The View From 1776

The Liberal Mind: the Foundation of a Sand Castle Built in Mid-Air

Liberalism, or secular humanism, is based on unscientific, utopian assumptions.

——————
Liberal media reporters’ and editorialists’ slanting, even deliberate falsification, of opinion presented as “news” has been noted here, here, and here.

This is a pattern that appeared at the beginning of the secular religion of socialism in mid-18th century France.  Condorcet and other Encyclopedists were well aware that the new source of legitimacy for government, once Christian morality had been destroyed, would be simply public opinion. 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Revelation” concerning the State of Nature was, he candidly wrote, not based on any evidence, historical or otherwise.  His “reason” simply told him that there MUST have been a period at the beginning of humanity when people were all good and benevolent.  The true Downfall, per Rousseau, was the advent of private ownership of property, not original sin of Adam and Eve.

Therefore, according to Rousseau’s “reason,” intellectuals could redirect humanity to the perfection of the State of Nature by eliminating private ownership of property.  This, of course, is the seed of the secular religion of socialism and its American sect, liberalism.

This readiness to concoct speculative hypotheses out of thin air, with no real proof, has characterized secular humanism ever since. 

For example, Darwin’s hypothesis of evolution was not, as educators teach, the product of scientific, inductive analysis of empirical data.  In fact, as Darwin acknowledged, he was all his life anxious to follow in the footsteps of his notorious relative Erasmus Darwin, a vociferous anti-Christian.  Thus he set about looking for a way to disprove “the damnable doctrine” of Christianity.  Evolution was the best he could do, after many decades of trial and error effort.  It is revealing that the present day’s major popular foe of the sweeping physical and scientific evidence of uniform laws of science, or intelligent design, throughout the universe is Richard Dawkins, an ardent defender of Darwinian evolution.  Dawkins, in “The Blind Watchmaker,” never offers a single proof of evolution; he merely presumes that all intelligent persons are already believers.  But his book, scores of times, makes huge assumptions, introduced by such terms as “might have been,” “could have been,” and “we may speculate that.”

Hence it’s no surprise that today’s liberal journalists, schooled in this utopian and intellectually false mode of thinking, routinely write “news” articles, not simply reporting facts, but conceiving first a secular humanist thesis, then twisting the evidence, or excluding countervailing fact, to arrive at their predetermined conclusions.

A personal example occurred about thirty years ago, when the New York Times interviewed me in connection with an article about the boom in construction of condominium apartments.  The reporter told me that he was investigating the tax basis for the boom, with the intent to show that building condos or converting rental units to condos was an anti-social process.  No matter how often I told the reporter that tax laws had nothing to do with the preference of builders for condos, he refused to accept the truth and kept probing for some hidden, anti-social motivation. 

The background was New York City’s rent control laws, which kept existing apartment rents at a fraction of the rents necessary to make construction of new rental units economically feasible.  Every impartial observer, then and now, has concluded that rent control has been a disaster for the city.  But it’s socialist apple-pie-and-motherhood to the city’s overwhelmingly liberal citizenry.  What could be wrong with keeping capitalist landlords from making a profit at the expense of good liberal-socialist tenants?

This utopian set of assumptions, one built upon the other, is fundamentally flawed at the root level.  Atheistic socialists and secular humanists always assert that religion and morality are just value judgments and therefore unscientific.  To liberals this is presumptive proof that religion and morality are outmoded, superstitious ignorance.  Yet, from the get-go, liberal-socialism’s first foundational corner stone is an unscientific value judgment plucked out of thin air.

That science has nothing whatever to do with any of the sects of the socialist religion ? secular humanism, atheistic materialism, American liberalism, or European social democracy ? is abundantly clear to anyone who actually uses scientific methodology to examine the historical, disastrous empirical results of this utopian doctrine in real life.

Visit MoveOff Network Members

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/27 at 04:49 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.