C. S. Lewis on Logic, Science and Truth
From Evolution News: How to Restore Science’s Lost Luster
Science has ballooned into such a big tent by now that the luster of “I’m a scientist” has faded considerably; what does evolutionary anthropology have to do with economics or quantum chromodynamics? Can it be argued that practitioners in each of these fields have learned to “think scientifically” to the same degree? C.S. Lewis also said,
The physical sciences, then, depend on the validity of logic just as much as metaphysics or mathematics. If popular thought feels “science” to be different from all other kinds of knowledge because science is experimentally verifiable, popular thought is mistaken. Experimental verification is not a new kind of assurance coming in to supply the deficiencies of mere logic. We should therefore abandon the distinction between scientific and non-scientific thought. The proper distinction is between logical and non-logical thought.De Futilitate
The problem with evolution is that it is wantonly illogical, in service to a presupposition — “materialistic atheism” — that is held to be above challenge.
A delusion, kept in service to an idol. But so long as the money flows, and the grip on power is firm, the dominance of the evolutionary paradigm remains assured.
“So in other words, it’s going to be dead and gone in, oh, 50 years or so.”
“Among the younger set? Basically, yes, as the grant money dries up and the only ones left in the field are the ones interested in truth, not power, status or a comfortable life.”
After the Great Default, we are going to be putting back the sciences back together again, just like our communities.
So. Much. Work.
Try to make your grandkids not get stupid-comfortable and slack after the victory is gained.
Earlier in this article, a “critical element” was mentioned that, when absent, collapses the credibility of science like a house of cards. When present, it solves the problems discussed above. When emphasized, it restores the luster of science. Many scientists presume they have it without justification, but it is essential to the credibility of science. It’s just one little word.
Tell us how that evolved, Darwinians.Evolution News: How to Restore Science’s Lost Luster
The Darwinians are not particularly interested in that. “Integrity? Oh, you mean high-level status and power wordgaming, coupled with crowd-pleasing moralizing blather”, just as their ideology proclaims.
Christians had better go down a different route than they have chosen.
C. S. Lewis on Patriarchy
The question mark arose because, while these may have been Lewis’ words, the sense seems too one-dimensional for Lewis. So, like a good Berean (or maybe just a regular Berean), I looked it up. I learned a few things that may (or may not) surprise you.
The quotation as presented is a criticism of “egalitarian” thought. Likewise, the same quotation is featured in an article by sometime Wilsonite compatriot Joe Rigney. (This is the same fellow who recently joined Wilson’s Man Rampant to inform us, in the name of all things truly-masculine-leadership, that “empathy” is a “sin.”) Rigney squeezes in a figment of Lewis’s real context in his article, but glosses over it as a mere sidebar, when in reality it is the greater thrust of Lewis’s point: we live in a fallen world beset by abusers of power, not one in which positions of power can be inherently trusted and some golden age of patriarchal rule will fix everything.
On the contrary, Lewis’s point is that our human attempts at such hierarchies were rightly taken away because time after time, we abuse them and harm people. Yes, our institutions and law of equality may be artificial, but they are necessary as checks upon human evil.
The fraud of both the meme and the larger article is the highly selective cherry-picking of Lewis’s commentary on equality. When read in full, a message almost completely opposite emerges, and it is the better half of Lewis’s nuance on equality that is so deficient throughout most of the half-baked version of Christian worldview these men too often push.Joel McDurmon in Cherry-Picking C.S. Lewis on Egalitarianism: A Corrective
If Christians want to be accepted as leaders — in science, or law, in politics, or anywhere else — they had better have more integrity than they have shown so far!
After the selection lifted by Wilson, Lewis almost immediately negates the intended thrust of these guys by adding:
I believe that if we had not fallen, Filmer would be right, and patriarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government. But since we have learned sin, we have found, as Lord Acton says, that “all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality. The authority of father and husband has been rightly abolished on the legal plane, not because this authority is in itself bad (on the contrary, it is, I hold, divine in origin), but because fathers and husbands are bad. Theocracy has been rightly abolished not because it is bad that learned priests should govern ignorant laymen, but because priests are wicked men like the rest of us. Even the authority of man over beast has had to be interfered with because it is constantly abused. . . .
These are truths that I think even the Moscovite religionists would not deny in their attempts to reenact 1890 (or 1850—it’s not always clear), but their formulations and proclamations so often fail to consider these effects of the fall in both practical outlook and systematics, too.Joel McDurmon in Cherry-Picking C.S. Lewis on Egalitarianism: A Corrective
Integity tells the full truth, not just the Narrative.
Left-wing or right-wing.
Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.Joel McDurmon in Cherry-Picking C.S. Lewis on Egalitarianism: A Corrective
The hammer hits the nail right on the head.
So, the patriarchal fallacy is but the flip side of the communistic equality fallacy. And the Moscovian fallacy of the meme and article is that of presenting on the one half of that critique which makes the other side look pagan and foolish, and not owning up to the paganism of their own. Lewis, however, can rightly condemn when our own self-professed righteous vanguards foolishly prance about in their own gaudy, romantic displays of courtliness and wear radical anti-equality ideologies on their sleeves.
Indeed, is it not so much of this that we have seen from with the circles of neo-patriarchalism and various satellites and baggage of even my own home, the Christian Reconstruction movement? I confess I have always been perturbed and critical of the Vision Forum and some CREC circles ethos of dressing up in antebellum hoop skirts and period gentlemanly attire to reenact social balls of the plantation elite. Why is it that the most outspoken of the proslavery theologians, Dabney and Thornwell, find so much emphasis throughout the writings and provocative statements of leaders in these circles, Wilson included. Why is it that in the broader scope of such “paleoconservative” Reformed circles I myself have had to battle with people expressing actual Nazi sympathies or ideologies, harboring those who did, or criticizing me for criticizing it!? Why is it also that the ratio of abused wives and daughters, sexually abused girls, including young girls, and various instances of molestation and statutory rape not only seem to occur at an alarming rate in these small circles, but are also so frequently covered up and suppressed by the very guardians and leaders who vaunt themselves warriors and protectors against all unrighteousness?
Why, in short, does there seem to be a disproportionate abundance of the very types of tyrannies Lewis is calling out among the anti-equality tribes: the abuses of men over women, pastors over parishioners, intellectuals over “average” minds, and even man over nature?
And why do these same leaders of these circles promulgate articles cherry-picking only select parts of Lewis like this, or even more misleading memes? In handling Lewis’s work itself, for example, is this level of error incompetence or actual dishonesty? Can they not see their error, or do they not care?Joel McDurmon in Cherry-Picking C.S. Lewis on Egalitarianism: A Corrective
Obviously, much of Christian Reconstruction is still not ready for real authority or real power.
That’s OK. I always felt that the local scene is where we belong, where the dross can be burnt off, where it’s harder to hide abuse when everyone knows you, where the “pious and wicked” can’t oppress many people in the name of Jesus: and if the people get properly pissed off, it’s isn’t too hard for the locals to round up a few men with rifles to handle the pious fraud.
I hope the internet holds up even after the Great Default: getting news out about the cross-waving oppressors will be necessary, to warn many people, cheaply. In case they decide to go on a town-hopping expedition, looking for more sheep to fleece.
The real deal, the men who actually do well by both God and men, might be ready for something like State governor in 40 years or so. Forget about the rush to power: do your job, do it right, and grow properly, step by step.
For now, be a good dogcatcher. An excellent dogcatcher. And wait for God, using the hands of others, to pull you up.
This is a lesson I have been trying to get across on so many fronts for so long. Those of us contending for biblical law and biblical worldview have absolutely no moral high ground from which to pontificate to the rest of the world until we have addressed the abject failures in the practices in our own selves and religious societies: the histories of oppression, racism, and so much more. As I’ve said a hundred times now: leftism advances because the church refuses to lead in radical sacrificial humility and service. Statism fills every single void and more where the churches deny their divine missions and duty, for decades now.
Meanwhile, we have been busily trying to write the blueprints for rebuilding the external structure of the societies we envision: small government, abolishing public schools, ending abortion, reinstituting various old conservative laws. In so much if not all of this, we are demanding particular forms of godliness without the functions of godliness, which would more often than not be sacrificial on our part. We want a worldview edifice, not worldview seeds that first die in themselves and then over centuries grow into mighty oaks.Joel McDurmon in Cherry-Picking C.S. Lewis on Egalitarianism: A Corrective
Did I say 40 years? Four hundred years may be a better timeframe to work with, given where we are now.
Well, let’s be generous and call it two hundred years: actually doable, assuming the (hopefully peaceful) breakup of the major governments… most certainly the United States. Less money and power on the table, more accountability, less distance from the common folk.
And less distance from the consequences of bad decisions.
It starts with integrity…
and goes on to humility…