Secular humanism – in religious terms you can label it “atheism” and in political terms you can label it “progressive liberalism” – is a shell game that tries to hide the existence of the human soul.
The soul is there, of course. It simply HAS to be there for humans to be in any meaningful way categorically different than the beasts, or for human justice to be anything other than a morbid joke as “beasts” judge one another for acting like beasts. But the project of secular humanism is to only allow as much “soul” as is absolutely necessary to allow society to function while at the same time denying it’s reality lest the people reject the atheism and the progressive liberalism that are based on the denial of the soul.
The problem is that the soul is NOT a degreed property. “Size” and “weight” are a degreed properties; a thing can have more of it or less of it and still be the thing itself. But in this case the soul must be the kind of thing (a substance) that HAS properties rather than a property that has degrees. We therefore either have souls – in which case the secular humanists are entirely wrong about the nature of humanity, the nature of religion, the nature of morality, the nature of science and the very nature of the universe – or we do NOT have souls and therefore we do NOT have “free will” in which case human society, human justice and basically everything worthwhile about “humanity” is an entirely manufactured lie.
Look, I am either a soul – created in the image of God – that has a body, or else I am nothing more than a body – and frankly a meat puppet - which was the result of random DNA conditioned by my environment. It’s one or the other; there is no middle ground. Free will becomes a logical as well as biological impossibility for the latter view - which is why secular humanist scientists and philosophers are increasingly rejecting the very possibility of free will.
The problem is that if you were to actually assume the latter was actually true, then how could you hold anybody responsible for anything? It’s really a frightening thought. After all, if I commit a brutal murder, but there really is no “me” inside of me to truly hold accountable, but rather I was conditioned by genes I didn’t choose and an environment I didn’t choose, why should I be held accountable? How is this not like holding a child responsible for what his parents did? But of course, on this view, you can’t hold the parents responsible any more than the child, because they suffer the same complete lack of moral free will that their child does. And the final result of this view is that we should no more hold a human being – who is NOTHING but an evolved monkey, after all – any more morally responsible for his or her “crimes” than we would hold a tiger responsible for killing a goat. Because in both cases, you merely do what you “evolved” to do.
Therefore, the people who claim the latter (no God, ergo sum no imago dei ergo sum no free will) is reality have to pretend for the most part that it is most definitely NOT reality in order to have any kind of functioning human society. What they have done is determined that humans are in fact “animals” (or beasts); and that, more specifically, we are “herd animals.” Mind you, we are also clearly – judging by human experience – “predator animals” who prey on herd animals. And so the secular humanists have construed for themselves a “foundation for their description of reality” in which they have appointed themselves the outside role of “the bureaucrats” and “the professors” and “the journalists” (etc.) who shape and control the behavior of the herd and attempt to keep the herd animals relatively safe from the predator animals.
And of course liberalism only becomes consistent in their anthropology when they refuse to execute murderers (after all, THAT would be holding someone accountable for their moral crimes when that man is merely a beast who merely did what his brain had evolved to do); so we house them, keep them locked up in cages. Just like animals. Because they ARE animals and nothing more than animals conditioned by DNA plus environment. Just like YOU’RE nothing more than a mindless animal purely conditioned by DNA plus environment.
I suggest that the increasing breakdown of society under the control of secular humanism is itself a refutation of their system. We are skyrocketing out of control as a species because when you treat men like beasts, like beasts men shall increasingly become. As the Bible puts it, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7). But we can offer a great deal more of an analysis than merely pointing out that “by their fruits shall ye know them” (Matthew 7:16-20).
One of the things you need to realize is the bait and switch you have received regarding science and the nature of science. You have been fed a pile of lies in the form of a narrative that science is incompatible with religion and that “science” produces open-mindedness and tolerance for new ideas whereas “religion” produces close-mindedness and hostility to new ideas. But that is simply a lie: as a matter of factual history, “science” is uniquely a product of Judeo-Christianity. It arose ONLY in Christendom as the result of belief in a Personal, Transcendent Creator God rather than anywhere else on earth. Belief in God was a necessary condition for the rise of science as not only the discoverer of the scientific method itself (Francis Bacon) but the discoverer of every single branch of science was a publicly confessing Christian who “sought appreciate the beauty of God’s handiwork” and who “wanted to think God’s thoughts after Him.”
J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:
1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world
2. the orderly nature of the external world
3. the knowability of the external world
4. the existence of truth
5. the laws of logic
6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as -truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment
7. the adequacy of language to describe the world
8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)
9. the uniformity of nature and induction
10. the existence of numbers
Good luck in starting science without all of these assumptions – of which the assumption of God according to the Judeo-Christian worldview was necessary to provide. Science could not verify or validate any of the list above for the reason that they already needed to be accepted in order for science to ever get off the ground in the first place.
To put it crassly, if it were up to secular humanists, we would still be living in caves and afraid of fire. And if it left up to secular humanists, we will ultimately be living in caves and afraid of fire again. And all you have to do to realize that society is not advancing under their standard, but degenerating, to know that.
God created the world as a habitation for the capstone of His creation, man. And then God created man in His own image and therefore able to see and fathom the world which He had created for humanity. That is the basis for science.
Gleason Archer framed an insurmountable intellectual contradiction for the “scientific atheist”:
“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.
On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.” — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56
Basically, if the atheist is right, then “human reason” becomes a contradiction in terms and let’s just live like the beasts they say we are and be done pretending we’re something we’re not.
What secular humanists have been trying to do – frankly for generations – is to perpetuate a fraud. It would be akin to me intercepting a great thinker’s work and trying to pass it off as my own.
But imagine – for the sake of argument – what would have happened had I done such a thing with the work of Albert Einstein. Imagine I had enough of a vocabulary to pass myself off as a great scientific mind. What would have happened to science as a result of my limiting it?
And that is what’s essentially being described in the R. Scott Smith article below. Education – the teaching of science and of how to do science, for example – would suffer more and more as fools who are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7) hijacked the agenda.
I would like to begin this discussion with an article on the logically-entailed implications of Darwinism in crucial human pursuits by beginning with an article detailing the ramifications of Darwinism on education:
Does Darwinian Evolution Actually Undermine Education?
By R. Scott Smith
Low standard test scores, serious budget crunches and more — our public schools face daunting challenges. But perhaps they face a deeper issue, one not being mentioned in recent public discussions: What if they aren’t really teaching our youth knowledge?
Today’s education is based upon the assumption that science gives us knowledge. But other disciplines give us (at best) “inferior knowledge,” or just preferences and opinions.
And today’s scientific orthodoxy is Darwinian and naturalistic, meaning all that’s real is natural, or material; there isn’t anything real that’s supernatural or immaterial. There’s no God, souls or minds, and so no real “mental states” — thoughts, beliefs, experiences, intentions, etc.
If that seems overstated, notice what Daniel Dennett, a leading philosopher of neuroscience at Tufts University, says. He admits that according to naturalistic evolution, the dominant scientific theory, brains and physical patterns of physical forces exist. Physical stuff (matter) is real, but things like mental states aren’t.
Yet when we do science, pay our taxes or watch a football game, it seems we really think, have beliefs and experience things. So, how can that be?
According to Dennett, all that’s going on is the interpretation of the behavior of “intentional systems,” like sophisticated chess-playing computers and people. While observing them, we try to interpret and predict their behavior. For instance, we might interpret a computer’s move in a game as “intending” to checkmate its opponent, whereas the human player “thinks” or “believes” she can escape by making a certain move. We just interpret their behaviors by how we conceive of (or talk about) their behaviors as mental states — but that’s all there’s to it. There are no real beliefs, thoughts or observations.
However, suppose a person comes here from a fourth-world country. She’ll need to get a concept of what a traffic light is and that she can cross the street on a green light, not red. To learn that, she’ll need experiences and thoughts of what these things are, and then form a concept of when it’s safe to cross a street.
So, for Darwinian evolution and naturalism, there’s a crucial problem here: How could anyone make observations and form concepts and interpretations? To do these seems to require we use the very mental things we’re told don’t exist.
Yet without real observations, we don’t seem able to do any scientific experiments. Without concepts, thoughts and beliefs, how could we even form, test and accept scientific theories?
Worse, how could we have knowledge if there aren’t real beliefs we can accept as true? We also need adequate evidence for our beliefs to count as knowledge. But with Darwinian, naturalistic science, evidence from experience seems impossible.
Now, maybe Michael Tye (a philosopher at the University of Texas at Austin) could reply that we do have mental states, yet these really are just something physical, like brain states, being conceived of as being mental. But, that won’t work — to even have concepts, we need real mental states to work with.
So, it seems the assumption upon which our education system is founded — that Darwinian evolutionary, naturalistic science uniquely gives us knowledge of the facts — cannot be true. And, Darwinian evolution also is mistaken, for on it we couldn’t know anything. Yet we do know many things — for instance, that we’re alive.
Therefore, real, immaterial mental states must exist. While this essay doesn’t prove it, it suggests something very important — supernaturalism isn’t far-fetched after all. Indeed, we can infer even more. If we can have real immaterial thoughts, experiences, beliefs and more, then it seems that there must be something immaterial that is real which can have and use them. That suggests that we have minds, even souls, that are real and non-physical. So, how then do we best explain their existence? Surely not from Darwinian evolution. Instead, it seems that this short study highly suggests that God exists and has made us in a way that we can have knowledge. I am reminded of what Solomon said: “To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord” (Prov. 1:7, GNT).
Thus, fixing our education system seems to involve, in part, a repudiation of naturalism and Darwinian, naturalistic science. For on it, we lose all knowledge whatsoever. But since we do know many things, that fact strongly suggests that God exists.
R. Scott Smith (M.A. ’95) is an associate professor of ethics and Christian apologetics in Biola’s master’s program in Christian
apologetics. He holds a Ph.D. in religion and social ethics from the University of Southern California.
Science isn’t “discovering” very much. We put a man on the moon in the 1960s and we literally aren’t capable of repeating that feat today. The first computer was invented by a Christian, of course. We keep making them smaller and faster, but we haven’t had any major leaps for decades. We’ve been following Moore’s Law rather than any “scientific advance.” We’ve been very successful at “technology,” and at reducing the size of previously designed devices or at creatively marketing/engineering a device based on the success of a previous device. But contrary to your secular humanist, we’re not making giant leaps and bounds on the frontiers of science.
And that is most definitely true of education – and especially education in America relative to other nations as we plunge ever more deeply into the philosophy of secular humanism that had NOTHING to do with the origin of science or the origin of ANY OTHER MEANINGFUL THING.
I look at education and I see what many parents as well as many educators see: kids that are getting dumber and dumber.
And you have to ask yourself, why is that, given that we’re spending more per pupil than ever??? Why do we keep falling behind? And why do Christian schools run circles around the government (secular humanist education center) schools??? Because it is simply a FACT that they do:
If you want a flourishing education system – you know, the kind of system that put a man on the moon – you need to demand a return to a religion-friendly education system rather than the one that has replaced the system that made America great.
It is a fact of history that American public education began as a RELIGIOUS ENDEAVOR. Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian. As a native Californian, I also marveled to learn that Christianity and churches EXCLUSIVELY bore the burden of education for basically the first hundred years of westward expansion.
Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck. Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields. It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.
Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries. Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.
Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.
Look what’s happened. Liberals have purged out conservatives. The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:
College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.
By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.
The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.
“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” [...]
Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”
By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement. Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies. As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe. And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.
Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people. Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.
That was our strike two for us [note: I write about three strikes in the article]. Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.
By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law. They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means. By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history. Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination. And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies. It has become a vicious circle.
Today we have an “education system” ladened with secular humanist theories which don’t teach children because as secular humanists they have understanding of “humanity” or the little souls whom they seek more to indoctrinate than to educate.
Johnny can’t read, at least he can’t read very well. But that’s okay; he doesn’t need to be able to read very well in order to serve the future State or the crony capitalist corporations in the progressive liberals’ fascist system in order to be a good drone worker bee. When your child is toiling away at his or her menial job, feel good in the knowledge that your child will do so believing that being a good citizen and taking your place as one of myriad cogs in the machine will keep him or her moving mindlessly forward.
In a way, I’ve already also described the rabid intolerance that is the quintessence of secular humanism in describing above the purging of conservatives by liberals. But believe me, there is way, way more than that.
One of the frightening things about the Holocaust was that only one who closely followed the theories presented in the German universities could see it coming. But those who DID follow what was being taught in the elite German universities could see it coming very clearly. Many of those who did follow what was being taught were terrified and tried to warn the free nations about what was happening. But of course nobody listened. And so it all played out exactly as the most strident voices warned it would play out unless something was done. That “play” was World War II and the death camps that accompanied it.
The lesson of history is that ideas have consequences. And terrible ideas have terrible consequences, indeed.
So with that introduction, allow me to replay a recent article written by a student of one of the most – if not THE most – prestigious of universities in America reflecting a new rabid intolerance of free speech in academia:
In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.
Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?
Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue. [...]
It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.
Basically, she says that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.
Here as in so many other ways, secular humanist “liberalism” is Nazism. Period.
AN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.
Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”
It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.
“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.
“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”
We are now seeing a massive effort on the part of students who have been brain-washed by the above secular humanist dictatorship of academia in which they simply refuse to tolerate or even listen to any ideas that disagree with their dogma.
Students are now shouting down anyone with whom they disagree. It doesn’t matter how many other students want to hear a speaker: secular humanist liberal students and faculty are fascists who impose their will and dictate their agenda on others (even when they are in the very tiny minority): And so:
At least three prominent leaders — former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, and former UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau — cancelled their commencement speeches this spring after a typhoon of campus activism.
Consider what happened this week with Birgeneau, who had been scheduled to speak at Haverford College, a close-knit liberal arts school just outside Philadelphia.
By some measures, Birgeneau is the perfect person to give a graduation speech: Successful, civic-minded and notable, not least for guiding Berkeley as it became the first American public university to offer comprehensive financial aid to students in the country illegally. But Birgeneau was actually far from ideal, some Haverford students and faculty decided.
Despite his left-friendly work on immigration, they said they wanted Birgeneau to apologize for how campus police brutalized Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in 2011 — or else they would protest his graduation speech.
In response, Birgeneau decided not to attend the graduation. His cancellation, the most recent of the three, is raising concerns in some quarters that campus leftist groups are putting so much emphasis on social justice issues that they’re squashing the spirit of open debate. [...]
But some observers say the recent campus blow back belongs in its own category, which political writer Michelle Goldberg, in a column for The Nation, called “left-wing anti-liberalism” – the idea that some speech and some people are so politically disagreeable that their views don’t need to be heard.
Lukianoff, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, pointed to a 2013 dust-up at Brown University in which former New York police head Ray Kelly’s speech to students had to be canceled after he was shouted down and unable to speak.
Kelly has long been despised by the left for his defense of stop-and-frisk policies and how the NYPD cracked down on Occupy Wall Street protesters. His embarrassment at Brown became a YouTube moment that other officials would likely hope to avoid. [....]
For centuries, universities – which again were started by Christians out of the monasticism movement (as in America, where 106 of the first 108 universities in America including ALL the Ivy League schools were began by Christians; and of the first 126 colleges, 123 were Christian) have celebrated their institutions as bastions of free expression and the interchange of ideas. That is a lie today. You don’t GET to learn “ideas” any more; you get to learn THE idea of secular humanist liberalism and nothing else. Because whether you are a student or a professor or an administrator, these secular humanist liberals will come after you if you commit the sin of heresy in their rabid eyes.
Therefore, what has happened in the colleges and universities is analogous to a wayward girl who began to date a monster and ultimately helped murder her own parents in the night. That’s what secular humanism did in purging the universities and colleges from the Christian tradition that gave BIRTH to those universities and colleges.
I compare what I’m seeing today to the French Revolution. It, like what we’re seeing today, was the result of secular humanism. And like what we’re seeing today, the French Revolution quickly degenerated from a bunch of hoity-toity pronouncements to hell on earth as the French Revolution rapidly degenerated into the Reign of Terror.
It is an easy thing to prove that rabid intolerance is a defining feature of the (secular humanist “liberal”) left today. We are seeing the left declare open war on free speech and on the exercise of First Amendment rights as this nation has never seen before. Executives are being forced out of companies they helped found because they had the audacity to exercise their free speech rights as Americans. Journalists are getting purged for daring to speak the truth. And just consider the vicious, rabid leftist Occupy Movement compared to the conservative Tea Party that was so demonized by the leftist press:
There have been 7,765 documented arrests of leftist Occupy Movement fascists. Versus ZERO for the Tea Party.
Occupy – as a symbol and a symptom of the left – believed it had the right to “occupy” private property, to destroy property, to destroy jobs, to pretty much take over. And in the case of UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, we discover that it is a sin punishable by the maximum penalty to apply law and order to the left. Better to just let them occupy and riot and vandalize, I suppose.
Liberalism is fascist intolerance when “liberalism” has been hijacked by secular humanist progressive liberalism. Liberals are simply pathologically intolerant people across the board as expressed in pretty much any way you can measure it.
I come at last to sexual assaults. They’ve either absolutely skyrocketed in Obama’s military and in liberalism’s universities or Obama has – incredibly cynically – manufactured a political crisis to demagogue. Let’s just assume the data we have is correct and Obama ISN’T an incredibly evil man and go with it. Sexual assaults have skyrocketed on his watch during his administration.
Secular humanists have no answer for why this would be. After all, they’ve been talking about it and requiring more enforcement – including universities which clearly aren’t able to deal with the crisis – and punishing it more than ever. So why is it growing out of control on a liberal president’s watch?
The answer is easy. On my Judeo-Christian view, rape is wrong, wrong, WRONG. Because contrary to secular humanism, we’re NOT just DNA-plus-environment-plus nothing meat puppets; we are human beings created by God in His image. And to sexually assault another human being is to ignore, degrade and pervert the image of God in another soul.
On a secular humanist, not so much.
Oh, your liberal feminist asserts it’s wrong. But when you stop and consider the tenets of Darwinian evolution, on what grounds do they assert such a thing?
Evolutionists have long talked about rape in terms of advancing evolution. We’re equipped for fleeing, fighting and fornicating, we’re told. There’s such a thing as a “rape gene,” we’re told. And since Darwinism is all about “survival of the fittest,” and since the fittest survive precisely by passing on their DNA, well, rape is merely one of many possible pathways for an organism to strive to be the fittest in Darwinan terms. And of course the animal world abounds with examples in which humans would call it “rape” but animals would call it “reproducing.”
Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around? Because as evolutionists explain:
“rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”
Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.” Now go ye and do likewise. Unless something inside of you screams “NO! I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”
Rape isn’t wrong because secular humanists say it is. That’s not a good enough reason. Certainly not for the increasing numbers of humans committing sexual assaults it isn’t, anyway.
Why is rape wrong? Frankly, in our new system of “morality,” rape is wrong because Obama says it is wrong. That’s certainly the “logic” Obama used to first say that homosexual marriage was wrong when it was politically convenient to do so and that it somehow became right when it was politically convenient for him to say it was right. I mean, literally, gay marriage was wrong until Obama said it was right. And now it’s right. But anyone who thinks that this is the way morality works is quite literally morally insane.
And so we have insane sexual assault statistics to go with it.
If secular humanist liberalism is in any way, shape or form true, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE TOLERANT. In fact, we ought to be as vicious, as ruthless, as determined to win in our struggle for ideology – which of course is merely the result of how our brains happened to be randomly wired versus having any “truth” to them if secular humanism is true – as is necessary to prevail.
If secular humanist liberalism is true, then the struggle for “ideas” today is no different between rival packs of baboons fighting over the same turf.
And the reason the beast is coming is because God foreknew 2,000 years ago and beyond that in the last days, the most vicious pack of baboons (the secular humanist liberals) would prevail in a world in which rational argument and debate had been expunged by “liberalism.”