Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

In Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Michael Behe takes the theory of evolution to a molecular level, setting out to establish whether or not the origin of certain complex biochemical systems can be explained in terms of Darwinian evolution, natural selection, random variation, and gradualism. His findings are remarkable. Starting out with detailed examination of the functions of several different all-important biochemical systems, (including cilium, antibodies, the immune system, protein transport systems, and blood-clotting), Behe explains how every cellular process is initiated and controlled by highly sophisticated, finely calibrated molecular machines. He then goes on to demonstrate why the inherent complexity of many of these systems is indeed irreducible. Illustrated with brilliant analogies, his expositions are not only meticulously accurate, but also entertaining and readable.

An irreducibly complex system is one with no functional physical precursors. Irreducible complexity on a macroscopic scale has featured in many scientific discussions and many people are familiar with Darwin’s classic explanations of how complex structures such as the eye might have gradually evolved. But Darwin’s explanations are only addressed to a macro-level of anatomical steps and structures that Darwin believed were simple, but which we now know are not, thanks to improved technology. Our knowledge of the workings of microscopic biochemical systems is greatly increased, but the theory no longer matches the data, and no new explanations reconciling gradualism with molecular complexity are forthcoming. Instead, questions about molecular evolution are faced with a complete lack of relevant scientific literature on the topic and condescending silence on the part of the scientific community.

Maintaining scrupulous objectivity, Behe goes on to discuss the theory of intelligent design, which is based on the assumption that if a biological system was not produced gradually, it must have arisen as an integrated unit - it must have been designed. Analyzing the scientific community’s overwhelmingly negative reaction to a discovery that is as groundbreaking as the quantum revolution, it cannot be denied that the tension surrounding the theory of intelligent design has its roots in the supernatural ramifications of the theory. However, while historical antagonism between science and religion are regrettable, it must not be allowed to color our thinking and influence our willingness to follow the observational data wherever it leads. Science is a vigorous attempt to make true statements about the physical world, and a priori philosophical commitment puts artificial restrictions on legitimate scientific inquiry. Insisting that the behavior of the universe can be explained through purely material causes is scientific chauvinism. As Behe aptly states:

‘The philosophical commitment of some people to the principle that nothing beyond nature exists should not be allowed to interfere with a theory that flows naturally from observable scientific data. The rights of those people to avoid a supernatural conclusion should be scrupulously respected, but their aversion should not be determinative.’

Ultimately, no scientific theory can compel belief in a specific worldview, whether it is atheism, Christianity, or Buddhism, and there is no reason to be afraid that it will. We must give everyone broad latitude for their beliefs. People must be free to choose their own defining philosophical principles. But when Richard Dawkins insists that anyone who denies evolution is ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked, when John Maddox predicts that religion will soon have to be regarded as anti-science, when Daniel Dennett compares religious people to wild animals who may have to be caged, then we have reason to fear that aggressive intolerance will lead to coercion as people try to force their convictions on other people in the name of science.

When it comes to intelligent design, it is worth pointing out that the scientific community faced a very similar situation not too long ago. Until about eighty years ago, scientists believed in a stationary universe that was eternal and infinite. The idea of a finite universe that expands and had a beginning was extremely repulsive to many people, partly because it appeared to be friendly towards the Judeo-Christian creation account. Einstein hated the idea so much that he manipulated his equations in order to make them predict a stable universe. In the end, the observational data won out, and the Big Bang model succeeded. Today, intelligent design is in the same predicament. But as the weight of the scientific evidence shifts dramatically, we would do well to keep up with it. According to Behe:

‘A rigorous theory of intelligent design will be a useful tool for the advancement of science in an area that has been moribund for decades.’

Cross-posted at The High Tide Journal

The Everlasting Man: A Spiritual History of Mankind

‘There are two ways of getting home,’ Chesterton writes, ‘and one of them is to stay there. The other is to walk round the whole world till we come back to the same place.’ The Everlasting Man is for those of us who are having a hard time getting home by the first way. This refreshing and intensely unique work of Christian apologetics invites us to step back and make an imaginative effort to see the whole idea of Christianity from the outside.

The Everlasting Man is a brilliant annihilation of the clichéd assertion that Christ and his religion stand side by side with similar myths and religions, which Chesterton denounces as 'a very stale formula contradicted by a very striking fact.' It is the story of the spiritual journey of collective humanity.

In true Chestertonian style, there are sections that tend to be a little repetitive and wordy, but they are all so incredibly witty and entertaining that we forget to be exasperated. The author makes generalizations in order to emphasize his point, and probably oversimplifies some things, but his insight is remarkable. His reverent sincerity is not in the least compromised by his devastating sense of humor, and his knack for turning secular dogmas inside out and transforming them into solid arguments for the legitimacy of Christianity is astounding. By putting the Christian story into context, he endeavors to demonstrate that Christianity is a sensible, enlightened conclusion that has yet to be successfully contradicted.

The first chapter, which is really an attack on H.G. Wells’ Outline of History and focuses primarily on how man is fundamentally different from animals, is admittedly a little dated, and Chesterton’s speculations concerning prehistoric man show the influence of early 20^th century Darwinian thought. In the face of the intimidating ‘new science’ and the tremendous implications thereof, Chesterton felt the need to demonstrate that Evolution and Christianity were by no means mutually exclusive, and show how the secular Evolutionist's sociological explanations of man's religious development have no basis in fact.

Moving on, Chesterton provides an in-depth analysis of paganism, which is inestimably beneficial for anyone who is hopelessly confused as to why there are so many religions, and how to make any sense of the confused and chaotic history of mankind. He distinguishes the several universal elements of human religion, and explains the historical, mythological, and philosophical roots of Christianity and religion in general, highlighting the legitimate role of each and contrasting the Western and Eastern mindsets. He calls to our attention a certain awareness of God which manifested itself from the beginning of civilization in every mythology, in every culture.

Getting deeper into the ancient tangled tree of mythology, the book makes a crucial distinction between mythology and the two darker branches - demonism and eroticism - that grew up alongside it, complicating the scene. Eventually, the development of demonism led to a major conflict that culminated in the epic power struggle between Rome, which represented the best of paganism – honor, virtue, justice, structure, and an ethical concept of man and society – and Carthage, which represented the very worst – a demon-infested, devil-worshipping inhumanity. (I guarantee you will never look at the Punic wars the same way!) In the end, a Roman victory was what preserved a state of civilization capable of receiving the ultimate divine revelation – the Messiah incarnated.

The second half of the book is about the coming of Christ Himself, the escape from Paganism, and the growth and role of the Church. It explains Christianity’s relation to comparative religion, contrasting it with Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism and Hinduism, showing how all other belief systems overlap, and how Christianity is fundamentally different from every other creed and is the ultimate consummation of all genuine religion, transcending all others.

Chesterton also talks about the ‘melting pot’ movement that came to ascendance during the decline of Rome, blurring the lines of cultures and religions, and wantonly mixing gods and traditions from every corner of the globe. For awhile it threatened the newborn Church with extinction, not by extermination but by absorption and compromise, seeking to undermine the concept of a single almighty Deity, a concept that had been rigorously preserved for thousands of years through Judaism, which was the only creed with a god who was ‘narrow enough to be universal.’

In the end, the Christian story was what fulfilled all the mythologies. The Christian story was what broke the philosophers’ static and circular infinity and produced a philosophy that could move forward. The Christian story is the greatest story because it is true. The real purpose of The Everlasting Man is to retell that story in a new and revelatory way by putting it into context.

[Cross-posted at The High Tide Journal.]

The Christmas Revolution

In this short excerpt from 'The Everlasting Man', G.K. Chesterton reminds us of what Christmas really was - and is.

'Christmas for us in Christendom has become one thing, and in one sense even a simple thing. But like all the truths of that tradition, it is in another sense a very complex thing. Its unique not is the simultaneous striking of many notes; of humility, or gaiety, of gratitude, of mystical fear, but also of vigilance and drama. There is something defiant in it also; something that makes the abrupt bells at midnight sound like the great guns of a battle that has just been won. All this indescribable thing that we call the Christmas atmosphere only hangs in the air as something like a lingering fragrance or fading vapour from the exultant explosion of that one hour in the Judean hills nearly two thousand years ago. But the savour is still unmistakable, and it is something too subtle or too solitary to be covered by our use of the word peace. By the very nature of the story the rejoicings in the cavern were rejoicings in a fortress or an outlaw’s den; properly understood it is not unduly flippant to say they were rejoicings in a dug-out. It is not only true that such a subterranean chamber was a hiding-place from enemies; and that the enemies were already scouring the stony plain that lay above it like a sky.

There is in this buried divinity an idea of undermining the world; of shaking the towers and palaces from below; even as Herod the great king felt that earthquake under him and swayed with his swaying palace. This is perhaps the mightiest of the mysteries of the cave. Indeed the Church from its beginnings, and perhaps especially in its beginnings, was not so much a principality as a revolution against the prince of the world. It was in truth against a huge unconscious usurpation that it raised a revolt. Olympus still occupied the sky like a motionless cloud moulded into many mighty forms; philosophy still sat in the high places and even on the thrones of the kings, when Christ was born in the cave and Christianity in the catacombs.'

On Solitude - The Necessity of an Honest Assessment of Individual Self-Sufficiency

The nature of solitude, as well as the consequences, benefits and dangers thereof, is a question of substantial philosophical significance that has constantly confronted humanity. Francis Bacon, Michel de Montaigne, Alexander Pope, Henry Thoreau - these are a few universally recognized names that comprise the historical group of eminent scholars who have written extensively on this admittedly broad subject. Their reflections are many and varied and have provided us with valuable insights, but, while the essayists excel at isolating and discussing specific aspects of solitude, it seems like they have largely failed to address what I believe is the crucial issue at hand- the necessity of an honest assessment of individual self-sufficiency, which is the premise that any relatively comprehensive consideration of the concept should eventually come down to. When solitude is defined as the absence of external stimulation (intellectual, sensual and emotional), as manifested in an objective environment, then, and only then, do we begin to see what it really means. The question confronts us - what happens when we are deracinated from our present support system, when we are deprived of what we consider to be (and as such, take for granted) certain basic, essential elements of our lives? Things that, whether we realize and admit it or not, make up an alarming percentage of the person that we equate ourselves with, and have a considerable influence on our self-image? When we lose the parts of our lives that are not really ‘us,’ what is left? What is our intrinsic value? Who are we when we are truly alone? The potential answers to these questions border on frightening. There are three major factors involved that must be considered in this discussion - the definition of self-sufficiency, the nature of our transient environment, and the result of mental speculation on a theoretical illustration of solitude.

I do not in any way employ the term ‘self-sufficiency’ in a strictly literal sense, because in the real human world it is an entirely impossible state of existence, and the word’s implicit self-contradiction very nearly categorizes it as an oxymoron. As the sole consummation and fulfillment of the soul, God, the Supreme Good, the utter actuality which has no opposite, is the only self-existent, self-sufficient reality, and all other autonomy is relative to this ultimate, because the will of the created is only independent in proportion as it is within the will of the Creator. (My intention here is not to defend this basic assumption, but to work from it.) Therefore, our definition of self-sufficiency is not to be interpreted as independence of God, but rather, independence of all else. It is impossible to be independent of an omnipresent God, and thus, it is likewise impossible to be absolutely alone. With this in mind, we redefine our concept of solitude. We are no longer asking, ‘who are we when we are alone?’ Now the question is, ‘who are we when we are alone with God?’ More often than not, our current environment effectively conceals the implications of this question. It acts like an anesthetic, desensitizing our already callous consciousness of the actual state of our relationship with the Ultimate, diverting us from ourselves, creating a complicated clockwork exterior that we identify as ‘our life’ without ever asking how much of it is actually ours.

Our current environment is a dichotomy, separated into the social and natural, both of which heavily influence who we are. Our social, or human environment, (generally considered the more apparently essential of the two,) is a result of our inherent need for human society and is comprised of an intricate, layered network of individual and group relationships, which gives us a sense of community and security. Family, friends, partners, relatives, co-workers, acquaintances and even strangers - individual and en masse - all affect our lives in distinctive ways that are different for each of us. We are not talking about the abstract concept of ‘social environment’, but about my specific social environment, what it means to me, how it influences who I am and who I think I am, how much my worldview depends on it, and what I would be without it. Our natural, or physical environment, also affects us. Our immediate daily surroundings, the place where we live, the comforts and conveniences we are accustomed to - these are the things that constitute our unique world. Direct contact with Nature itself is usually an important part of that world, connection with natural beauty, with forests and oceans and mountains, with an affirmative external reality. Most of us have probably experienced the temporary depression that comes from a prolonged absence from the ‘great outdoors’, so to speak. These things generally constitute a stabilizing atmosphere that confirms and reinforces what we claim to believe about the world. We need them - they are part of our support system. They stimulate us, mentally, emotionally, sensually, intellectually, and spiritually. What we must realize is that they are temporary, and that they are emphatically not part of who we are. We can lay no claim to either Nature and the constantly renewed inspiration it affords us, or to the people around us, and the support they provide, as some meritorious element of our own character. It does not require much creativity to imagine the radical alteration our lives would undergo in the absence of our current environment, social or natural.

This idea of solitude is largely an exercise of the imagination. Most of us are never really alone, at least, not to any significant degree, or for any significant stretch of time, so it can be difficult to grasp the essence of an idea that must, in all probability, remain abstract. But sometimes, an arbitrary ‘random’ experience unconsciously constructed of certain settings and sensations coming together, almost accidentally, at just the right time, in just the right way, will seep through the dense, complex stratum of the finite reality that shields us from our own inadequacy, and shock us with a fleeting glimpse of what solitude must be. A long walk on a deserted road in the middle of a rainy night. A crawling afternoon spent alone upstairs in an empty office, staring at an LCD screen. A sultry evening spent hurrying through the crowded streets of a giant city of 8.8 million nameless strangers. A visit to the ruins of an ancient Greek temple on a tiny isolated island in the middle of the Mediterranean, enclosed by an infinity of sky and sea. What if these relatively average, albeit potentially thought-provoking, experiences were magnified to the limit of the endurable? Several easily recognized historical and literary examples, stereotyped, but nonetheless valid, leap to mind. What if you were condemned to life-imprisonment in a North Korean death camp? Marooned indefinitely on Isla Alejhandro Selkirk? Drafted into the Red Army? Incarcerated in solitary confinement in the Château d'If for fourteen years? Forced to pass the rest of your life in hiding alone in the backwoods of Missouri, or the wilderness of 15^th century Northern Scotland? What if something like that happened to us? These examples are imperfect illustrations of the absolute solitude that will eventually overtake every individual soul - we must realize this is not a question of if but of when - when our life, as we see it, impermanent and therefore undeniably unreliable, falls apart and leaves us alone with the Ultimate.

So the question remains. Are we self-sufficient? The only one who can really answer that question is the individual person asking it of themselves, and the answer will probably be different for everyone, but by the time we are capable of seriously asking it, we should be able to provide a valid answer. We owe it to ourselves to do so. And, if we find that we are largely dependent on other things and other people, on our current external environment, which is temporary at best, then we owe it to ourselves to change that - whatever it takes.

Mission Impossible - The Biblical Concept Of Perfection As An Attainable Goal

A subject of significant controversy in the Christian community, 1 John 3:9-10 deals with a crucial aspect of practical Christianity and is one of the most awkwardly baffling passages in the New Testament.

9. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

10. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious. Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

Backing up to the four verses directly preceding these, (1 John 3:5-8) we see the same concept. ‘And you know that he appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, let no one deceive you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil.’

As it turns out, 1 John is actually full of similar, albeit often less explicit references, contrasting the one who sins with the one who doesn’t, insisting that actions mean everything, that the true Christian cannot sin. It is a difficult concept.

If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him. 2:29

We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him and the evil one does not touch him. 5:18

If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; 4:20

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments and His commandments are not burdensome 5:2-4,

He who has the Son has the life, he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. 5:12,

And now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming. 2:28

In the Bible, repetition very often constitutes significance. This concept is repeated over and over again. It is important.

A straightforward reading of this passage - this whole book, in fact - along with a multitude of similar verses in other parts of the Bible, also suggest the concept that people who sin are not born of God, that God’s children do not sin, that we are called to be sinless.

Romans 8:37 - we are more than conquerors through him who loved us;

Matthew 5:48 - be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect;

Romans 6:2,6,11,14 -

How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin for he who has died is freed from sin;

Even so, consider yourselves to be dead to sin;

for sin shall not be master over you

Hebrews 7:25

Wherefore also He is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through Him.

So is this really what God has asked us to do? Be perfect, without sin? Does it mean what it says? A commonly offered, ‘saving interpretation’ of this idea is that the Greek for ‘practices’ in the key verse, 1 John 3:9, can be interpreted as ‘practicing continuously.’ So that maybe what the verses means is that he who sins continuously is not born of God. But that argument is weak at best, and the reasoning behind it does not hold up very long. What does it mean, to not sin continuously? No one does that. Not even the godless sin all the time. And committing murder just every now and then does not qualify you to be someone born of God. It isn’t about spacing our sins out enough. The problem remains, and we cannot explain these verses away as metaphors.

The obvious meaning that comes from a straight forward reading seems to be the only explanation. To be born of God, one must be without sin. Which brings in the root question - is it humanly possible to be without sin? Has it ever been achieved? Can it be? Has God asked us to do the impossible? Does he want perfection now, in this life? Isn’t that just something promised only after we die?

Going even further back, all the way to 1:6-10, we stumble across another set of verses that provides a much needed balance, and at first appears to present an insurmountable paradox. First the groundwork for the concept of perfection coming up in the next few chapters is laid -

6. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

7. But if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

And then the almost relieving jolt back to reality.

8. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

9. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10. If we say that we have not sinned we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

Of course. We knew that. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. So what is the point about being called to perfection? Is it less of a reality than the latter? Surely not. But then, admitting that we have sinned and striving after holiness as an attainable goal are not exactly opposites.

Perhaps the biggest lie that Satan is using today to suppress the Church and stifle growth is the belief that this is how it has to be, because no one, especially not ‘us’, can ever be free of sin this side of eternity. A sub-conscious acceptance of mediocrity that stifles all our efforts at holiness before they can even take shape. That is why most people never achieve a life of holiness, perfection without sin. And with the concept of the inaccessibility of perfection, another worse idea, with no logical relation to the former, inevitably slides in - that I am never going to be much better than this, so I need to just accept my faults and weaknesses, since it’s who I am. And that is the great stumbling block.

We have been given a practical guide to holiness in the life of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels. People underestimate the importance of living as Jesus lived, and using the life of Jesus as a role model. And coming back to the 1 John 3:9 question - maybe it is not so much a question of whether we are ‘sinning continually’ or not, as a question of where we are going. Are we eliminating sin in your life? Are we becoming sinless - working steadily towards perfection as a practical goal? If perfection weren’t possible, God wouldn’t have called us to it. It is certainly worth thinking about. And even if there is room for debate on the definition of perfection this side of eternity and the degrees of perfection attainable, there can be no doubt that God is calling us to something much higher. Our standards are too low. While learning in whatever situation we are to be content we must still never fall into an indolent satisfaction or acceptance of where we are spiritually. We must always be pressing farther and deeper, working towards sinless perfection.

The Law - Part Two

The proper function of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. It is a purely defensive, negative concept. It must be. People say that, if the law regulates justice, why shouldn’t it regulate labor, education, and religion? Because then it would be committing an injustice, destroying its first function. The law is force, imposing negation. Applying force to labor, education, or religion, or anything except justice, is destroying liberty - and justice. They tell us our doctrine has stopped at liberty, and should have gone on to fraternity. But that is false philanthropy. Enforced ‘fraternity’ destroys liberty. Justice is the only thing the law can enforce.

The republics of the world have been arguing about ‘universal suffrage’ for as long as we can remember. But if the Law were confined to its proper functions, then everyone’s interest in the law would be the same, and no one would have any reason for trying to control it, and those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not. Unfortunately that is not the case - the law has been perverted, and has taken it into its head to take property from one party and give it to another, under the pretence of organization, regulation, protection, etc. So now every one wants to participate, and every class must fight to control the government and the franchise, either to protect themselves from plunder or to use the law to plunder others. Perverted law causes conflict.

Perverted law, or legal plunder, has an infinite number of names. They call it tariffs, protections, encouragement, subsidies, public schools, minimum wages, guaranteed jobs, insurance, social security, etc. All of these are examples of the government violating its responsibility, acting outside its lawful functions.

People say that the law must take care of ‘charity,’ must protect and provide for people with no money. But the law is not a source of money. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or class unless other citizens and classes have been compelled to put it there. There is no money outside society. The law cannot be an instrument of equalization unless it takes from some to give it to others, becoming an instrument of plunder.

People say that the law must be responsible for educating the poor. But the law is not a shining torch of learning. In society, some persons have knowledge while others do not. The law can do one of two things - permit a natural transaction of teaching and learning to operate freely, or force people to pay for government appointed teachers to instruct the ‘poor, uneducated.’ The latter is a violation of liberty and property.

Law is force, and it can only provide artificial unity and fraternity.

Socialism confuses the distinction between government and society. And just because some thing should not be done by the government, does not mean that they should not be done at all. Private organizations and individuals can do those things, without the use of force. That is the only difference between private and official. The government cannot be made to produce what it does not contain - wealth, science, religion, and the other things that constitute prosperity.

What is this concept of ‘liberty’ that all this political turmoil is focused on? It bears some definition. What else could it be, but the union of all liberties - liberty of conscience, education, association, travel, labor, trade, and the press? It is the freedom of everyone to make full use of his faculties, as long as he does not harm anyone else while doing so. It is the destruction of despotism. It is the restricting of the law to its rational sphere of organizing the right to lawful defense, of punishing injustice.

If law is confined to preventing injustice, what is the alternative? If we cannot apply law to conscience, education, labor, trade or association, then there are a hundred inherent risks in letting those things alone, with nothing to regulate them, and men will undoubtedly misuse and abuse their liberty in those areas. But that is still the best case scenario and the law still has no authority to regulate them until there is obvious injustice being committed. If we choose to surrender those rights to an absolute, arbitrary, invalid power, the situation is much worse.

The Law - Part One

In 1850 a French liberal theorist by the name of Frederic Bastiat wrote a short book called The Law. It is an extraordinarily unique work - certainly not your typical revolutionary doctrine - and it provides a simple, concise sketch of some fundamental principles of government.

Reading it inspired me to put together a very brief compilation of what I have come to believe are some of the most important ideas about government.

History has painstakingly taught us that government in general is a necessary evil. There is no perfect government. Men are corrupt. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t need laws. But in the fallen state of mankind, enforced laws are necessary. There are some forms of government that are better than others, and it is worthwhile to figure out what those are. Most people think that the American republic is the best example so far of a national government. That is probably true. But, apart from being universally misunderstood, this monster which used to be called a republic is far from flawless and is screeching towards collapse at roller-coaster speed. Not quite an ideal. I think it would have worked out better and lasted longer if America’s Founders had incorporated some of these principles into the fabric of the government.

First off, to get at the root of the problem, we need to define ‘government.’ The words law and government have been used interchangeably, which is alright, but keep in mind that law is the practical application of moral principles and government is a social force. By its very nature, government is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us have a natural, God-given right to defend - even by force - our person, liberty, and property. Those rights do not exist because men have made laws, but on the contrary, they are what have caused men to make laws. Therefore it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force for the constant, collective protection of these individual rights. This government does not intervene in private affairs, and its only duty is to protect men from each other, for the common safety of all. Man must accept the privileges and the responsibilities of his existence, having no argument with the government, and having no reason to blame or thank the government for anything.

The nature of law is to maintain justice, and no society can exist without respected laws to a degree. Law must not contradict morality. It is founded on morality. The myth that ‘we cannot legislate morality’ is false. What else can we legislate? For example, the reason we have traffic laws is so that accidents will not occur, because vehicular manslaughter is murder and murder is wrong.

As seen throughout the entire history of the world, mankind has a fatal tendency towards satisfying his needs and desires with the least possible pain or labor. This is the origin of plundering the products of the labor of others. The only thing that will keep man from plunder is when it becomes more painful than labor. The purpose of the government is to use the collective force to punish plunder and protect property.

Unfortunately, in practice, the government does not confine itself to its proper function. In fact, it often acts in direct opposition to its own purpose, annihilating the justice it is supposed to maintain, destroying the rights it is meant to respect. It has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous, who aim to exploit others. The imaginary ‘rights’ of the government is one of the biggest lies in the history of the world. If an individual cannot lawfully encroach upon the person, liberty or property of another individual, than neither can the government. This point cannot be overstressed. What right to authority or dominance do men collectively wield that they do not wield individually?

The government cannot operate without a dominating force; this force must be entrusted to one man or one class of men, who will nearly always try to use it to benefit themselves. Thus it is easy to understand how law is exploited and corrupted and morphs into a weapon of injustice. The few practice ‘legal’ plunder upon the many, until the victims of this plunder recognize their state, and according to their degree of enlightenment, seek either to bring an end to it, or to join it. When the latter attitude prevails and the masses rise up and seize the power of government themselves, chaos generally ensues, followed by universal injustice and a battle of classes.

To be continued shortly.

Read 'The Law' online.

The God Who Is There – The Shift to Post-Modernism

Earlier this year I read a fascinating book called The God Who Is There by Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer combines philosophy and theology in order to give a historical explanation of how we got where we are. Here is a very condensed summary of Schaeffer’s point.

Man has always been looking for a universal. The whole tragic history of mankind is based on man trying to find a universal outside of Christianity, with which to explain the world and give meaning to life. The unifying factor of non-Christians is rationalism. Until the 20th century men were rational optimists, working from their finite selves in hopes of finding a way to make sense of the Universe. They were humanists. They were able to do this because they were, without realizing it, working with the Christian presupposition of absolutes and anti-thesis, which they had no logical right to do, because without Christianity there can be no absolutes.

But with the arrival of the twentieth century a shift in non-Christian thinking began to take place. Exactly when it all started cannot be pinned down, but as a general rule, it was the year 1890 in Europe, and 1935 in America. The shift spread gradually, in three different ways. First, it spread geographically, beginning in Germany, spreading across the Continent, crossing the Channel to England, and then crossing the Atlantic to America. Second, it spread through society, working its way downward from the educated upper classes to the lower working classes. Third, it spread from one area of thought to another, beginning with philosophy, then art, music, general culture and theology.

It all started with philosophy. Men began to realize the contradiction of supporting rationalism with absolutes and they tried to do away with absolutes all together. Philosophers Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Satre, Jasper, and Hegel began it. They were no longer rational optimists. They reached what Schaeffer calls, ‘the line of despair,’ and they went beyond it. They gave up hope of trying to find a rational universal that would contain all thought. Logic had failed to come up with a meaning for life, so they forsook reason and tried to find something, anything that would give life meaning. Thus Nihilism came into being. Nihilism, the belief that everything is chaotic and meaningless, is the simplest form of despair. But in the struggle to get out of despair, and find an answer to nihilism, one is led even deeper into it. The next level of despair is the acceptance of a blind optimistic hope of meaning, based on a non-rational ‘leap of faith.’

The ensuing dichotomy is that the rational and logical, result in lack of purpose and meaning, and the non-rational and non-logical result in some kind of an incommunicable, unexplainable, unaccountable existentialist ‘experience’ that can give meaning to life. This ‘experience’ is usually achieved by means of drugs and other forms of Eastern mysticism. But they could not reconcile the rational with the non-rational so they gave up the traditional idea of thesis and antithesis and replaced it with the concept of synthesis – the combination of partial truths to obtain a higher truth. But men cannot live with the conclusions of this system. In practice, one simply cannot entirely reject the methodology of antithesis, without a total alienation of man from himself, by some form of mental breakdown.

The result of inability to actually practice the conclusions of either of these worldviews, has led modern thought to the third level of despair, a level of mysticism, of ultimate Nothing. The artists followed step soon afterward. The pillars of modern art - Picasso, Gauguin, Cezanne, Van Gogh. They introduced impressionism. They tried to abandon the particulars, and instead strove to capture the universal on canvas. Their pictures and the tragic stories of their lives reflect their failure. Then Duchamp and others introduced the element of chance into Art. It lost all its meaning. Pierre Schaeffer did the same thing with Music, producing senseless cacophony that reflected the message of Modern man. There is no meaning. When it comes to the fourth category, the general culture, we find pop music that combines the concept of drug use, the psychedelic, and vague pantheism, heavily reflecting the decline of humanity. In the cinema, Nihilistic and Existentialistic films follow suit.

Karl Barth and the liberal German theologians opened the door of theology to the new mentality. In order to reconcile Reformation Christianity to the post modernist philosophy, they tried to do away with all the supernatural elements of Jesus, and recover the ‘historical Jesus.’ But they failed dreadfully. They discovered that if you remove the supernatural that is so intricately intertwined with the ‘historical,’ then there is no Jesus left. Then they could have either gone back to the original Reformation theology or gone ahead to nihilism. But they did neither. They created a new theology, a neo-orthodoxy, a religious existentialism that no longer held all the answers, and was in fact, an anti-theology.

Neo-orthodoxy seems to have an advantage over secular existentialism, in that it can use certain religious terms to provide an illusion of communication of the incommunicable ‘final experience,’ whereas secular existentialism cannot. Every word has two parts - the dictionary definition and the connotation. The new theology therefore uses words, such as ‘pantheism’ that can have no actual relation to the subject, but their connotation makes the hearer thinks that he knows what is meant. The secret to the strength of neo-orthodoxy is that it uses symbols, such as ‘god’ with a connotation of personality that provide an illusion of meaning. Its philosophy is ‘Do not ask, just believe.’ Men fall for this because it sounds spiritual and vibrant, and because they want a ‘greater reality’ and are sick of cliched religious phrases and forms. They do not realize the danger of using undefined words. They are taking a leap of faith into an irrational, semantic mysticism.

All these factors have worked together to make this monster called Post-Modernism. Humanity has stepped off the cliff, and fallen into madness. Today, every non-Christian is somewhere on a line between two points. On the one hand is the external reality about man, God, and the Universe. On the other hand is the logical conclusion of his false presuppositions, which are not compatible with reality. He is torn between these two consistencies. In order to rescue him from this dilemma, one must identify a man’s presuppositions, find the point of tension he is currently at, and then lead him farther and farther away from reality, to the logical conclusion of those presuppositions, until he recognizes the contradiction and realizes that his worldview simply doesn’t work. Then and only then can we bring in the solution, the thing that does work, God’s answer to man’s dilemma.