Saturday, May 25, 2013

Relativism


Have you ever heard someone say: "What is true for you is not true for me" or "That is your reality, not mine" ?

Relativism is as rampant as the common cold in our society- but its effects are far more serious. Relativism is symptomatic of a multicultural society. There are many and varied worldviews living in close proximity, and somehow we all have to get on with each other. Relativism is thus adopted as a way of coping with varying claims to reality by others, without allowing those claims to affect our own views. It is born out of a perception that tolerance is the supreme virtue, and that all ideas are equal.  Instead of the equality of all people we have promoted the equality of all ideas. From this it follows that if all ideas are equal then none of them are true, because truth by nature is exclusive. This is no doubt what led Chesterton to this comment:
"Tolerance," the author G.K. Chesterton once said, " is the virtue of those who don't believe anything."
 It is closely allied to Political Correctness. This is not to say that we don't need to respect the person because their worldview appears barely tolerable or even intolerable to us, no, the person is always respected, not because of their worldview, but in spite of their worldview. This is based on the understanding they too are made in the image of God, and also out of a sense of humility. We too are fallible creatures. But to treat ideas as equal is folly. Another offshoot symptom of relativism is that it stultifies dialogue, and the search for truth. If all ideas are equally valid, what need is there to change the others mind? What need of discussion? The real problems start to exhibit the weaknesses of this stance when tolerance becomes a kind of tyranny taking all captive and causing major destruction. It's the sort of tolerance that amounts to no more than a sneering at someone's views without genuinely trying to see why it is they think differently. The people who think they have something valid to contribute are left feeling frustrated and undervalued. Their concerns are not listened to. All of this comes down to fragmentation of society.

One of the cultural symbols of today that epitomizes relativism is the exclamation: "Whatever" replete with the inevitable shrug of the shoulders, hands low, outward facing and palms up. Whatever.

Relativism is a denial of the exclusive nature of truth, and if this problem is not exposed it will undercut any attempts to get anyone to see your point of view even whether your view is based on truth or not. It is, in terms of logic, contravening the laws of non-contradiction. One can construct the most erudite form of logical argument and present an elegantly reasoned defense of a certain view but they might as well not have bothered when the idea of truth is no longer believed in or respected, or even thought a valid category to remonstrate about.

“To give truth to him who loves it not is to only give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation.”
George McDonald

They may listen politely while your gems of truth are breathed out, like droplets of precious clear water, but it's like water running off the slick oily feathers of a duck. Relativism renders people impervious- not only to the exclusive claims of Christ- but it cements people into a retreat akin to a bomb shelter constructed out of their own thinking, which- if never brought to light- will become their tomb.


If that weren't bad enough when one considers the effects of the post-modern attitude towards truth claims it can be seen the bomb-shelter is locked and sealed from the inside. This is because of the almost universal suspicion that any one trying to "push" a particular point, or preach the truth of something, is perceived to be out to get control of ones life, their time or their money- or property or anything that might give them an advantage. It is the overarching suspicion and skepticism that brings up the question: "What does this guy want?"  "Truth" is  thus seen as a means of domination, a way of getting power over others. Absolute truth claims are treated with disdain and incredulity, and those pushing that barrow are "arrogant and ignorant" all at once. "How dare they!" is the felt, if not the expressed view of someone who has deeply imbibed the poison of relativism.

The link above regarding post-modernism is a series of videos on how this affects our culture on the outside and even within different expressions of the church. So this relativistic attitude towards the Christian faith can manifest itself as it has done in the Emergent church (fifth video on this post) where, in its extremes, the only real dogma is that there should be no dogma (doctrine). But this influence is not only expressed by church movements, it expresses itself within individuals within a congregation. The influence of internalizing a relativistic outlook results in agnosticism. "Ah, but how can you know that, it's just your interpretation", goes the familiar refrain. A relativistic outlook tends to reduce all knowledge to mere opinions.

It results in a denial of several things in regard to God. It may express itself in a weak faith. Institutionalized Christians, are perhaps those brought up in the Church and have never seen for themselves just how solid a bedrock is the Christian faith. They believe, but the roots are shallow- "Church is a nice place to be, all my friends are here, my family, it feels good to be here", but these have never sought for themselves to know if Christianity is really true. They believe, but have a shallow reason for their belief. Sometimes the faith is fideistic. Which is really a faith in faith as opposed to an evidence based faith. None of Christs disciples believed because they thought belief was a good thing to do, they believed because the evidences convinced them these things were true. Christ had no hesitation in showing Thomas his scars. Those of shallow faith are often quite ready to believe that other faiths are just as valid and likely to have as much evidence for believing they are true expressions of God as any other faith system. They may see that the value of their faith lies more towards the veneration and upkeep of tradition than worship of the truth. They are taken in the snare of relativism.

The truth of Christianity is resolved in a few broad ideas. God exists. God has spoken. God can make himself understood. He is perfectly knowable (though not exhaustively so). We can communicate this knowledge.

Relativism is, as others have said, an old problem dressed in modern garb. It places doubt on God's ability to make himself known, and on our ability to know God with enough certainty to live by. It also places doubt on the capacity of language to be the medium by which truth is communicable.  It first occurred in the Garden of Eden:

"Yea, hath God really said...?"

It was for no small reason that John's Gospel succinctly, firmly declares: "In the beginning was the Word..."

Relativism is relatively easy to expose and Matt Slick does a good job at ferreting it out of its hidey-holes in his work below, but sometimes a simple word picture is easier to follow than the more formal logic that he has expressed.

One such exercise I have used to effect is this: Suppose two friends have just come out of a store and standing on the verge, prepare to cross a busy street. Like sensible adults they each look both ways. One says "ok it's clear- let's go" but the other grabs her friend and says, "wait- there's a big truck coming!" If you were that other, would you settle for: "Ok, that's your reality but I have my own, you stay on the kerb, I'm going to cross..."??? In an instant anyone can see that they cannot both be right, and that it is a matter of great importance that the truth of the matter be brought to light. That is relativism in a nutshell.

For other examples of relativistic thinking, Ravi Zacharias refers to a genuine 100 million dollar note he carries around in his wallet, go here and watch the sixth video entitled "How would you define biblical absolutes". If you have time watch them all.

Once the silliness of thinking that both people are right- and that they can each take their own individual course of action with equal impunity is seen for what it is, then we can address the problem on another level. The next thing to do then, is to expose the intellectual hypocrisy of a relativistic stance when it comes to other more abstract forms of truth. The question must be asked: just because I can see the truck with my eyes, does that mean that realities I cannot see are less real and therefore are less critical? I believe it was C.S. Lewis who said: "If life is a game, then it is a game that can be lost"


On the existential level of a footpath and a busy street it is easy to see foolishness, but why do we treat philosophical and religious truth so differently?

The same rules of non-contradiction apply. But the stakes are just as high, in fact- higher.

The following are words of wisdom taken from Monergism Books and the website of Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry:

"We use logic and the facts and history presented in the gospel when discussing Christianity with others because God created this world and Christianity is logical, consistent and historical. It makes the MOST sense of the world we live in. But men are depraved and are blinded to the truth that is RIGHT before them. They cannot and WILL NOT see it. Even when a syllogism* is put before them, their emotional and moral hatred for the truth triumphs over the facts. People want what their heart wants. The problem is not that people do not have enough data, it is that they WILL NOT see it. This is the sad condition mankind finds itself, of which I am a part. I am not morally superior to atheists and in fact they may have many good moral qualities I lack. The problem is that, apart from grace, man is a slave and he has Stockholm syndrome**: He defends his slave master. But my words will not even scratch the surface of people's heart unless God is merciful in spite of their rebellion to open their heart. All who believe that Jesus is the Christ are forgiven. The Spirit of God has to show them this using our words expressing the facts of the gospel that we preach. All people already know the truth of the facts, but suppress it until God takes the heart of stone and tuns it to a heart of flesh (Ezek 36.26)"

*[A syllogism is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two or more others (the premises) of a specific form.] 

**[Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them, and sometimes the feeling of love for the captor shows.]


"If a person says that truth and morality are relative to the individual, then how can he use the concept of good to show that God is absolutely wrong in permitting evil? In the case of the World Trade Center atrocity, the only thing a consistent relativist can say dispassionately is that relative to the terrorists, it was a good thing. Relative to us, it is a bad thing. Short answer: "Sir, do you believe that truth and morality, good and evil, are relative to the individual?" "Then why are you asking the question?" - Roger Smalling, D.Min

Home
http://cdn.www.carm.org/sites/default/files/carm_logo.png


RELATIVISM

by Matt Slick

Relativism is perhaps the easiest of all positions to refute. When someone states that all truth is relative or that there are no absolute truths, then it is a simple matter of demonstrating the illogic of their position. These short replies to their statements are just what you need.

Following are some statements made by those in relativism. Find one that fits, copy and paste the reply into a window and see what they say.
  1. "All truth is relative"
    If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false. 
  2. "There are no absolute truths"
    The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false.
    If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism. 
  3.  "What is true for you is not true for me"
    If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?
    If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. If you say yes, then relativism is false.
    If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false. If that is true, then how can relativism be true?
    If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither?
    If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me) holds the position that relativism is false. This is self-contradictory and can't be true.
    If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn't true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me.
    If you say that what is true for me is neither really true or false, then relativism isn't true since it states that all views are equally valid and by not being, at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong.
    If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true only for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism false.
    If you admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing relativism is false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something absolutely true.
    If I am believing in something other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than relativism that is true - even if it is only for me.
    If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false.
  4. "No one can know anything for sure"
    If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure which is self defeating.
  5. "That is your reality, not mine"
    Is my reality really real or not? If it is, then my reality states that relativism is false. If my reality is not true, then relativism isn't true either since it states that my reality is true.
    If my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your reality? If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time -- especially since reality is that which is true?
  6. "We all perceive what we want"
    If we all perceive what we want, then how do you know that statement is true since I can want to perceive that your statement is false?
    If we all perceive what we want, then what are you wanting to perceive?
    If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived? Simply desiring truth is no proof you have it.
  7. "You may not use logic to refute relativism"
    Why may I not use logic to refute relativism? Do you have a logical reason for your statement? If not, then you aren't being logical. If you do, then you are using logic to refute logic and that can't happen.
    Can you give me a logical reason why logic cannot be used?
    If you use relativism to refute logic, then on what basis is relativism (that nothing is absolutely true) able to refute logic which is based upon truth since you must assume relativism is absolutely true to be able to refute logic.
    If you use relativism to refute logic, then relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely refute the truth of something else.
  8. "We are only perceiving different aspects of the same reality"
    If our perceptions of reality are contradictory, can either perception be trusted?
    Is truth self contradictory? If it were, then truth wouldn't be true because it would be self refuting. If something is self refuting, then it isn't true.
    If that is true that we are perceiving different aspects of the same reality, then am I believing something that is false since I believe that your reality is not true? How then could they be the same reality?
    If you are saying that it is merely my perception that is not true, then relativism is refuted. If I am believing something that is false, then relativism is not true since it holds that all views are equally valid.
    If my reality is that your reality is false, then both cannot be true. If both are not true, then one of us (or both) is in error. If one or both of us is in error, then relativism is not true.
  9. "Relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolute and self-refuting"
    On what basis do you simply exclude relativism from the critique of logic? Is this an arbitrary act? If so, does it justify your position? If it is not arbitrary, what criteria did you use to exclude it?
    To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent in its system of thought.








Thursday, May 23, 2013

Part Two- Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

(For Part One go here)

The 2013 tornado that struck Moore, Oklahoma was an EF5 tornado which yet again revealed the fearsome destructive power of nature.  Hearing the stories, seeing the devastation is heart wrenching enough from this distance, one wonders what it's like to be there. Such a swath of raw havoc wreaking energy leaves us agasp at the sight. Our prayers and condolences for the people of Moore.

Two sights were particularly hard to watch, one was an older gentleman sitting on his rocking chair staring somewhat blankly at a bleak horizon, no doubt where his home once stood and those of his neighbours. All that hard work, all those memories- all gone all gone in an instant.




The other picture that evoked such powerful emotions, indeed my wife had tears in her eyes- is the sight of two more older gentleman erecting a sorry, bedraggled Star spangled banner amidst the rubble of Moore. Their intention was brave, their purpose clear- this will not beat us, we are down but not out, we shall rebuild, like a Phoenix we shall rise from the ashes, this will be our place, our home once again, oh how they love America. Good on them.




The video that I am about to embed into this post is a similar story, it evokes powerful emotions in me as I hope it does in all who love freedom. It too is about a type of destruction and havoc but it is far less obvious, it is about the destruction of an ideal, or set of ideals, an abstract chaos taking place in a society that was the American dream.

It's about freedom- freedom of inquiry, freedom of speech, freedom from tyranny and discrimination.

That story is a story told by Ben Stein, he calls it Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

In his many interviews held in different parts of the world Ben Stein found a recurring story:
"Intelligent design was being suppressed in a systematic and ruthless fashion, but maybe intelligent design should be suppressed. I didn't like what was happening to these scientists but on the other hand we don't want our kids being taught that the earth was flat or that the Holocaust never happened. It was time to ask the scientific establishment what was so bad about intelligent design?"

In a page on the Website of the National Center for Science Education entitled the Creationism Controversy it says this:
'For more than two decades, the National Center for Science Education has been opposing efforts by creationists to weaken or block the teaching of evolution.'

Dr. Eugenie Scott of the NCSE  responded to Stein's question:
"If they have a way of understanding nature that's superior to the one that we all are making lots of discoveries using- Great, bring it on."  
What I found somewhat surprising in this otherwise excellent presentation was that in some ways this challenge of Dr. Scott was not taken up. For the scientist who goes into his laboratory with an evolutionary naturalist presupposition the problem of induction within the scientific method that has been known about by philosophers of science for several hundred years and more recently re-affirmed by, of all people, the atheist Bertrand Russell- has never been efficiently answered:
“Past observation cannot lay a rational foundation for future expectation” 
Bertrand Russell on the uniformity of nature. This is one of the Dirty Little Secrets of Scientism. The problem of the uniformity of nature and the inductive method is best explained by theism because while it doesn't remove the problem it does at least have strong explanatory power, whereas when philosophical naturalism is assumed there isn't even the slightest effort to overcome it. The question is studiously ignored and left begging. Is that good Science?

The following clip shows the first few minutes of documentary and the next one down is the full length movie.







On a website dedicated to the intelligent design community I found this comment with regard to the vilification of Guillermo Gonzales, the scientist who co-wrote "The Privileged Planet" and who featured in the documentary.:
"This last century is going to be remembered like the alchemists — they tried so desperately to turn lead into gold, but just weren't able to bring themselves to admit that chemistry lacked such power. Likewise, biologists cannot bring themselves to admit that materialistic evolution lacks such power of creation."
What needs to be remembered is that there is not only an emotional commitment to naturalism, but a lifetime of commitment to the science upheld by the philosophy of materialism. Reputations, livelihoods, huge investments of time and money are at stake here. Did we think the establishment were just going to lie there belly up? The upheavals in cosmology and molecular biology in this century have seen a convergence that is, pardon the pun, unparalleled. When the anthropic principle and the "fine tuning" argument as discussed in "The Privileged Planet" come together with the incredibly complex biology of a single cell, and you couple that with the knowledge that information theory has never found a single instance of true information that wasn't connected to an intelligence- DNA becomes yet another spiral, gripping nail in the coffin of philosophical naturalism.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Part One- Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

In a "youtube" video of a Veritas presentation I recently had the privilege of listening to Professor Dallas Willard a Christian philosopher speaking on the role of "skepticism" in American culture particularly in American universities. I had heard that he passed away recently and would be sorely missed. Here is a tribute paid to his life by a former student on the J.P. Moreland website:

The Steady Confidence of Dallas Willard

Posted by: Juliet Setian

May 14, 2013


Dallas Willard at USC. Courtesy of Becky Heatley.

I met Dallas Willard my first year at USC (1995), as a student in his "History of Western Philosophy" class. I didn’t know anything about him but even the first day I remember being struck by his kindness and gentle presence. His lectures were more like conversations: he would make eye contact with us, smile and encourage us to question him, saying, “Anyone speaking so much is bound to make mistakes, so you make sure you stop me.”
The very first thing that struck me, however, was when reading the class syllabus I noticed he didn’t have the title ‘Ph.D.’ next to his name. It simply said Dallas Willard. I remember being puzzled by this and thinking, “He can’t teach here without a Ph.D.? What’s going on?” A few years later I read in The Divine Conspiracy:
"The hunger for titles and public awards in human life--indeed, in religious life--is quite astonishing... The children of the kingdom...are to have none of all this. ‘Don’t seek to be called ‘Professor’ or ‘Doctor,’ Jesus says, ‘for you have only one teacher, and all of you are students"
I loved how slow and soft-spoken he was because it allowed me to think through the difficult concepts, and thinking back, I’m convinced, this gave him an opportunity to pray for his students and invite God into our midst, even while lecturing. I was deeply blessed during these lectures as were many others. He was as brilliant as gentle and caring.
One day, a Buddhist monk, also a student, asked Dallas if he could teach the class about Buddhism (this was a philosophy of religion class). Dallas graciously agreed and stepped aside. I remember there was a lively discussion afterwards. I can hear Dallas’s words now, “If there were a better way, Jesus would be the first one to encourage us to take it.” What quiet and steady confidence!
By the time I was done at USC (1997), I had dropped my deeply dissatisfying, atheistic view of the world. I had come to a point where, after desperately seeking God, I could say, “I have finally found Him-- in Dallas Willard.”
Thank you, God, for the gift who was Dallas Willard!


That indeed is Christian confidence- to allow a Buddhist monk to teach in your own classroom. Of course in the context of philosophy it is certainly understandable, but it does demonstrate that if you are of the truth, and love the truth and are fully persuaded and grounded in truth and that all those things are fully comprehended in Jesus, then you are not going to feel threatened by other worldviews. In the video I watched, which is the first time I had listened to the man, I was struck by his openness and gentle way. He was speaking to philosophy students at a Veritas Forum which is introduced by the clip below.


His subject was "Skepticism: and what is it good for?" and the essential role it plays in the search for truth so long as we understand the distinction between hard skepticism and "targeted skepticism" a phrase he used often.
Dallas Willard PhD.
'Truth has become an ominous topic, and we want to try to explain why that is, and partly it is- because it is so important.  Truth is so important because of its role in life. I like to use the figure of a sighting mechanism on a rocket or a gun- if the sighting mechanism is true then if you use it well, you will hit the target. And truth in general is like that. Truth is what enables us to deal with things that are not right in front of our nose, we are able to sight them and deal with them without seeing them. Now while truth is simple in its nature, truths are often exasperatingly complicated and we have to have a way of dealing with truth that we can't make present to our senses or set before our mind. And thats where evidence and logic comes in. That's why it's so important logic enables us to ascertain truths which you cannot simply bring before us. As it turns out that's an awful lot of our truths...method is all important in dealing with truths so truth is simple in itself, kind of threatening, absolutely important and for example on the campus we are constantly dealing with it...So it's really important to understand why it's so important. Veritas Forum- Truth Forum comes out of a situation where truth is in trouble, socially and on the campus and it attempts to revive an interest and encourage the ability to deal with truth.'
'Skepticism is an attitude that calls claims to knowledge into doubt and gives a working space for people who wish to keep the integrity of their beliefs, but also as we'll see in a moment wish to inquire further into the issue that may be coming up. Now skepticism can be broader or narrower in scope but the point is that we do not- or do not necessarily- have knowledge of a certain kind, we may think we do, there may be others who wish us to think we do, or at least to think they do, but that is what is in question. Skepticism is not doubt though it may be involved in doubt. Skepticism is the question: is this really true? Is this really knowledge? and it goes into the details that may be involved in an elaborate system like Galileo calling into question the Geocentric system of our Solar system.  '
'There are two main things that skepticism is good for, and one is to undermine illegitimate claims to authority and that has historically been one of the really vital things that skepticism has done, and we'll talk more about that. The second thing is, it initiates inquiry, it stimulates inquiry and given the human condition a little stimulation in that respect is often very much needed. And I must say I am a little bit worried about our campuses because I'm afraid that the spirit of inquiry is not as strong as it  should be and perhaps as it once was...' 
Willard gives a definition of truth:
'Basically a thought or statement is true if what it is about is as that thought or statement represents it...truth is very simple...children pick it up very quickly...however scary it may be, we really can't drop the word -it's so central to life.'
Speaking of his many years serving on various accreditation committees he quotes from the handbook used for guiding accreditation :
'and the very first standard...says this:  An institution of higher education is by definition dedicated to the search for truth and it's dissemination, and the statement goes on to discuss that and says among other things says those within an educational institution have as the first concern- knowledge evidence and truth.'

Here is a sample of the question and answer session:

Question: 'How would you respond to the idea that skepticism has run its course and that isn't necessarily the most important thing we need to be doing in our education institutions and that do you believe that a true rational inquiry in an institution can commence without religion?' 

Dallas Willard: 'These are tremendously important issues and I guess I would respond to the last point first. Religion does not oppose rationality inherently, but on the other hand it tends to institutionalize itself and in that context can become quite irrational. And I think it’s really the part of those who are religious and who believe in religion to deal with that and to insist upon having evidence for one’s beliefs as far as one can. My fear is that the secular world will be taken over by irrationalism  Precisely because it cannot give a rational basis for choosing good and evil and living a life that conforms to the highest of human ideals and I do think that skepticism in one sense has run its course and I think that’s very unfortunate because of the reasons that I've tried to give this evening. Targeted skepticism is in many ways the only hope of humanity. I do think we need more skepticism, not less but it needs to be well channeled and targeted as I say. And it needs to be under logical control and not at the behest of social impulses. what we've seen in skepticism in the past has often been socially impelled and not logically impelled and what we need to do as Christians is to recover the logical drive towards truth that helps us respond to questions in religion and in other areas in ways that help those who want to understand to understand and to know what to do about the issue involved.'

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Berkely, Oxford, Cambridge and others were all Universities founded on Christian principles. The "queen" of the disciplines by which all the other disciplines were centered around was Theology, because the knowledge of God was the presupposition of all the other branches of knowledge, it was, so to speak, seen as the glue that held it all together, it helped make sense of everything else. Dallas Willard renews the call to have a targeted skepticism towards secularism and how it and other philosophical pressures have so reshaped these learning institutions. He speaks gently but powerfully about how instead of fostering open inquiry many universities are now acting as a huge authority:
'Over a period of time theology and all that was built around it disappeared from the universities, so I want to leave you with just this fact to think about. The university system in its history was basically built around, in the Western world, was built around things like John 3:16. People actually believed it and they thought that it was a part of  knowledge for the most part, that's a fact, now here's a question: What happened? How did that change come about? How did it come about that this was set aside, and instead of this kind of truth -secularism takes its place? I'm not questioning that, I'm just saying how did it happen? Generally speaking people don't know how it happened. Was it that someone somewhere found out that John 3:16 was false? Or that it was not knowledge or something of that sort? Well a lot of people have thought that but if you were forced to trace it down and make it stick it might be hard to do. And so this is where we need to be skeptical. We need to be skeptical about John 3:16, we need to make it a topic of inquiry, but we also need to be skeptical about secularism. See one of the hardest things to do- is to be skeptical about the things that are in most need of skepticism. And if anything could be done about that on the campuses it would be a great renewal of intellectual life on the campuses. Now you have to look at the consequences of rejecting religious truth from the domain of truth, of identifying it with feelings. Where does that leave you? What does secularism give you to live by? '
'So you're secular- congratulations... What's next? And once we've got away from the idea that we need to get away from religion- then we have got to face the question- of what we're going to live by. And that is where our skepticism needs to take hold- it needs to drive us to inquiry and we need to go back to things that often look very familiar, but in fact really aren't, and we haven't thought about very much- on both sides of the question, secularism or God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son... Because these are so important for human life. Skepticism is vital in education and we need to have a revival of it, targeted skepticism to help us pursue the knowledge that we need to live by and not just to pass courses.'
All of this points to the value of targeted skepticism, that we need to ask questions and we need to learn  what the right questions are. The problem with education is it becomes institutionalized, that is, it becomes an unquestionable authority in its own right, and in as much it is institutionalized it ceases to promote knowledge. Truth becomes a matter of current "orthodoxy" the accepted view of reality and questions are not allowed of that orthodoxy. Open dialogue is 'verboten'. The areas of concern in these institutions are many and varied. One area is when the theory of evolution cannot be questioned, why intelligent design is not considered.

People become afraid to speak or ask questions because it could mean lower grades, or loss of opportunity or even- as is now documented- employment discrimination on the basis of belief, for even questioning the status quo. We need to ask these serious questions of other institutions also, particularly the Church which is after all the bastion of religious truth, knowledge and morality. This may not involve any change in current "orthodoxy" but it will- if questions are asked and encouraged- effectively guarantee a maturity that would otherwise fail to take place. Like a good parent, the role of authority in the church is to make ones's self redundant. Redundant in the sense that  people no longer take it (the truth) on authority but they are thoroughly grounded in it and own it for themselves. We don't just believe, but we know why we believe.

If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. These things I command you, that ye love one another. John 15:7-17 (emphasis my own)
One of the most potent arguments for how much God holds and values human sovereignty dear to his heart is indicated through Christ’s relationships with others. What do I mean by “human sovereignty”? By that I mean the privilege we as humans share of being able to be self aware, responsible moral beings. Many see the word “responsible” and fail to see that it entails the idea of being able to respond correctly to reason, to what is fair and good and reasonable. While we remain children no doubt we need the authority of adults, but what would be thought of the adult who wishes to perpetuate childhood?


In fact if we were determined to be true to the following injunction it is essential that we ask and be involved in dialogue:
   Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:31,32 
It is interesting that these were believers, they were followers of Christ, and so already followed "the Truth" personified, but his imperative was that they continued in his word, not that they be satisfied with the level of truth they already knew. Jesus assumed that they were not yet free, or at least not entirely free, that knowing truth will make us free is strong language and it was not lost on the people who already had strong views about their freedom as the verses following show.

Here is the Dallas Willard video courtesy of the Veritas Forum:



In the video below, theologian R.C. Sproul talks with Ben Stein about the dumbing down of American educational and scientific culture by the authoritarian stance on asking difficult questions about commonplace assumptions, and the new documentary which brings it to the public mind- "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed."


The film contends that the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature and who criticize evidence supporting Darwinian evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis as a mainstream conspiracy to keep God out of science laboratories and classrooms. (Wikipedia)



 
Here is a 7 minute trailer to the documentary "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed"


We see the same subject elucidated in the book by Allan Bloom over 20 years ago:
The Closing of the American Mind is a 1987 book by Allan Bloom. It describes "how higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today's students." He focuses especially upon the "openness" of relativism as leading paradoxically to the great "closing" referenced in the book's title. Bloom argues that "openness" and absolute understanding undermines critical thinking and eliminates the "point of view" that defines cultures. [For Bloom, openness in this sense refers to the openness of relativism where all ideas are treated and seen to be equal and should be recieved 'openly' as equal and valid and thus denies the exclusive nature of objective truth]
The Closing of the American Mind is a critique of the contemporary university and how Bloom sees it as failing its students. In it, Bloom criticizes the modern movements in philosophy and the humanities. Philosophy professors involved in ordinary language analysis or logical positivism disregard important "humanizing" ethical and political issues and fail to pique the interest of students. Literature professors involved in deconstructionism promote irrationalism and skepticism of standards of truth and thereby dissolve the moral imperatives which are communicated through genuine philosophy and which elevate and broaden the intellects of those who engage with these imperatives. To a great extent, Bloom's criticism revolves around his belief that the "great books" of Western thought have been devalued as a source of wisdom. Bloom's critique extends beyond the university to speak to the general crisis in American society.(Wikipedia)
And, as they say, when America sneezes, New Zealand gets pneumonia!

All of the above is hopefully to add a cultural background to the video found through the link below, which is a well directed expose of a dire situation:   Part Two- Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed