Chapter 12: Conclusion - Part 4

I'm presenting the conclusions from my book (Chapter 12) in a series of posts. This is the fourth post. Click here to see the first post (beginning) and here to see the prior post. Reactions or questions are welcomed.

With the sixteenth century Reformation, there was a new interest in separating the church from its traditional entanglements with the Mother Church, the Roman Empire, and the Greek philosophers. Again there was persecution and even wars. Early in the seventeenth century, the first English colonists settled in North America looking to escape religious strife while practicing their faith. But back in Europe, others with this new freedom to reexamine the traditions about their faith and the natural world turned their interests to what has become modern science. It is simply not true that these men found their efforts frustrated by their religious faith. In fact, they undertook to think the thoughts of the Creator himself. They rejected Aristotelian teleology and made noteworthy discoveries, some of which have stood the test of time, others of which have become the basis for further investigations. Their argument that God created a functioning universe and equipped us to understand its working well enough to be stewards of it became the philosophic basis for modern science. While it is not considered in these terms, this is still the only metaphysical basis for modern science.

Early in the eighteenth century, philosophers were successful in claiming that since the created universe was completed and functioned as a machine, God was unnecessary in the present. First came Deism, and later, after Darwin, it became possible to be a fulfilled atheist. It might seem that the notion of providence had become unimportant. But alas, especially in the United States, evangelical Christians who acknowledge the providence of God are still considered a threat. Although it is easily discovered that our prestigious early colleges and universities were started as Christian institutions, the present day leaders of these institutions now run from their own history. Although many documents and stonework on buildings in our nation’s capital still reflect their origin, publicly acknowledging a providential creator now brings threat of a lawsuit. Again, why should this be? It is true that evangelical Christians, as their name suggests, want to convince others of the truth of their cosmology. But it is inconsistent for a person who believes all are equal before God to attempt to coerce another to hold this belief. Hence, it can be argued that people with egalitarian beliefs are not welcome whether they evangelize or not. Why would this be? I offer again that they are a threat in that they insist the Creator, not the social structure, provides for them.

When an egalitarian social structure in the past was set aside, as far as can be ascertained, the cosmology of the separation of heaven and earth accomplished it. This cosmology served to introduce new thoughts about the cosmos. In this new cosmos certain members of the social structure were thought able to influence the environment to benefit society. These few, of course, became the elites of hierarchical social structures. By performing these rituals, they provided for the whole of the social structure and were thus thought worthy of the honor and fear given them. The people of the society became the elites’ dependents; these dependents could then be identified as the masses. This is, of course, the positive side of the contributions of that cosmology. Generally, our concern has been with the negation of the conditions that were in place before this cosmology was introduced.

Presently the academic community is also offering a different cosmos from the one brought to this country from Northern Europe in the early seventeenth century. This cosmos is often a totally material one that is controlled by laws that the elites of the academic and scientific community claim to control for the benefit of the masses. Within this cosmos, there is no longer a need for a creator. The grand evolutionary cosmology explains all after the Big Bang Theory (hypothesis for universe’s origin) as the result of time, chance, and necessity. How has this new cosmos been introduced?

The Enlightenment period of Western philosophy has already been mentioned several times. The term enlightenment implies that the time before it was a time of darkness, obviously symbolizing ignorance, even as the darkness did before the separation of heaven and earth in that cosmology. The move from not being able to prove God’s existence by “rational” argument to saying there is no knowable God was not as difficult as it might seem. Philosophers have merely insisted that all that can be known can be known through reason or by empirical means. Reason is, of course, not used in the same sense as in the Old Testament of as the Apostle Paul used it in Romans 1:20.

Since God could not be known through philosophers’ arguments or scientists’ experiments, God could not be known at all. Since God could not be known, the Bible contained no useful information about God. At the start of the Enlightenment, Christians and rationalists shared a zeal for truth. But as time went on, the chief concern of the enlightened became the defense of their enlightened perspective. Rationalists who had earlier believed in God had already rejected God’s grace and questioned the reality of eternal life. Since Darwin, the enlightened have rejected God as well. In effect, once again, we have the separation of heaven and earth. This new cosmos is not animated by spirit beings in charge of aspects of the environment; now it has become an entirely material cosmos that works as a machine. In the ancient system, elites sought benefits from the animated universe by ritual. Now enlightened elites seek to gain benefits by moving the levers of causation. In each case, the benefits are overshadowed by the loss of freedom for its citizens.

Go to next post.