Basic HTML Version
"permissive" or "morally lax."
An "enligbtened" penal system is
not one where criminals are pun–
ished, but are given psychiatric
care. An "enlightened" educa–
tional system is not one empha–
sizing discipline and high stan–
dards, but one where children
"design" their own currículum. .
An "enlightened" code of sex
~
morality is one where almost any-
~
thing goes.
~
Of course, the fact is that such
8
:.:,
enlightenment has produced
a -~
world abounding in crime, illiter-
-~ ~
acy (even in modern, industrial
~!
nations), illegitimacy, divorce and
~ ~
venereal disease.
~ -~
" In the last decade," writes
·~ -~
historian James Hitchcock in a
~ ~
brilliant essay in
National Re-
-~ ~
view
(February 6, 1981 ), there
~ ~
has been "an unprecedented
~ ~
<:,<:
extension of the socially and
~~
legaiJy permissible limíts of per-
~ ~
sonal behavior." ( In plaíner Jan-
!:
~
<>-
guage, morals have fallen into tbe
~
cll
cesspool.)
RA TIONALISM, ATHEISM ANO DOUBT:
Modern philosophy rejects God's Word as
Mr. Hitchcock points out that
the foundation of al/ knowledge. From top left: Descartes, Spinoza, Hegel, Russe/1,
under the hot líght of enlightened
Berkeley and Nietzsche.
skepticism, moral barriers have
-------------------------------
melted away. Tbe simple questíon
"Why not?" becomes a sort of
acid that eats away at all stan–
dards. Unless the
reasons for
a
moral law can be
easily
stated,
the presumption ís in favor of
lícentiousness. People want to
believe that mere unthinking
prejudice is the reason for moral
laws. Defenders of moralíty seem
reduced, in Líonel Trílling's
words, to "irritable mental ges–
tures."
A Great Kick!
At the height of the age of
enlightenment, the questioning of
moral laws reached absurd pro–
portions. One philosopber, David
Hume, even questioned cause and
effect. Notbing
at al/
could ever
be really proved. Years later,
Samuel Johnson, aman far wíser,
carne along. His friend pointed at
a rock.
"See that rock; David Hume
says you can't prove that rock
exists," his friend told him. "Well
1 prove it thusly," J ohnson
declared, and gave the rock a
great kick.
May 1981
Tbe time has come to give a
great big kick to the false enlight–
enment of the 20th century! Pro–
fessing itse1f to be wise, it has
become foolish (cf. Romans 1:22).
T he permíssive enlíghtenment
of our age has not brought happi–
ness. It has given us penicillin to
cure venereal disease, computers
tocalculate how much air pollution
we have, and Valium to calm our
jangled nerves. But it has left us
without an ingredient most neces–
sary for happiness-a sense of pur–
pose.
Look at tbe great ignorance of
our age! We do not know who we
are, or why we are. The most
important knowledge concerníng
human happíness ís not part
of 20th century enlíghten–
ment.
"The fear of the Lord is the
beginning
of wisdom: a good
understanding have all they that
do bis commandments," declares
the Bible (Psalm 11\:10).
And yet the starting point of
philosophy in our world is doubt!
God is ignored. "Philosophy,"
wbich means "!ove of wisdom,"
rejects the "beginning of wis–
dom." So the Bíble counsels,
" Beware lest any man spoíl you
through pbílosophy and vain
deceít, after the tradítion of men ,
after the rudiments of the world,
and not after Chríst" (Colossíans
2:8).
Phílosophy's rejectíon of God
reflects the natural límítations of
the human mind. The human
mind, the natural, physícal "car–
nal" mind, ís profoundly límíted.
The "carnal," meaníng "physí–
cal," mind cannot comprehend
the most important knowledge of
all-who and why man- without
God's divine help, and God ordi–
naríly doesn't bestow this knowl–
edge on phílosophers. The natu–
ral human mind knows only "the
things of man" (l Corínthians
2:11), but does not naturally
know the things of God
(I
Co–
rinthians 2: 14).
But if you don't know the
thíngs of God, you are not really
enlightened . You may have gad–
gets galore. You may have mil–
lions of footnotes in thousands of
ar ticles. But there ís still great
35