“In the beginning God” . . . or, “in the beginning nothing?” These are the only two options and both sides would argue and have you believe that they are correct. Unfortunately, no one was there in the beginning to be able to tell us what actually happened, or so one side would have us believe. If there was truly nothing in the beginning, then indeed there would be no one to tell how it all began. However, if in the beginning there was God, a Prime Mover of sorts, then He could tell us how it all began. If, in the beginning there was God, then some would suggest that this statement would have to be taken on faith for there is no evidence to prove such a declaration.
We live in a world that has seen faith in the unseen as a driving force. We have seen our use of reason as a driving force and now both faith and reason only lead to doubt because we cannot be sure of either faith or reason. In our world today words have become the tool of creating fact, truth and doubt. Some words have become so overused that they mean nothing. Other words have been given such power that we are no longer able to use them so they are banned from our vocabulary. The world has lost its power over words and instead has given words so much power that one is offended by a mere word. At the same time words are given different meanings so that when words are used by one person they may mean one thing while to the person hearing they mean something else.
So, how did we get from faith to reason to doubt? Historians and sociologist like to look back over history and periods of history and try to find significant events to which to point as turning points from one era to another and then label each era. Of course, we should and must admit that much of what is done is subjective and usually done according to one’s own preconceived ideas. With that said, perhaps we can use such designations to help guide our understanding.
For our purposes we will suggest that up until the time of what we call the Renaissance the world pretty much centered their ideas, their facts, their truth, their beliefs around faith. And here we might expand our definition of faith to include not only belief in a god or gods but also in superstition. From around the 12th century, religion, or theology was important and one of the most important disciplines along with arts, law, and medicine.
From around A.D. 1400 to A.D. 15001 we have what is called the Renaissance period of history. The Renaissance brought ideas of humanism (human beings are the measure of all things), individualism (the right for people to think for themselves), skepticism (all things should be questioned), secularism (the belief that money, travel, secular activities were important), and classicism (interest in other historic cultures). These values were reflected in buildings, writing, painting and sculpture, science, every aspect of their lives.
From A.D. 1517 to A.D. 1648 we have the Protestant Reformation which was a religious movement in which Lutheranism (started by Martin Luther) broke with the Roman Catholic church and redefined Christianity.
From A.D. 1450 to A.D. 1600 we have what is known as the European Renaissance which is known as a cultural “rebirth” in art, music, literature, society, and philosophy.
From A.D. 1650 to A.D. 1800 we have what is called the Enlightenment, an intellectual movement that is also called the Age of Reason. This period of history saw the reexamination of politics, economics and science before giving way to Romanticism in the 19th century.
Romanticism was a movement in the arts and literature that originated in the late 18th century, emphasizing inspiration, subjectivity, and the primacy of the individual.
From Romanticism we move to Modernism which included a tendency in theology to accommodate traditional religious teaching to contemporary thought and especially to devalue supernatural elements and modern artistic or literary philosophy and practice especially a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression.
Finally, from the late 1900s to the early 2000s, the dates are still in flux, we have what has been referred to as Postmodernism, also spelled post-modernism. In Western philosophy, this movement is characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.
So, what does all this movement in history, in thinking, in beliefs mean? Before we proceed, as we talked about earlier, it is important that we define our words. Words are important and how one uses words, how one defines their words is important.
For our purposes, the word “naturalism” means the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. The word “humanism” means an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems. The word “rationalism” means a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. Again, for our purposes, these three words act as synonyms for the simple fact that they all point to the human mind as the sole interpreter of what is real.
Again, for our purposes, the word “fact” means an incontrovertible reality attested to, not from one person’s thoughts, ideas, or feelings but, from a real event or phenomena. The word “truth” means a statement of fact based not on one’s personal thoughts, ideas, or feelings but on real events and observable phenomena. And the word “absolute” refers to something viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative. For our purposes, these three words may also act as synonyms for the simple understanding that they all point outside oneself with no need for interpretation.
So, how did we get from faith to reason to doubt? If we begin with the belief that in the beginning nothing, then all we have is doubt because there is no outward foundation for fact, truth, reason or absolutes. More on this belief later.
When we begin with “in the beginning God,” we have a foundation that is based on what is believed to be truth, fact and absolutes because truth and fact are external, from outside oneself, one’s being, thoughts and feelings. With the belief that in the beginning God, then God is truth and all truth flows from God, so that without God there is no truth. And it must be admitted that even with this belief as our beginning there have been those throughout history and still today who misuse and abuse such truth by lying and deceiving by God’s name in order to mislead or take advantage of others. Interestingly enough, the very fact that there is the opposite of truth testifies to the truth, because there cannot be untruth without truth.
In the beginning God, lays the foundation for truth, fact and absolutes. In the beginning God also lays the foundation for history in the words of the Book of the Bible. The Bible is a book of history not science as one might define science. Yes there are descriptions of natural phenomena, what one might call science in the Bible, but not presented in what one would call a scientific form. In other words, just as a person in our world today speaks of the Sun rising in the East and setting in the West does not mean that person is describing what they believe to be the scientific fact that the Sun revolves around the earth, but simply is expressing what one sees from their particular point of view. However, the Bible does describe such phenomena and the Bible does reveal much history, none of which has ever been disproved (and the Biblical account of the creation of the world has not been disproved as the evolution of the world from nothing to something has never been proven either, both theories must be taken on faith).
So, how do we move from faith to reason? The simple explanation is easily accounted from the third chapter of the Bible and, as we will see, cannot be accounted for from any history outside the Bible. In chapter three of Genesis we are told that the man and the woman, Adam and Eve, who had been created in purity were approached by none other than the opposite of the Creator God, the devil himself in the form of a serpent. Remembering that Adam and Eve only knew good it is not difficult to see how they fell for the devil’s lies that they could become like their Creator, knowing both good and evil if they disobeyed their Creator and did as the devil tempted them, that is that they ate from the forbidden fruit. Their desire and the desire of all humanity from the beginning to be like their Creator has caused all humanity to believe that they can be as smart as or smarter than God. Indeed, it was the thought of the devil himself, who was a created angel, to think of himself as equal with his Creator God that got him cast out of heaven in the first place.
As humanity moved through the stages, the eras or periods of time as outlined above, as humanity moved further and further from a close relationship with their Creator God, so mankind began to more and more think more highly of himself so that he no longer believed he had a need for a god, let alone the Creator God.
When one begins with God then there are absolutes, there are facts, there is truth and there is accountability. With God there is a right and a wrong. The opposite is human reasoning, thinking, science, i.e., naturalism, humanism, rationalism, in which man is the captain of his ship, the one who can think and know truth, thus science trumps all, especially faith. Thus, there is no truth, there are no absolutes, there are no facts, there is no accountability.
Moving from faith to reason, now humanity must look inside themselves for answers. Since science is now the place to find answers, religion is placed in the background with the reasoning that religion is a matter of faith, but science is provable fact, at least for now. Of course, this shift brings many problems as well. If humanity and human reason are the end all, then how do we regulate morals and ethics? Can we have any truth? Are there any absolutes? And what about facts, are they reliable?
After some years of believing that human reason is the answer it finally became obvious that there are problems with human reason. As society moved into what has been called the postmodernism era it has now been realized that science may not be all the facts and truth it was proposed to be. As one must believe in the Biblical account of creation or one must believe (and believe is the optative word) in the theory of molecules to man evolution2, so science is now back on the level of faith, i.e., no longer any truth nor absolutes, but all is relative, thus science is now something that is done by and agreed upon by consensus. So, now, in our world today, facts are not facts and truth is not truth. Facts are what we believe them to be. Truth is what we feel or believe it to be, thus there is and can be no facts nor truth. We might go so far as to say that facts are how the truth or the fact is spun.
When someone suggests that they are more interested in truth than fact, what do they mean? When truth becomes relative that is when what may be true for me may not be true for you and what is true for you may not be true for me, then facts do not matter. Rather one’s interpretation of the facts is what matters. And as one interprets the facts that is what is true to them. Thus, what is important are words and how words are used to convince others to believe what they want them to believe. Truth and fact become what is the consensus of the group. Thus, the end all is the ability of humanity to convince others that their truth and facts is true and sure. But, can anyone be sure of truth and fact when truth and fact become so subjective which leads to doubt by those who can still actually think and who actually believe there is truth, there are facts, there are absolutes and there is accountability.
The key to moving from truth to reason to doubt is to dumb down the populace so they do not realize they are being lied to, deceived, and used as pawns in the grand scheme of things. In the public square then, there is the struggle for convincing the minds of mush that they are only intelligent and independent thinkers if they think and act like the “wise” intellectuals tell them to think and act. The goal is conformity but spoken as unity. We want to unite, however the uniting is a uniting of those that conform. Thus goal may be expressed as herd instinct. Herd instinct is following the crowd believing you are an independent thinker. It is very much like on Television advertisement that suggest that we all be original and do the same thing.
As people, especially young people, grow up and older they have a desire to be independent thinkers or at least to think of themselves as independent thinkers. They think they are not independent if they think like their peers or their parents think, even though they fail to realize that their parents love them and raised them instilling in them their values so that they might be good productive citizens. So they leave home and are influenced by other friends or coworkers, by mass media or social media. Or they go on to college or university to be taught by “educated” professors or doctors of education, who profess to want to teach their students to be independent thinkers (just like them) and wind up giving up what they are taught and instead believe what the professor teaches, after all, he or she is a professor, and their parent is an uneducated person. Thus, they truly are still not independent, rather they simply exchange one set of ideas and values for another, that of someone who really has no care for them or their lives, simply to root out any previous values. These independent professors, who speak of helping students become independent thinkers, however, despise any questioning or descent from the students they avow to teach to be independent thinkers. Here again we go back to the very nature of humanity, the desire to be like god, the desire to be accountable to no one.
Thus, today, we have moved from a post-modern world view to what truly is an anti-intellectual world view. This movement does not mean that there is no fact, no truth, nor any absolutes, but fact, truth and absolutes are what I present and persuade you to believe is fact, true or absolute. Those thought to be intellectual are those who spin the best “truth.” And the best way to spin truth is to dumb down the populace so that they do not realize they are being persuaded to believe an untruth.
Examples of such dumbing down the populace include such things as the cry for tolerance, the cry for justice, the cry for removal of offensive language, history, art, books, statues, etc., much like George Orwell wrote about in his book, 1984. When human reason, which is flawed, takes over, there can never be any confidence in anything. Simply ask the question, “Have human beings (including scientists) ever been wrong?” Answering that question in the affirmative reminds us that to rely on human wisdom is to rely on faulty reasoning. Thus, facts, truth, absolutes, if these are to be reliable, must come from outside humanity. Those who believe human reasoning is the answer must admit that, because of the diversity of human reason and because of the fallible nature of human reasoning one can never have any assurance of truth or facts, thus one is always left in doubt. And it is this doubt that is used to distort facts and truth in order to deceive the populace.
So, when it comes to tolerance the cry for tolerance is one used to make an excuse for behavior that, up until this time in history, has not been deemed appropriate, because no one asks to be tolerant of something that is good and expected. And interestingly enough, the teaching of tolerance can bring offense to the one being tolerated, in other words, one may ask, “Why do you have to be tolerant of me? Am I so offensive that you need to tolerate me?” The same may be said about the cry for justice. Everyone wants justice, but is justice really what everyone wants? The answer is no. What everyone wants is what they believe to be their own justice. The one convicted of a crime might be justly convicted, yet the one crying for justice may not see that as justice, at least not for them because they believe they have been wronged. The cry for removal of those things offensive means those things that I find offensive. Indeed, if we were to attempt to remove all those things that are offensive to any and everyone, there would be nothing left as everyone may find something with which to be offended.
So, what does a society look like that fully abides by the influence of humanism? Quite scary actually, so much so that most of the populace will have no joy only sadness, gloom and doom. Why? Because to follow humanism to its letter is to believe there is no right or wrong, there are no absolutes, there is no truth and there are no facts. If there is no right or wrong then who decides what is right or wrong. Those who believe humanity is the end all believe that the society as a whole decides right and wrong. This decision can only mean that ethics and morality, right and wrong ultimately must be at the lowest level, the lowest common denominator of belief and acceptance because all the populace has to agree and those who do not want to be inhibited by any rules or laws will desire that all things are deemed good and right.
What does a humanist society look like? There can be no law against stealing as stealing could be considered as simply a way for a person to take care of themself. Rioting becomes a way of life. There can be no law against killing and no one can say killing is wrong since that is simply the way one makes his way to the top (survival of the fittest). No one can say that one person having intimate relations with another, not matter what age, gender, etc. even against their wishes is wrong because that is simply one person exercising their desire over another.
What is interesting is that those of a humanist world view do at times claim that something is right or wrong with no basis for their claim. Indeed, if there are no absolutes then there can be no claim for right or wrong. Thus, apart from a world view that begins with “in the beginning God,” there can be no cry for right or wrong, no description of ethics or morality, no absolutes. What happens then is that the humanist will step out of his world view and attempt to step into the world view of “in the beginning God” in order to declare right and wrong.
Since there is no right or wrong, no standard of morality, no absolutes then there is no hope for a future, no joy, no happiness, only the struggle to stay on top. All this leads back to words and the use of words. Words become the tool to deceive and convince others to believe the facts or truth according to their own point of view. And words can mean whatever we desire or assign them to mean meaning that the meaning of words may change according to our own intent and purpose. Thus, we see the need to define terms, especially when speaking with others who may be using the same words we use except with a different meaning in mind. In this way we see that what a word once meant now maybe used with the exact opposite meaning, which would explain how what once was deemed as evil is now exalted as good and what was once good is now deemed as evil. This result comes about because there are no absolutes, not facts and no truth.
In our society today we see just this use of words especially in mass media as well as social media. There is a constant barrage of information and misinformation such that as the saying goes, “If you say the same lie over and over enough people will believe it.” When opinion is presented as fact and facts are filled with adjectives rather than just facts it becomes difficult to distinguish between truth and fiction. And as the saying goes, “A picture is worth a thousand words,” so what is presented in picture form by the media is only what the media decides to present from their own narrative. The viewer is not shown the whole story only that part which supports the view and narrative of the story teller. Thus, indeed, can you believe anything you hear or see? Add to this fact that the education system is continually pointing students to their own reasoning and you have the makings of disaster (notice the opinion presented as fact). Group think and consensus become fact and truth. Emotion rules the day. Words that are deemed offensive are outlawed; history is rewritten, distorted or removed (George Orwell, 1984); as was said, science and fact become what is agreed consensus; and personal feelings rule the day.
When there are no absolutes, facts nor truth, what is left, except human opinion based on human emotions, one’s feelings. Each individual then has their own truth, their own facts, and if it were possible, they would have their own absolutes. And it can be added that one can have their own opinion based on their own definitions of the words they use. How do you keep order in such a world? Simply stated, through fear. Divide and conquer is the rule of the day. Identify various groups and pit one group against another. Use words to incite fear and fear to incite protest and riots, after all, if there are no absolutes, if there is no right or wrong, why not riot, loot and pillage?
If, “in the beginning nothing” is true, if “survival of the fittest” is true, if all things evolved from nothing (molecules to man or pond scum to man evolution), then what about animals and animal rights? Why should we not give animals the same rights and protections as humans? Yet, at the same time the life of a child in the womb may be seen as expendable. If the humanist is honest, they would believe that killing and eating animals is simply a part of the “survival of the fittest” aspect of life.
What about the accusations that human beings have ruined the Planet Earth by making themselves the center of all as accused by the environmentalists. What should be the relationship between humans and the earth? Should earthly resources be used for the benefit of humanity? Here again, if the humanist is honest, they would believe that using the resources of the earth is simply a part of the “survival of the fittest” aspect of life.
If “in the beginning nothing” is true then there is no basis for the value of human beings, except the grasping of their own perceived value through power. And if molecules evolved to animals and animals evolved into humans, it is not out of place to think that someone can be “trapped in the wrong body,” the ultimate denial of physical reality, even among people who claim that physical reality is all there is. If humanity is simply an evolved creature then one’s gender or sex is simply a mutation of conception that can be corrected according to one’s desire to be what one wants to be, according to one’s feelings. Of course, how often does one have a change of feelings and does one’s outer and inner “plumbing” have any other use or does changing one’s “plumbing” actually change one’s nature, i.e., male or female? Does it affect one’s DNA? Or, does all this simply bring more confusion and questioning?
The humanists believe that man is the end all, that science answers all questions, that fact and truth are found through scientific analysis. The post-modernist believes that there are no absolutes that there is no ultimate authority, that right and wrong are human constructs, that nothing is provable as truth or fact. So overwhelmed by these contradictions, the anti-intellectual simply seeks refuge and meaning in pleasant diversions.
So, why the term “anti-intellectual?” Intellectuals desire rationality and facts, yes, even those things that have been neutered by humanist. Intellectuals can process oral and written material, philosophy, theology, psychology, etc. Intellectuals are resistant to propaganda and do not run from the thought processes involved in understanding and debating. Intellectuals seek learning and knowledge. Anti-intellectuals do not like being overwhelmed with listening, reading, information, misinformation, disinformation, difficulties, division, contradictions, etc. Anti-intellectuals do not want to have to think, but would rather simply be amused and made happy, even if it means giving up their individuality and freedom for the sake of the group. When coming from the point of view of the humanist, this would be a natural inclination because for the humanist, since there are no absolutes, since there are no facts nor truth, except from the community, one must lose his or her individualism in order to have their absolutes, truth and fact validated. Even dictators understand the importance of the group over the individual. Individuals think. Groups can be motivated to action and reaction.
At one time people could listen and discuss, even debate in oral communication for hours on end. As literacy became more and more available, as more and more people were taught to read and write, communication and debate could take place through the writing and rebutting of ideas through written communication. With the invention of television the honorable idea was to use this new invention, this new means of information to present truth and facts for the viewer. Unfortunately, that proposition has long since past as now television is simply a diversion where one needs to have their attention held for the purpose of ratings and money, via advertisements. And now we have internet, social media, snippets of information so that it is difficult for one to be able to read a long dissertation of thought (such as this writing), or a lecture for an hour or less. Instead the order of the day is snippets and sound bites and snippets and sound bites out of context or presented in such a way as to present the opposite meaning than was intended. The natural response then is to react to such snippets and sound bites and very often with what might be thought of as in an anonymous way such that little thought is put into what is written.
With the explosion of media, the means of mass media, of social media, of the internet opening up so much information and misinformation, we have moved from civil discourse to uncivil discourse. There is no taking the time to think and answer just simply to react. Here again, it has become so overwhelming that the anti-intellectual simply seeks refuge and meaning in pleasant diversions. Thus, mass media, social media, all forms of electronic communication have become simply a pleasant diversion of amusement as well. Neil Postman, writes quite convincingly in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, outlining this demise in human communication and yet his writing was done before the boon of the internet and world wide web. And his writing was before the profitability of media. Yes, he understood the profit of the visual media, but the profit of the electronic media was not yet seen. Today the profits of media are what drives the media. With smart phones and tracking algorithms, with the world at the tip of one’s fingers, commerce comes knocking with exactly that item for which you are searching. Here we see that Orwell’s Big Brother that was imposed is a Big Tech that has been invited into our lives, with open arms.
With Big Tech invited into our lives and monitoring everything we say and do, every search and every bit of information we post, with its generous nature to give to us all that we need, want, at our fingertips we have forgotten that what is easily given is easily taken. When Big Tech does not like how or what we think or how or what we see they can just as easily take it away that is censor our usage, which is and attempt to control our lives. So, Orwell may not have been too far off, just in who would be doing the controlling.
How does one navigate in a world that no longer believes there to be truth, facts, or absolutes? How does one live in a world that feeds on doubt and even worse on fear? Can one trust anyone or anything, or rely on what one reads, hears or even sees? Can we make a circle back to what some believe as faith and if so, what will that faith look like?
Or, consider the then futuristic world that Ray Bradbury created in his book, Fahrenheit 451, a world in which books were outlawed because books cause people to think, have opinions and differences of opinions which causes conflict. Bradbury was ahead of his time somewhat in that he envisioned a populace that went around with devices in their ears listening to entertainment, all the time. His world envisioned homes in which one room had four walls with each wall being a large wall sized television blaring day in and day out with what amounted to nonsense, but which brought entertainment and took away any need for thinking. In 1984 and Brave New World the idea was to keep people from being individuals, because as individuals people might begin thinking for themselves. In Fahrenheit 451 the idea was to individualize the people but to do so for the purpose of not allowing them to share thoughts and ideas. The idea was to individualize people in such a way as to be able to instill in them the right thoughts and ideas which amounted to no thoughts or ideas rather simply to be happy being entertained.
The world, culture, society of today is on in which humanism reigns supreme. The message from birth is to look inside yourself. The message is that you have the answer. That message is reinforced by the education systems, technology, and media. The constant message that is presented is one of community think including a rewriting of history, or a lack of teaching history all together, a message which twists absolutes, facts and truth, because after all there are not absolutes, no facts and no truth except what the community says are such things. Thus, the individual is targeted with a constant barrage either in one’s ear through oral communication or through one’s eyes and brain through 140 character messages and other bit and piece messages which amount to convincing one to think like the rest of the populace and in so thinking to think that they have initiated these ideas within themselves thus what intelligent, independent, intellectual thinkers they are, when in reality they have subtly and simply been convinced to be original like everyone else, thus the herd mentality. It is no wonder then that when one such person who thinks themselves to be such an intellectual independent thinker comes into conversation with one who stands outside such a barrage of information, twisted history, truth of facts that have been spun to mean something completely different, and absolutes that are considered lacking that person thinks more highly of themselves and thinks those outside the community or group think is simply either mistaken or does not have a grasp of what is their own truth, which very often leads to no conversation at all. And this thinking leads to the desire to reeducate those who think differently from the community.
Some people would suggest and there is always the plan for a utopian society as Aldous Huxley proposed in his book, Brave New World, but any and all such utopian plans always have the problem or many problems such as losing freedoms, over reaching government control, social strata and the like. Indeed, could there ever be such a utopia in a world as confused as the world of today? How could one ever find utopia with the problems of lack of absolutes, truth and facts? Again, it seems the utopia selected by many in the world today is that of anti-intellectualism, that of simply finding an amusing diversion. For some their diversion is drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography, gambling, sports, shopping, eating, video games, whatever diversion might bring relief from the divisions of the world around them. For Orwell it was the VICTORY GIN, for Huxley it was the soma, for the anti-intellectual it is amusement, video games, movies (such as the movie Ready Player One, 2018, which presents a world in which most of its inhabitants live in a virtual world rather than the real world), and all the items previously listed, anything except confronting the confusing world “out there.”
Is there any hope for a world with so much information and misinformation and disinformation, in a world with so much division and conflict, in a world in which to disagree or have a different opinion, is to be intolerant, racist, offensive and hateful, in a world in which one seeks relief through alternate means including and especially pleasant and amusing diversion, and in a world in which there seems to be more and more of a disconnect between what is real, that is what is fact and what is fiction? How can one survive? How can one make any sense of this world? Huxley’s utopia world answer seems to be the subtle answer we find in our world today that is the dumbing down of the proletariat, so to speak. For Huxley it was the Hatchery in which babies were hatched for specific purposes and raised in such a way so that no one questioned their station in life but were happy and content because they did not know anything better or different. In our world today as history is rewritten, as words are redefined, as more and more amusement is offered, as morality is oppressed and immorality exalted, as Big Brother, or Big Tech takes over as the provider of all things convenient, as long as one is happy there is no need to confront life and the realities of life. Of course, since such complete isolation is not really a reality, when one does have to confront the “real world” they do so by simply parroting what has been hypnotically droned into them through media think, or Newspeak by the Ministry of Truth as Orwell would say or through hypnopaedia as Huxley would say. Perhaps the illustration of the effectiveness of Television advertisement might be in order: No one ever sat down to memorize the jingles from TV ads, yet how often does one find themselves singing such jingles. The constant repetition of words, whether true of false, whether real or unreal, becomes true and real for the hearer, especially if the hearer has been conditioned to not question what is heard or to believe all that is presented. Ultimately then, to keep harmony, those who actually think for themselves, those who believe in absolutes, in fact and truth are seen as the enemy and are the ones who need to be reeducated into the unity, that is conformity, of the group think culture.
In Orwell’s 1984 and in Huxley’s Brave New World it is the individual that is most feared, the one who can think for themself, the one who questions. In Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 it was the group think, the organizing that was most feared. In a humanist world individuality is also a threat, after all, what good would an individual thinker be to the community where it is the community that decides absolutes, facts and truth? An individual thinker in such a community would only bring doubt and questions, which would cause descent instead of harmony.
So, we have moved from a world of oral communication, to a world of written communication, to a world of visual communication, to a world of electronic communication, but what have we learned? We have moved from listening, even being able to listen for hours on end, to reading, even reading lengthy documents and processing the information, to watching, but only with breaks every so often and only if it is stimulating or amusing, to processing only bits of information at a time. We have moved from a world of absolutes, truth and facts to a world of group think, misinformation, historic revision, information and stimulus overload, entertainment and amusement, word and book banning, “photo shopped” and digitally altered “evidence,” media Newspeak and media hypnopaedia, offense taking, bias and prejudice against intolerance, redefining and misusing words, and the lack of the ability to discern more than one-hundred-forty characters of information at a time. Instead of intelligence one is filled with trivia and thus thinks that such regurgitation of trivia is intelligence, after all, he who can regurgitate so much trivial information must know a lot. Thus, we have moved from intelligence, critical thinking, speak and reading with understanding and the ability to process and debate to being so overwhelmed that one would rather be isolated with their own preferences and entertained and amused without having to work so hard at discerning and deciphering. Why put out the work to read or think or make decisions, why be involved in debate or critical thinking when one can leave all that behind and instead simply live in the world one creates, perhaps in their own fantasy virtual or digital world and leave the real world and all its problems to itself?
We have moved from a world of absolutes, fact and truth, a world in which one was pointed to those things outside themselves for validation of such absolutes, facts and truth to a world that rebelled against such a world and instead desired to throw off the constraints, or what were deemed the constraints of such a world and instead moved to look inside themselves for their own validation. Once humanity began seeking validation for absolutes, fact and truth inside themselves what they found was human reason, flawed human reason, doubt about one’s own reasoning, apprehension, mistrust, suspicion, more questioning, and the necessity to weave a web of one’s own truth to what appeared to be one’s own facts. With no absolutes then there can be no truth and facts become one’s opinion of one’s experience. Thus, humanism ,or naturalism, or rationalism, instead of giving one confidence and assurance simply leave one with doubt and insecurity within oneself and in the society as a whole. Those who look outside themselves are seen as arrogant and are distrusted as those who look inside themselves have no surety and if one cannot trust oneself then one can trust no one. So, we have moved from the surety of what has been given coming from outside ourselves to insecurity coming from inside ourselves and the more “noise” that comes from outside ourselves the more confused and the less interest one has in absolutes, fact and truth. Instead, one simply seeks a diversion from the insanity of the world. To find a pleasant diversion one simply gives up reality. Ultimately, one gives up the messiness of reality from the relief of the tensions of the world. One retreats into their own world shutting out the rest of the world as if the rest of the world has no bearing on one’s own life and world. Thus, the move from a world of absolutes, fact and truth, to a world in which the community or society determines absolutes, fact and truth, and when that too becomes overbearing and unacceptable, to a world in which one chooses to opt out of reality and instead isolate onself by removing themself. This removal of oneself includes seeking ways to be separate such that one no longer seeks to engage but seeks the opposite. So, with no need to engage and with no engagement, simply living in a world of pleasant diversion, the world moves from absolutes, fact and truth, from an oral tradition, to a written tradition, to an post-literate world (not that people do not read they simply choose not to, instead they simply watch or listen) and now to an anti-intellectual world, a world that wants nothing to do with engaging in the discussions of the day with the motivating factor being one no longer has a desire nor the ability to get involved with understanding, deciphering, and debating of the issues of the world but would rather simply “live and let live,” because one believes the world out there has no affect on their own world.
In a world of doubt faith seems to take on a whole new meaning from what it once did. In the world of today faith is that thing that is a personal thing, not necessarily based in reality or fact or even truth, but based on one’s feelings, thoughts, and desires. This type of faith should be of no surprise as it is a faith that was spawned in faulty, fallible, human reason bringing us back to a faith of doubt.
If “in the beginning nothing” is true, we as human beings are to be most pitied, because we truly have no purpose, no reason to live, no hope and no future. We are simply nihilist believing that nothing has meaning. The answer to nihilism is existentialism which simply points one to self for meaning, purpose and value which, as we have seen truly is not the answer. Can humanity ever develop a utopian world? Can humanity be truly happy in a virtual world? Can humanity find meaning in a meaningless society or a society that imposes its own definition of meaning? If “in the beginning nothing” is true then the ultimate conclusion may be, “in the end, nothing.”
However, if we begin with “in the beginning God” and allow God to be God, not some god we have created from a miss mash of theologies and beliefs, if we look outside ourselves then we can anchor our values, our meaning and purpose on those things that have been given to us, God, the Prime Mover, the God of the Bible and not the god of our interpretation of the Bible, but the God of the Bible as He speaks Himself to us in His Holy Word. But, back to the questions, can we or how can we move back to this point or will we ever be able to move back to such a belief?
It is interesting that what one needs when one reaches the point of no meaning, value, or purpose is the very thing they are attempting to reject. The thing they are attempting to reject is that thing that is written on their DNA, the vacuum in their life which seeks meaning, value and purpose. Perhaps that is why one with no meaning, value or purpose in their life fight so hard against those who have joy, peace and happiness, because their own lives have no meaning, value and purpose. As the saying goes, “Misery loves company.” So, if I have no meaning, purpose or value in my life, if I have no joy, peace and happiness, if I am miserable, then you should be too. Rather than give up my attempts at killing my conscience, rather than give up my attempts at being “captain of my ship,” “having it my way,” “grabbing for all I can get out of life,” rather than believing there are no facts, there is no truth, there are no absolutes and that I am accountable to no one, I would rather you be just as miserable as I am. Indeed, again, the very thing one needs is to be where one can find meaning, value and purpose, the place where one can find joy, peace and happiness, the very place one can be sure of facts, truth and absolutes.
Many people who have been frustrated and have been directed to go back to where their frustrations may be resolved and have rejoiced in their return to where their DNA has pointed them, indeed have returned to where the belief that “in the beginning God,” has pointed them and acknowledge their new found joy, peace and happiness. Of course, there is a difference between seeking one’s own answer to fill the void in their life and in one being found by the One who is truly able to fill the void written in their heart. To look inside oneself as society continually encourages is to remain in the realm of disappointment, but to look outside oneself, to point to an external source for truth, joy, hope, meaning, and purpose is to find that the One that one is seeking is truly the One who has been seeking them all along, truly it is not to find, but to be found. And being found by the One seeking from outside brings truth, fact, absolutes, right and wrong, good and evil, joy and happiness, meaning and purpose, hope and life.
The Greco-Roman calendar begins marking time as B.C. that is before Christ and continues in our world today as A.D. that is Anno Domini meaning “in the year of our Lord,” or as some have translated it, “after death” or after Christ. Notice that this calendar points to one place, one person, Christ. Indeed we might surmise that all time points to Christ. The Old Testament of the Bible points to the coming of Jesus. The New Testaments points us back to Jesus’ life. All the Bible points to Jesus. The new designation of time as B.C E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era), while attempting to put Christ out of the picture still points to one thing, Jesus’ birth, life, death and resurrection. Perhaps there is a point to such pointing?
Because so much in our world, the Bible, our calendar, history, etc., points to Jesus perhaps that should be the first place to look to find the answers to our questions. If looking inside oneself only brings more questions as well as sorrow and sadness from guilty and meaninglessness, then why not try looking outside, to some external source to find the answers? Perhaps there is truth in the notion that we get it right when we point to Jesus, because Jesus is outside of us. If we cannot be sure of ourselves, our feelings, our own truth or facts, how can we be sure of those feelings, truth or facts of others because they are only looking inside themselves as well. Looking outside oneself, looking to the Prime Mover, to God, to Jesus, then one has an anchor, an absolute, indeed, fact and truth.
Perhaps the only answer is for each individual who believes “in the beginning God” to live life with joy, meaning and purpose and when asked how and why one can be filled with such joy and have meaning and purpose, then gently give an answer for such meaning, “in the beginning God.” Then the one who asked will either have to give up their view of “in the beginning nothing,” or continue living with no purpose, meaning or value. Perhaps we can come to some consensus to this conclusion?
1. The dates, names and descriptions of these time periods are an amalgamation of various internet searches compiled and defined such that one may do a similar search and find other such similar or dissimilar dates, names and descriptions, thus no cite in particular is cited as no true quote has been lifted. In other words, these dates, names and descriptions are meant simply for offering some general direction and knowledge in understanding the whole.
2. The word “evolution” here is defined not as natural selection which is accepted by those who believe in the creation account of Genesis 1 and 2, but is defined as it is used in science that the world came about from nothing through, perhaps, a big bang and that humankind evolved over millions of years from a simple molecule, none of which has ever been proved. The problem in the scientific community is the bait and switch of talking about natural selection where in the various traits of any given kind (persons or animals) allow for the variations in those groups and then suggesting that these traits, already coded in one’s DNA and not naturally occurring, account for humankind to spontaneously evolve from a molecule to the person we have today.
