Posted on 03/30/2007 5:19:12 PM PDT by antonia
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The anti-Enlightenment
By Evan Sayet
Not long ago my old boss, Bill Maher, was a guest on "Larry King Live," when, in one particularly vitriolic outburst, he declared that his well known and oft-voiced contempt for religion came from his belief that "religion is the antithesis of science."
This, of course, would come as a big shock to the millions of scientists, such as Albert Einstein, who were not only deeply religious, but who saw in each new scientific discovery only further proof of God's existence. After all, as the saying goes, if there's a clock clearly there has to be a clock-maker.
Further, it would take one of those impossible coincidences that the Modern Liberal relies on so heavily to explain how it is that the two most religious nations in the Western World - the United States and Israel -- are also arguably the world's two most scientifically and technologically advanced.
In fact, with just the slightest bit of thought, Maher himself would have to recognize the abject silliness of his protestation, for if he were to stub his toe or feel a little tightness in his chest, I doubt he would order his driver to take him to the "Atheists' Hospital of Greater L.A." but instead would scream "take me to Cedar Sinai" (or the Presbyterian Hospital at Columbia University or Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New York.)
While Maher's claim that religion is antithetical to science is also easily debunked every time one drives past a university like Notre Dame, Brigham Young or Brandeis, it does serve as yet more proof that it is Maher's own philosophy - the philosophy of Modern Liberalism that so dominates today's Democratic Party - that is the antithesis of science.
After all, when being "politically correct" supersedes being factually correct, when conclusions are drawn not for their scientific value but to advance a political agenda, we have moved beyond the realm of science to what Victor Davis Hanson calls the "post-Enlightenment" and which I argue is truly the anti-Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment saw a quest for dispassionate truths. This quest is antithetical to the agenda of the Modern Liberal who sees truth itself as the enemy. This is because the central tenet of Modern Liberalism is that it is the quest for truth that is the root of all evil.
The "thinking" is that, if no one ever thought they were right there would be nothing to fight about and with nothing to fight about, surely there'd be no war. Without war there would be no poverty or the need for crime and thus mankind would finally live in the utopia they envision.
In "The Closing of the American Mind," Professor Allan Bloom's effort to understand the lack of scholarship amongst his students, Bloom says that they believe that "the study of history and culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; man always thought they were right and that led to wars, persecution, slavery, xenophobia, racism and chauvinism." Bloom continues that, with the Modern Liberal, "the point (now) is not to correct the mistakes (of the past) and really be right; rather it is never to think you're right at all."
The positions the Modern Liberal takes, then, aren't based on the effort to be right but rather to undermine these convictions in others.
Maher's mindless hatred of religion is paralleled by the left's mindless acceptance of the non-scientific myth of global warming. This agenda-driven canard, whose purpose is to undermine the belief in the truth of America's exceptionalism by turning America's greatness - her productivity, ingenuity, creativity and prosperity - from evidence of her exceptional rightness into proof positive of her evil, is so devoid of scientific fact that the only way to sustain the lie is by intimidating dissenting voices, offering up hysterical scenarios, engaging in pure demagoguery and even threatening the lives of some of the nation's leading scientists.
This "culture war" is not a battle of ideas. It's a war against truth being waged by the left in the hopes of creating a utopia devoid of war, poverty, crime and injustice. Since religion is the effort to be right morally and spiritually while science is the effort to be right in the physical world, it is not surprising to find the left so passionately against both.
Neatly put.
good post
I don't know about US and Israel being the most advanced.
I am sorry, but look at our school situation. A lot of
our scientific and technological advancement comes from
brains coming over from all over the world (Russia,
India, China, etc.) It is undeniably a good thing that
these people choose to come here (and certainly says a lot
of good things for the US) but it kind of undermines this
particular argument.
Hmmmm. Interesting point.
Thinkfood.
thanks
Yours is a point on a different topic, I think.
Sure, there's good brain power coming from Russia, China, India and such. But precious little innovation. Curious, to be sure.
It remains, and I don't think it is mere tribal arrogance to say so, that the U.S. Is the greatest source of technical innovation in the history of the world.
But still we're off topic somewhat.
The larger point above is that liberalism requires the abolition of truth. I think he's spot on.
Hmmmm. Interesting point.
Thinkfood.
-Traveler
To all,
I was talking about the sciece and education PRIOR to the leftist take-over of the schools and universities. Now that religion has been excized from our society (to the best of the leftists' abilities) science means nothing (i.e. bogus global warming beliefs, belief in Darwinism for no other reason than that it is anti-God, etc).
---Evan Sayet
I wonder why they don't want to seek the truth?
Leftism is a religion which attempts to deny being one, a morality which requires one to deny that morals exist, a professed belief that no absolute truths exist, which it insists must be believed absolutely. The very source of its passion is the sense of "rightness" which it gives its adherents; the more outrageously wrong its claims, the more passion they generate. After all, there is a premium on denying oneself for the Faith. A burnt offering of one's own brains is practically required to enter the Temple of liberalism.
I would argue that our decline in science is directly related to our decline in religious belief. Both can be attributed to the increased liberalism of our society, which is the author's point.
An additional thing that can be linked to the decline in faith and science is the decline in public morality.
All three share something in common: discipline in thought and behavior.
Liberalism undermines discipline in all areas of life and hence the disintegration of so much of our society and culture.
But then there's http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6502725.stm.
And about the greatest advances were made
when we were more religious, I don't know if this
can be measured... Surely the recent advances
(the Internet, biotech) count as great?
Exactly. Certainly the US is conducive to innovation, in its laws, economic, political system, etc. That's also WHY those people want to come here. But look at the graduate students in engineering and science - and you'll find a lot more foreign-born than Americans there.
I don't have statistics, so of course, I may be talking out of my a** regarding "more foreigners than Americans". Perhaps not *more*, but you get my point :)
Kinda like how "Bill Maher is the antithesis of comedy."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.