, philosophical and ideological notions. Currently, as a percentage of the global human population, public adherents of atheism remain but a tiny minority, albeit a very vocal and well publicized minority, and coincidentally outnumbered by a healthy margin by the mostly ignored pilgrims mentioned earlier.
Whatever the philosophical and scientific rhetoric in support, it is obvious that the principal driver for the removal of God is the desire to remove all moral fetters on human behaviour. It always comes down to “I wanna do what I wanna do, and you ain’t the boss a me!” whether it is taxing the “rich” or pedophilia, or infanticide or euthanasia, or pornography, or social welfare, or affirmative action, pick your poison. It is always the same platform underlying it all. Once we successfully destroy the moral order we are only a signature away from Auschwitz, the Gulag and the Killing Fields. This path of human dissolution has always and everywhere ended in the same disaster throughout history. The progression is universal, inevitable, and ultimately self defeating. Prove me wrong!
More to follow?
Disclaimer for nitpickers: We take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately