Modernity, a World of Confusion:Causes

By Jack Stanfield

Have you ever wondered why society is getting cruder and ruder, with stress, depression and mental illness rising and little joy felt? Why children behave badly and schools are failing? Why trust has vanished with your identity? And why sex is oozing out of every aspect of the culture? We live in a skeptical age with the country splintering into special interest groups claiming to be victims and requiring special treatment, and a Congress thats deadlocked in partisan bickering. There is anger and tension and really intolerable things being tolerated, placing women and children in danger.
If you have such questions, this is your book, an inquiry into the spirit of the age. Examined are root causes for the darkened culture, immoral behavior, and rejection of traditions. The age glorifies science and technical progress, and yet is unhappy and sickly. Individualism surmounts community concerns creating narcissistic people tending toward nihilism, where the self is the center of the universe. The postmodern culture throws away things, relationships, and lives, like it disposes of outdated items. Logic is replaced with how I feel, and reliance on personal experience for making decisions. Relativism is accepted in ethics and for determining truth, so that it is my truth and your truth, and objectivity and common sense are lost. Science is erecting the abstract man, who, in the process, has lost heart and a sense of reality, living in a delusional world. The result is a profusion of confusion.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Jan 21, 2008
• ISBN: 9781465321831

Jack Stanfield

The author is a retired software engineering manager who lives in Colorado with his wife of 54 years. He has three children and four grandchildren. He enjoys reading on a wide range of subjects and observing the changing culture. These interests inspired his two previous books on the cause and effects of modernity on today’s society. He has also written books on poetry, history, and the Constitution; the latter two were based on questions raised by his wife, without whose inspiration they would not have been written.

Book preview

Modernity, A World of

Confusion: Causes

JACK STANFIELD

Copyright © 2008 by Jack Stanfield.

All right reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except in case of review, without

prior written permission of the author.

Cover Art: Eye of God, Helix Nebula, NGC 7293, composite photo taken by

NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and the Kitt Peak National Observatory in Arizona.

From NASA‘s Website as an Astronomy Picture of the Day in May 2003.

This book was printed in the United States of America.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[e-mail]

41302

Contents

DEDICATION

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1

Postmodernism: Bad Philosophy, Bad Society

CHAPTER 2

Culture at War with Itself

CHAPTER 3

Despairing of Alienation

CHAPTER 4

Creating a World of Confusion

CHAPTER 5

A Loss of Meaning

CHAPTER 6

Deconstruction: A Destroyer of Meaning

CHAPTER 7

Morality or Plurality Confusion

CHAPTER 8

Characteristically Human

CHAPTER 9

We’re a Community

CHAPTER 10

Changing Political Philosophy

APPENDIX A

Virtues

APPENDIX B

Ten Commandments

APPENDIX C

Seven Deadly Sins

ENDNOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DEDICATION

As the song says: it’s the same old story, a fight for love and glory. Boy meets girl and falls in love. Boy marries girl in god’s sight; they raise a family. A life full of good times and bad times, joys and sorrows, school events, vacations and reunions, new life and death; the circle of friends, the circle of love, the circle of life. One that encompasses, church, family, friends, work, and country, all contributing to life’s richness. This book is dedicated to all who faithfully participate and persevere in the eternal rendering of god’s providential plan for each of us: married or single, rich or poor, sick or well.

PREFACE

There is a world of confusion in the postmodern West. In the culture’s emphasis on materialism, secularism, specialized science, radical individualism, relativism, and a philosophy of alienation, a society is being forged that throws away logic, relationships, traditions, values, children, things of all kinds, and humanity itself. Its emphasis on hedonism has debased the moral values that sustained the West and is now bordering on nihilism, where tolerance of everything is the only virtue and vice of all kinds is embraced. As a result, a corrupting society that builds men of weak character has replaced the elevating society that once built men of strong and resourceful character, whose traditional beliefs established loving and lasting relationships.

Secular-progressives have turned the culture upside down in the last forty years; so much so that there’s a full-blown cultural war raging for the hearts and minds of people of all ages. The debate has become vitriolic, with character assassination a standard tactic. One side believes in God and an afterlife and the other doesn’t. Choosing sides in this war is the most important choice you’ll ever make, for it colors your view of life: your decisions, attitudes, behavior, and your ultimate destination.

Each side has beliefs that are incompatible with the other. The chosen belief system establishes the premise on which one logically deduces what’s true for him. The Christian sees God as the author of creation. Because God is all good, His creation is good and man (made in His image and likeness) inheres a special dignity. With God, there’s someone outside of man that gives authority and sets standards that guide actions. In this view, all authority and knowledge come from God, not from man in his isolation. The atheist rejects the concept of a creator and accepts only nature’s laws, believing man is autonomous, a law unto himself. Man is the source of all rights, being an independent sovereign. But in this view, nature is also indifferent, pitiless, and cruel, bringing about life by chance (an act of passion) only to destroy it. Man is alone and forced to fend for himself. Where the Christian sees God in action, the atheist sees only material processes. The agnostic is unsure and vacillates, hedging his bet. From these strikingly different premises, the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death flow.

Secular-progressives consider man an end unto himself and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history. This position is the end of a long line of rationalism that started in the Age of Enlightenment. From this outlook, atheism seeks the emancipation of man through economic and social liberation. Consequently, many progressives are enamored with socialism, which they think forces equality. Yet, at the same time, they believe that to achieve liberation man must gain maximum freedom of choice, which is a position that is the antithesis of socialism. But logical reasoning isn’t one of the strong suits of a culture that basis decisions on feelings and desires.

Atheism holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hope in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better life on earth. The term better, as applied here, reflects the atheist’s view of the good, which is quite different from the Christian view. To the modern atheist, the definition of good is money, worldly pleasures, and freedom to do whatever one wants to do.

As a result, there is growing tension and conflict between the atheistic and the religious views that can’t be resolved by logical arguments. Because the starting premises are so different, both sides have trouble communicating, especially when one side questions the very existence of meaning, truth and physical reality, preferring to talk in new-speak. The fundamental premises of both sides are taken on faith, since they can’t be arrived at in any other way. Thus coexistence of positions isn’t possible in the long term. Jesus understood that peace wasn’t possible in a culture with a divided heart, and He gave the apostles the commission to convert the whole world. So one or the other side’s worldview must win out, and therefore, there are warring factions, as seen in the ongoing cultural warfare. Since coexistence isn’t possible, each side tries to convert the other or, failing that, to force their views on the other. Atheists believe in a concept of tolerance that’s intolerant of anyone that would disagree with their position.

Thus good will and accommodation of the other’s position isn’t possible, and turmoil can be expected to increase. Because many people in America still hold strong religious beliefs and won’t convert, secular persecution of the religious communities also can be expected to increase, especially since the Supreme Court fails to uphold religious freedom in all of its forms. This failure by the highest Court to enforce the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom has encouraged ever more litigation and restrictive measures to be enacted by the secular community. Canada is a good example. Here, a predominantly secular majority is placing more and more restrictions on religious beliefs and practices. While almost everything else is tolerated in Canada and America, public Christianity isn’t, and one is chastised for spreading the Gospel in public places. But under freedom of speech, all ideas should be freely exchanged in the public arena, even religious ideas. The highest court has failed to uphold this principle.

The United States is deeply divided over the issues of values, as seen in recent election results and the ongoing fight over abortion. States are now classified as red and blue to reflect traditional values versus a libertine worldview, as manifested in states with large urbane centers, such as found in New York and California. Many citizens are now rejecting the core values that united America in the past, as multiculturalism, the liberal media, commercialism, and globalization fracture the foundation of these values through misrepresentation or lack of exposure. The hatred of the party in power and its leaders by those that hold different views has become more palpable in the last decade. As Abraham Lincoln expressed during the Civil War, a divided nation could not long endure. Instead of looking for common ground, the sides are sharpening their differences at every opportunity. There appears no obvious way of uniting the country any time soon, and the Union must start to fracture, which is an increasing possibility.

In this book, i explore the causes of the various positions held by the popular culture. I examine the consequences of accepting one premise over the other for discerning the truths required to live one’s life. I examine some of the root causes that led to a culture that disparages traditional institutions and values. I muse about philosophy, science, man’s place in nature, religion, and the present cultural conflicts and possible future implications to society if modernism, in the name of progress, actually creates a brave new world based purely on secularism and materialism, where religion is marginalized to the point it loses its influence.

INTRODUCTION

I’m not a professional philosopher, scientist, or theologian. So I can freely express myself (including my belief in the Christian God) without fear of peer pressure or concern for political correctness. I don’t have to tolerate what’s intolerable. Too many people let scientists, philosophers, college professors, so-called experts, progressives, and the media think for them. And in many cases, these same people have abused their trust. It is up to each of us to stay informed and make up our own mind as events unfold. We can’t rely on mere opinions, feelings, and desires to guide our lives, and we shouldn’t let the use of ridicule, threats, name calling, or the bullying tactics that are used by the far left keep us from doing what’s right, even if it offends other people or limits their choices. It is acceptable to be intolerant of the many things that are wrong in society, and we can feel and display righteous anger. We can be judgmental of evil in all of its forms, while, at the same time, not judging the state of another person’s soul.

Our religious forefathers fought the Civil War to do what was morally right. In so doing, they spoke out against evil. They limited the choices of those that would use other humans as slaves. It was the religious communities that rose up for what was right that gave the black minority its freedom. But in today’s world of relativistic morality where everything is tolerated, the radical modernists might not have condemned slavery, as it was part of the southern culture. Their position might have been: It was right for them, so who are we to say it was wrong. How can we be so judgmental? One can’t tolerate everything and, at the same time, take a stand against anything, for that would imply there are universal standards that stand above men. Yet, while decrying Christians as judgmental, a surprising number of secular-progressives judge others as bigots and worse.

Religious people led the fight against the great evil of slavery. It will take the same dedication to bring back Judeo-Christian morality and to emphasize the education of the young in the virtues that are fundamental to society’s long-term happiness. (I discuss virtue in appendix A.) If Christianity dies, the West, as we know it, dies with it. A new dark age will arise based solely on manmade standards that ultimately must fracture society and lead to chaos and totalitarianism, where the State holds and distributes all of the rights and resources, for there would be no universal standards to appeal to above the State. Because of man’s nature, barbarism is lurking just beneath the surface, and the best way to restrain it is through inner constraints of right and wrong, as determined by a properly formed conscience.

The envisioned new world of materialism, secularism, radical individualism, nihilism, and man’s belief that he can be a god started in the sixteenth century, flowered in the Enlightenment Age of rationalism in the eighteen century, and continues unabated into the twenty-first century. The goal of this materialistic view is a secular utopia, where everyone can do his own thing and the concepts of sin and God are expunged from the public arena. In this new world, the individual and legislative (positive) laws determine public and private morals—if it’s legal it’s moral. Yet those that profess and push these views don’t spell out how this is possible, especially when history has shown the sheer folly of such attempts, Communist Russia being a current example. The progressive’s solution seems to be to simply reject history, live for today, and hope society will just naturally evolve to this utopian state.

Yet there are conflicts arising even now between the various proponents of this brave new secular world. The rationalism of the Enlightenment Age is itself under attack by postmodernism’s emphases on subjective reality, how one feels, and personal beliefs and attitudes (relativism) that attack the very concept of objectivity, which is the bedrock of rationalism and science. These conditions are the result of the two streams of thought (objective and subjective) that were loosed in the enlightenment. The conflict continues between these different understandings of the world, as well as between the logical and the emotional.

Rationalism is based on the belief in logical thinking, objective reality, and the existence of intelligibility in nature’s behavior. Yet a great many modernists ignore these ideas as irrelevant or an illusion, disputing what we can know and how we can know it, believing, instead, in a subjectively created world. They are idealists who are locked in their own mind. Skepticism is in the air everywhere. There are many professors that are absolutely sure that they are sure of nothing. The modern world has lost its mind as well as its soul, as G.K. Chesterton so aptly observed.

This book reflects the philosophical musing of an old man who has witnessed momentous changes in the past 71 years. I started preparing my thoughts by forming a working definition of philosophy. G. K. Chesterton once defined philosophy as merely thought that has been thought out, going on to say: Man has no alternative, except being influenced by thought that has been thought out and thought that has not been thought out. The latter condition infects all of us to some extent. It seems to me that modern philosophers spread mere opinions (those that haven’t been shown to be generally applicable to all men) that have poisoned society. As I discuss later, much of what passes as philosophy in the modern era is mere opinion, not proper knowledge that can be trusted.

Another definition of philosophy is the search for practical wisdom that is generally applicable; that is, examining the maximum number of cases before drawing general conclusions about ultimate questions. And the Bible says wisdom starts with the fear of God; a truth that modern man has ignored. In my view, philosophy is needed to live life better by knowing and practicing truth and not to live a more comfortable and libertine life that seeks only self-gratification or self-affirmation. The former is a religious view (man is capable of improving based on external standards and truths revealed by God), and the latter is a materialistic-hedonistic view that has become the norm for many people. I have come to judge that pleasures and the material things of this world by themselves are immaterial to my ultimate goal, which is eternal life. Thus I seek to base actions on achieving this destination by struggling daily to follow the path mapped by Jesus, who has preceded us into Heaven.

I write from a personal perspective, ignoring concerns about peer approval or political correctness, whose intent, I perceive, is to stifle contrary opinions and silence those that differ from the secular-progressive position. I have also rejected the adulterating of time-honored texts by using inclusive language that distorts the original meaning of the author, simply to accommodate someone’s feelings or to change one’s perception of reality. I also reject the adulterating of history (sometimes called revisionist history) that pushes a political agenda or aberrant theories used to destroy traditions and values. This whole movement is of one piece, with one goal: to spread doubt that undermines tradition.

These approaches also use the strategy of new-speak, which changes the meaning of symbols and concepts in order to change the perception of reality. By changing the meaning of good and bad, people’s attitudes and behavior are changed. Instead of Merry Christmas it becomes Happy Holidays and Christ is shuttled to the background. The message of peace and goodwill toward men gets lost in commercial hype and the secular celebrations that are now pushed as politically correct. Even justice has gotten redefined as rehabilitating the perpetrator instead of providing restitution for those that are harmed, and criminals do no, or minimal prison time. As a result, the lives of innocent people are put at risk and justice is not served.

A war of ideas is being fought, with the souls of a great many at risk. The secular-progressives are waging war against traditional Western values by sowing doubt that enslaves, rather than truth that sets people free. That is to say, seeing things as they really are and not someone’s opinion of how they should be. Like Pilate, these modern skeptics ask, What is truth? To the radical modernist, the answer is: it doesn’t exist, or it exists only in one’s own beliefs and attitudes—relativism and radical individualism reigns.

I haven’t done original research in constructing this book, only secondary sources were used as listed. My sources included newspapers and magazine articles, scientific and philosophical books written for the general public, and the Internet. From these sources, I garnered general knowledge about a broad range of subjects. I cautiously accepted the information presented, always remaining wary, however, of the hidden agendas prevalent in these sources. I interpreted the source material in light of my own life experiences, faith, and my personal worldview, selectively choosing the material to make a point.

A major cause of the decline in the West is the ideas expressed in postmodern philosophy. When looking for causes of the moral decline so manifested in Western culture today, one must look at the ideas that emanated from this source. A philosophy that attacks traditions and religion as stifling progress; that stresses radical individualism to the point that everyone decides for himself what’s right and wrong; a philosophy that alienates man from himself and his fellowman in a frontal assault on Jesus’ message of love and solidarity of mankind; and one that wants to place no restraints on man’s behavior. These beliefs and attitudes seem to reflect the modern philosopher’s own dark personality and not general truths about man. Postmodern philosophy poisons and tears down without a corresponding coherent program for building up and, for the most part, doesn’t reflect the general case that describes man’s essence, as both flesh and spirit.

Postmodern philosophers rejected religion as being nothing more than a myth that restrains human desires and reason. In rejecting religion, these philosophers rejected the Ten Commandments without suggesting how to restrain man’s barbaric nature. A nature that once motivated the barbarian tribes to invade and destroy Rome, a world superpower of its day. With religion rejected, the modern philosophers claim there can be no sins, and positive laws become the basis for behavioral restraints. But without the feeling of remorse and shame that arises naturally when one sins to curb the natural appetites, only man’s instincts are left, deemed valid, and anything is now tolerated. Thus the admonition against the seven deadly sins is also ignored in a quest for finding and fully affirming one’s self. The modern approach to understanding reality leads logically to a denial of all restraints and, in the process, has turned Western traditions upside down.

The philosophical foundation underlying modernity is creating an ever darkening and ugly world. In becoming the norm, the ideas emanating from postmodernism pose dire consequences for the West, if left unchecked. In my review of postmodernism, I interpret the philosophical positions in the light of the God fearing and traditional America in which I grew up. I present my understanding of what the authors were trying to convey. And in this sense, I might be declared guilty of deconstruction tactics, since I am expressing my opinion of the author’s thoughts in my paraphrasing of their positions. For this I beg your indulgence.

Postmodern liberation philosophy now infects the thinking of many of the leaders that are in a position of trust and influence. These basically nihilistic and alienation worldviews propose that all traditions be cast aside and society made over in the image projected on the world by the mind of the secular-progressive elite. But I must confess, I don’t understand how a rational person could believe the underlying premises of postmodern philosophy, except to say that human nature is weak and seeks a justification for its selfish desires. Desires have overcome the rational element of the soul in far too many people, especially in those who no longer fear God, and who would relegate self-mastery and virtuous living to the trash heap of history as outmoded ideas.

Postmodern philosophy pushes relativistic and utilitarian moral positions of which I have nothing good to say. To the contrary, I believe there are universal moral imperatives that don’t change with space or time; they’re as invariant as any scientific constant. We carry these moral precepts in our heart and in a properly formed conscience. We sense their truth when we fail to do what we ought—like standing up for someone that’s being unfairly treated—and these ideas nag at us. This nagging of the conscience is what is most likely to restrain anti-social behavior, not more nanny laws. Laws don’t retrain those without a conscience, and as a result, horrific crimes are committed every day. More and more, it is the children (our most precious treasure) that are the victims. Since children are routinely thrown away (by abortion, abandonment, and abuse), the emphasis has shifted from obtaining justice for the victims to rehabilitating the perpetrators, denying, altogether, the idea of justice, a very dangerous precedent.

Like the pain that provides a warning that saves your life, shame sends a warning to save your soul. But shame is being systematically eliminated leaving many defenseless, not realizing their danger. They fail to understand that God gave us moral principles and constraints to make life more livable here and to aid us in our journey home. The radical modernist doesn’t believe in God, or heaven, or hell, and rejects moral constraints altogether—they just get in his way—so shame must go! Those that have shed the restriction of shame have done, and do awful things.

Our ancestors acquired a great deal of insight into human behavior and the affects of sin on the individual and the community. These insights created the traditions and taboos that, for the most part, permitted society to coexist in a sense of harmony and civility. These traditions are like the DNA of civilization. By manipulating them, you might produce something that‘s dangerous or sick. We see the Ten Commandments under attack, considered irrelevant, and by contrast, the seven deadly sins (which our ancestors properly recognized as having serious adverse impacts on society) are being promoted.

I have included these forgotten commandments and admonitions in appendices B and C, respectively. They should be referred to first, as a way of setting the stage for what follows. These appendices can be skipped if you are familiar with the material but, unfortunately, many aren‘t. I touch on morality throughout the book, because it‘s the underpinning of a civilized community that is both just and long lasting. The ignoring of the boundaries set by the Ten Commandments and the flaunting of grievous sins are fundamental causes for the deteriorating culture that we‘re experiencing. The attitude of „I set my own rules" is in direct conflict with Western tradition. This rebellious attitude is a result, I believe, of postmodern philosophy that so enamors the intelligentsia. But this fantasy view of the world will ultimately result in chaos. If the nation is to stay united and live harmoniously, it needs enduring standards that exist outside of man by which actions can be measured and given praise or punishment.

C.S. Lewis used the term „Tao" as a universal title for the traditional values and morality held by humanity from time immemorial. I also employ this more general term. Also, for simplicity, I have used the masculine gender throughout, which should be understood as a global he and she. I also use mankind and man in the universal sense. Applying these terms, as they‘ve been traditionally used, doesn‘t threaten the innate dignity and equality that women and men hold as God given. My source of insight on philosophers and philosophical positions is primarily taken from Modern Philosophy. Since I survey only some of the insights presented in this enlightening book, I recommend that you read it. The renderings and conclusions drawn from this book and the other books referenced represent my opinions and positions. You should read the source material and make up your own mind.

Modern philosophy started in the Enlightenment Age, where naturalists and philosophers were trying to construct a world without God (secularism) based upon a materialistic viewpoint. (The Enlightenment Age was a philosophical movement of the eighteenth century concerned with the critical examination of previously accepted doctrine and institutions from the point of view of rationalism.) These modern philosophies emphasized individualism, the laws of nature, positive law, relativism, and subjectivism, as postmodern philosophers rejected natural law and revelation as the source of human nature.

For instance, in trying to find the basis of knowledge, Rene Descartes deduced that the self was the only possible source that could be trusted and subjectivism was born. In this view, man created ideas about objects in the world in his mind (beings of reason) instead of knowing the object from his senses and his intellect from which judgments could be made about what was real. He improperly concluded, I think therefore ‘I am.’ By so doing, he made man a god, who looked only to himself for truth. It would have been more proper for him to have said, I am therefore I think. This view postulates a Creator from which everything is. For there’s nothing without being, that is, the existence of a creature in which thoughts could arise.

Descartes’ deduction has lead others to