Being an excerpt from my new book that certain readers might want to skip Part Five
NOTE: While everyone is, of course, free to read, these particular excerpts are, essentially, footnotes provided for readers of my books and are there to make sense of what they are reading AS THEY READ. So, they may not make as much sense to those who are not reading at the time...
Progress is an odd thing. It can be used as a cudgel in the hands of those who believe they understand it when they don’t. Western Civilization, whatever that may be, or however you may wish to define it, and whatever purpose it may serve in your life for good or evil, contains a certain history of itself from a Point A to a Point B, where we presume we are at this moment, with definable stops in between. This despite the current argument among historians about not dividing history into “eras.” Another matter altogether. Some of those stops are debatable, some are not. As are their effects. Knowing the difference is crucial.
One critical example of progress for citizens of our country comes complete in this debate over the “Judeo-Christian foundation” of our nation which we hear so often these days. Many take nostalgic glimpses through the lens of “progress” and say this foundation never existed, that it is a myth, or something blown out of proportion by “white supremacists.” Not being a member of the AltRight myself, I cannot speak for their point of view. But if you look honestly through the lens of history you cannot deny the presence of this “foundation.” This is not a denial of “progress” away from it, however, and those who believe in “progress” still have a case.
The first white settlers arrived at our shores with specific Catholic and Christian agendas, and they continued to come in waves for generations with same, building churches and schools—the very then-definition of “Western civilization”—for nearly two millennia. The foundational universities of our nation, exemplified by Harvard and Yale, were precepted upon the ideals of acceptance of Christ, and were formed to produce ministers of the faith. These ministers not only preached the gospel to those coming from Europe, but also spread the word to Native Americans in the frontier. They took it upon themselves, along with other frontier people, to found new churches and Christian schools in the ever-expanding territories, long before the Revolution.
From this process comes today’s idea that the nation was “founded” upon “Judeo-Christian principles” much more so than that the Founding Fathers’ influences created such ideals. To deny these facts is to fly in the face of history itself.
Other calculations of reality, however despicable, existed. The Native American tribes, of course, were not seen as part of the nascent nation until they were accepted into it by virtue of treaties and relocation to reservations, and this only after mass slaughter. African slaves were brought here immediately and absorbed into Christianity by virtual brainwashing. Not until several generations later did any significant numbers of non-Christian immigration occur. Thus, “progress” beyond the initial “Judeo-Christian principles.”
Essentially guiding this later aspect of progress was the Industrial Revolution which, when it arrived on our shores, gave to the wealthy, particularly the wealthy of the North (but not exclusively so) enough money to build their own churches and, more importantly, their own more secular universities. Thus we had institutions like Johns Hopkins, The University of Chicago, Duke and Stanford. This occurred just in time for the arrival of ideas like Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, germ theory and vaccines, new thoughts about astronomy, all of which flew in the face of a literal reading of the Bible. All of which were taught freely at these new universities and others supported by new wealth. But, at first, not at the old, Christian colleges.
Schools competed. Competition has results. Most schools, including old foundational universities like Harvard and Yale, ultimately chose the new “progressive” track in order to remain competitive and continue accruing wealth. In most regards this was the rational course. Germ theory works. Vaccines do as well. Evolutionary theory and many other scientific theories, no matter how much they do not seem to apply to the Bible, all ended up having evidentiary track records. Business appreciated the effect these matters had upon technology. Government appreciated the effect these matters had upon “diplomacy” and the welfare of “the state.”
The church fought this with a revivalist movement that, in effect, continues to this day. But, the church, finally, had to take a step back. Such is "progress."
Religion always has its place within a culture, within civilization. Religion does not have to fight to find that place. When it does fight, however, it ultimately loses or causes more damage than necessary by “winning.” Part of the reason the church has lost its place is because it has lost a battle. There was no purpose served in the church’s resistance to progress. The Founding Fathers already saw the inevitability of immigration, and with it the expansion of religion and religious freedom, including the freedom from religion. Churches have fought “progress” and “progress” has fought back. Search history and see which side inevitably wins, time after time. And, when “winning,” what the outcome always is.
St. Cyril killed Hypatia and destroyed the Library of Alexandria. Who is more revered today? St. Cyril. But, did science end? Certainly, the young Catholic Church didn’t die away, nor the burgeoning Eastern Orthodox. A double sainthood for mighty Cyril! What does it matter? In the end it always manages to become a losing battle for both science and religion. Leaving us where we are today. Empty and dying.
If you study theology at any depth you discover that the point is to find ecstasy in doubt, to relish the fact that you live inside a universal mystery and relish the mystery. You will find no resolution to this mystery. There is none.
Then you have science, where the crucial matter is eliminating all mysteries and uncovering the meanings of all aspects of life and the universe itself. But you find that it is all based upon theories that must be supported by masses of collected data, also, usually, never fully resolved but proved to ever-convincing probabilities by the mountains of evidence. Such evidence can take years, decades, even centuries to gather before manifesting in that collective, substantial conviction which might take hold of the public’s consciousness. Convincing people with the strength equal to a theological mystery, let’s say.
In the halls of religions, you have those whose faith in the mystery is so strong that it becomes a virtual reality, surpassing all doubt. The antithesis of theology. In the ivory towers of science, always there have been those who are so convinced by numbers that doubt becomes a madness. Both become fanatics.
You may mock entire classes of people for begrudging the efforts of science. But they may also have a point, as unconscious as they may be of it. Science itself moves forward based on a type of faith in its own work, seeking wisdom in that mountain of evidence and the providence of probability, deciding that reason alone will explain all problems, an answer to all questions. Which may provide us, ultimately, with the answer we require to the question: Why does science so often fail us? Indeed, fail us, in all probability, as often as religion and politics combined.
Today, the third leading cause of death in the United States is medical error. And the first two causes of death are heart disease and cancer, also closely related to the medical field, a part of science. Medicine is only one major field of science.
Possibly, one of the largest definable groups of child rapists can be found in the Catholic Church. So, there is that pseudo-statistic, as well.
You can find statistics if you go hunting around for them. I’m not. Just saying, as they say. You will find at both extremes, religion and science, causes for shame and embarrassment, histrionics and merciless pleas to bring justice to the world. But, in the end, we should also consider mercy for the good these institutions have given us. Better health and education, for example. Progress never comes on the cheap.
So, if I am a Catholic parent, do I keep my child from going alone to church? No. But I sure as heck sit her down and have a long talk about what’s going on and make certain she talks to me about any inconsistencies in behavior she senses. By the way? This has been going on for centuries in all other religions as well… And given the problems in medicine, and all the noise I hear about vaccines, do I keep my child vaccine-free? Hell, no. Why should I give in to the stupidity of non-scientists, which is where all the vaccine-free nonsense comes from? Sure, scientists have their problems, but vaccines have proved their efficacy with statistical probability that should satisfy any sane person.
The question before us today is whether progress will now come to a halt. Partly because of science and partly because of religion. Partly despite the efforts of both to change us and the nature of the elements that may destroy us. And partly because our democracy has been aided by science to allow for a steady stream of irrational voices that demand “justice” where justice sometimes cannot and often should not be served.
This is why we are so distracted from what is genuinely important. Perhaps the end of civilization, or human existence. Maybe something as important as that. If you believe the scientists.
But, who does, when there is gluten to be feared? Or the Judeo-Christian foundation to be upheld against the onslaught of Muslim immigration.
An interesting story if anyone would care to tell it.
Not my job. Just saying. Read a newspaper, why don’t you. Of course, in the newspapers, you’ll hardly ever see anything interesting about what might really be happening, like Richard Thiel building houses for the wealthy on the oceans, or Elon Musk building rocketships to Mars for the wealthy.
Oh, wait, no, the papers are actually full of that, but no one is paying attention. Who reads newspapers when there is Instagram and Netflix?
Progress is an odd thing. It can be used as a cudgel in the hands of those who believe they understand it when they don’t. Western Civilization, whatever that may be, or however you may wish to define it, and whatever purpose it may serve in your life for good or evil, contains a certain history of itself from a Point A to a Point B, where we presume we are at this moment, with definable stops in between. This despite the current argument among historians about not dividing history into “eras.” Another matter altogether. Some of those stops are debatable, some are not. As are their effects. Knowing the difference is crucial.
One critical example of progress for citizens of our country comes complete in this debate over the “Judeo-Christian foundation” of our nation which we hear so often these days. Many take nostalgic glimpses through the lens of “progress” and say this foundation never existed, that it is a myth, or something blown out of proportion by “white supremacists.” Not being a member of the AltRight myself, I cannot speak for their point of view. But if you look honestly through the lens of history you cannot deny the presence of this “foundation.” This is not a denial of “progress” away from it, however, and those who believe in “progress” still have a case.
The first white settlers arrived at our shores with specific Catholic and Christian agendas, and they continued to come in waves for generations with same, building churches and schools—the very then-definition of “Western civilization”—for nearly two millennia. The foundational universities of our nation, exemplified by Harvard and Yale, were precepted upon the ideals of acceptance of Christ, and were formed to produce ministers of the faith. These ministers not only preached the gospel to those coming from Europe, but also spread the word to Native Americans in the frontier. They took it upon themselves, along with other frontier people, to found new churches and Christian schools in the ever-expanding territories, long before the Revolution.
From this process comes today’s idea that the nation was “founded” upon “Judeo-Christian principles” much more so than that the Founding Fathers’ influences created such ideals. To deny these facts is to fly in the face of history itself.
Other calculations of reality, however despicable, existed. The Native American tribes, of course, were not seen as part of the nascent nation until they were accepted into it by virtue of treaties and relocation to reservations, and this only after mass slaughter. African slaves were brought here immediately and absorbed into Christianity by virtual brainwashing. Not until several generations later did any significant numbers of non-Christian immigration occur. Thus, “progress” beyond the initial “Judeo-Christian principles.”
Essentially guiding this later aspect of progress was the Industrial Revolution which, when it arrived on our shores, gave to the wealthy, particularly the wealthy of the North (but not exclusively so) enough money to build their own churches and, more importantly, their own more secular universities. Thus we had institutions like Johns Hopkins, The University of Chicago, Duke and Stanford. This occurred just in time for the arrival of ideas like Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, germ theory and vaccines, new thoughts about astronomy, all of which flew in the face of a literal reading of the Bible. All of which were taught freely at these new universities and others supported by new wealth. But, at first, not at the old, Christian colleges.
Schools competed. Competition has results. Most schools, including old foundational universities like Harvard and Yale, ultimately chose the new “progressive” track in order to remain competitive and continue accruing wealth. In most regards this was the rational course. Germ theory works. Vaccines do as well. Evolutionary theory and many other scientific theories, no matter how much they do not seem to apply to the Bible, all ended up having evidentiary track records. Business appreciated the effect these matters had upon technology. Government appreciated the effect these matters had upon “diplomacy” and the welfare of “the state.”
The church fought this with a revivalist movement that, in effect, continues to this day. But, the church, finally, had to take a step back. Such is "progress."
Religion always has its place within a culture, within civilization. Religion does not have to fight to find that place. When it does fight, however, it ultimately loses or causes more damage than necessary by “winning.” Part of the reason the church has lost its place is because it has lost a battle. There was no purpose served in the church’s resistance to progress. The Founding Fathers already saw the inevitability of immigration, and with it the expansion of religion and religious freedom, including the freedom from religion. Churches have fought “progress” and “progress” has fought back. Search history and see which side inevitably wins, time after time. And, when “winning,” what the outcome always is.
St. Cyril killed Hypatia and destroyed the Library of Alexandria. Who is more revered today? St. Cyril. But, did science end? Certainly, the young Catholic Church didn’t die away, nor the burgeoning Eastern Orthodox. A double sainthood for mighty Cyril! What does it matter? In the end it always manages to become a losing battle for both science and religion. Leaving us where we are today. Empty and dying.
If you study theology at any depth you discover that the point is to find ecstasy in doubt, to relish the fact that you live inside a universal mystery and relish the mystery. You will find no resolution to this mystery. There is none.
Then you have science, where the crucial matter is eliminating all mysteries and uncovering the meanings of all aspects of life and the universe itself. But you find that it is all based upon theories that must be supported by masses of collected data, also, usually, never fully resolved but proved to ever-convincing probabilities by the mountains of evidence. Such evidence can take years, decades, even centuries to gather before manifesting in that collective, substantial conviction which might take hold of the public’s consciousness. Convincing people with the strength equal to a theological mystery, let’s say.
In the halls of religions, you have those whose faith in the mystery is so strong that it becomes a virtual reality, surpassing all doubt. The antithesis of theology. In the ivory towers of science, always there have been those who are so convinced by numbers that doubt becomes a madness. Both become fanatics.
You may mock entire classes of people for begrudging the efforts of science. But they may also have a point, as unconscious as they may be of it. Science itself moves forward based on a type of faith in its own work, seeking wisdom in that mountain of evidence and the providence of probability, deciding that reason alone will explain all problems, an answer to all questions. Which may provide us, ultimately, with the answer we require to the question: Why does science so often fail us? Indeed, fail us, in all probability, as often as religion and politics combined.
Today, the third leading cause of death in the United States is medical error. And the first two causes of death are heart disease and cancer, also closely related to the medical field, a part of science. Medicine is only one major field of science.
Possibly, one of the largest definable groups of child rapists can be found in the Catholic Church. So, there is that pseudo-statistic, as well.
You can find statistics if you go hunting around for them. I’m not. Just saying, as they say. You will find at both extremes, religion and science, causes for shame and embarrassment, histrionics and merciless pleas to bring justice to the world. But, in the end, we should also consider mercy for the good these institutions have given us. Better health and education, for example. Progress never comes on the cheap.
So, if I am a Catholic parent, do I keep my child from going alone to church? No. But I sure as heck sit her down and have a long talk about what’s going on and make certain she talks to me about any inconsistencies in behavior she senses. By the way? This has been going on for centuries in all other religions as well… And given the problems in medicine, and all the noise I hear about vaccines, do I keep my child vaccine-free? Hell, no. Why should I give in to the stupidity of non-scientists, which is where all the vaccine-free nonsense comes from? Sure, scientists have their problems, but vaccines have proved their efficacy with statistical probability that should satisfy any sane person.
The question before us today is whether progress will now come to a halt. Partly because of science and partly because of religion. Partly despite the efforts of both to change us and the nature of the elements that may destroy us. And partly because our democracy has been aided by science to allow for a steady stream of irrational voices that demand “justice” where justice sometimes cannot and often should not be served.
This is why we are so distracted from what is genuinely important. Perhaps the end of civilization, or human existence. Maybe something as important as that. If you believe the scientists.
But, who does, when there is gluten to be feared? Or the Judeo-Christian foundation to be upheld against the onslaught of Muslim immigration.
An interesting story if anyone would care to tell it.
Not my job. Just saying. Read a newspaper, why don’t you. Of course, in the newspapers, you’ll hardly ever see anything interesting about what might really be happening, like Richard Thiel building houses for the wealthy on the oceans, or Elon Musk building rocketships to Mars for the wealthy.
Oh, wait, no, the papers are actually full of that, but no one is paying attention. Who reads newspapers when there is Instagram and Netflix?
No comments have been added yet.
