The seven separate posts following this Contents index form “The Problem with ………….. ” series which totals 7000 words. Each identifies a key failing in an aspect of our modern world caused by the assumed “truth” of Materialism and the consequent rejection of Philotheism :
The problem with academia is that it starts and ends with human understanding, and rejects outright God our Creator. Western academia today regards God the Creator, Sustainer, and Future as superstitious nonsense. In western academia, God is a figment of human imagination arising from a merely emotional need to to cling to something beyond us. Intellectuals dismiss out of hand the idea that the very conception of God in us indicates God’s existence.
Just dismissing God’s existence, however, is not only to ignore evidence; it is also to refuse to examine a different perspective on this world. Yet, assessing evidence, and considering how we approach evidence [the preconceptions, prejudices, perspectives at work]. these are the fundamental principles and mechanics of the academic system. That is how academics arrive at their findings – findings which they regard as contributing to the accumulation of human knowledge – that accumulation of knowledge constituting their “truth”.
What then causes them to discard their own fundamental principles when considering God ? Answer: Prejudice – and prejudice reveals the shortcomings of academia. Fundamentally, academia is not concerned with truth seeking but with justifying a human centred understanding of our world: they require the evidence to conform to human preconceptions and human limitations of awareness. Therefore no conclusion can be reached which is outside their own finite view of our existence.
But the philotheist maintains that God is outside and beyond our understanding and our experience, as well as partly within the range of our experience and understanding. God is transcendent, whereas human beings lack a sense of the transcendent. Why ? Because humans are preoccupied with the material.
God’s existence is manifestly evident in both the complexity of our world and in our individual conscience. Yet philosophically based academia refuses to recognise this. It therefore denies a fundamental aspect of truth and so warps our view of existence. It starts off with a prejudiced and distorted view of our world. Yes, the natural scientist can go a long way to explaining and manipulating our physical world by using evidence based reasoning. But the researcher into the fundamental questions of “Why?” and “Who we are?” cannot. The wider question of this existence concerning “Why?” goes beyond physical science and its explanation of our mortal bodily functions – beyond the physical functioning of the natural, physical world necessary to sustain physical life.
But our lives are not just physical; we are spiritual – and that is not the same as emotional. Emotional is physical, not spiritual. Major problems arrive for the academic when it comes to studying the interactions of human beings and considering the fundamental question, which is:
WHY ARE WE HERE ?
The natural scientist can only explain how we are here, in the here and now. How our physical bodies function and survive. The social scientist endeavours to explore and arrive at how we interact as human beings in society, in order to come to explanations for human behaviour. But the social scientist starts to fall foul of the limitations of the academic outlook when trying to formulate and codify how we can best function together. The social scientist defaults to the natural scientific method of examining physical evidence about interactions in order to arrive at definitive laws of human behaviour.
The study of psychology into human emotion and reaction does indeed provide helpful insights about human behaviour. But it also comes up against the limitations of treating our existence as purely natural and subject to particular, solely natural laws. People are manifestly not robots, are they ? Attempts to pin down human behaviour to certain given, universally applying natural laws is not only fallacious, it insults the most fundamental sense of human dignity.
In the section on The problem with History, I cite schools of thought which reflect this sense of tidy explanations, but which are manifest nonsense when examined. How can any human being assert a definite working of history according to a preset plan when that preset plan – e.g. Marxism – is dreamt up by a finite human being who lived at a given time in a particular society with an outlook reflecting – or indeed rejecting – the mores of their time ?
But Universities harbour many such believers in the impossible analysis of Karl Marx – believers whose dedication is no less than religious in its motivation and in its conduct. They are paid vast sums of money for peddling what is total nonsense dressed up as serious research and analysis.
What academia actually amounts to is another religion. I began to see this 20 years ago while sitting in the public gallery of a university graduation ceremony. Academia has all the trappings of a religion. It has a priesthood which preaches its version of reality; and its priesthood has a hierarchy with titles and honours. Its gospel message for the salvation of our souls amounts to this. More and more knowledge and understanding according to human beings own knowledge and understanding will make the world a better place. However ….
You may have noticed that the world has unprecedented levels of education and vast numbers of university graduates of all ranks, yet there is zero improvement in the state of our planet along with an incredible readiness by the most advanced nations to resort to war …
Academia even has HOLY SCRIPTURES. The learned research of its priesthood is accumulated and referred to by other priests as if it contains THE TRUTH. It is fundamental to the academic process to read and know whatever has been asserted by others on a given subject already. The researcher must then add more research which demonstrates support for their particular argument or idea in order to add to this accumulated store of truth.
There is only one problem with this. Each piece of research is considered sacrosanct as a piece of academic research – even though later it may be proven demonstrably false. Academics claim to seek the truth, and to pass on this truth to the world. It is the entire justification for their existence.
But they will then argue with each other, even insulting another person’s hard work, to assert that a predecessor is quite wrong – or failed to get it right. And yet, they will systematically and religiously cite the work already done in their field as authoritative. ABC found and asserted XYZ. They cite this as if it has some special significance, qualifying it to supercede every day knowledge and intelligence. The innate, unquantifiable human intuition called “Common Sense” has no value whatsoever. Arising from a combination of sense, conscience and thought, Common Sense is meaningless and lacks credibility compared to REASON.
They cite Research the way Preachers cite their Holy Writings. But where the Bible is demonstrably Holy Writ, addressing fundamentals practically, their research comprises the gropings and ideas of mere human beings.
Where the Bible addresses the fundamental issues of our humanity, and gives us the answers, academic research pretends to the same – if not indeed to a superior status – and yet falls far, far short.
In reality, Academic research feeds human pride and ego, while claiming a superior status as sound instruction and insight. It assumes that human beings will inexorably improve by amassing human knowledge in defiance of divine wisdom.
Is there a problem with Descartes ‘Cogito’ ? Didn’t Descartes elsewhere
- argue for the existence of God ?
- identify God as the ultimate point of reference ?
- say that we conceive of God because God placed that awareness in us in the first place ?
So what’s the problem ?
“I think, therefore I am”.
My existence is proved by my perception of existence; by my being a self aware being.
If God exists, then we must be able to perceive it. But, if we don’t perceive it, does God still exist ? The idea God notion becomes merely a contrivance of imagination. In today’s Materialistic, sensory based world, God has become a mere figment of imagination; a residual, primeval superstition.
But, if God does exist, then
- his actual, objective existence can hardly be predicated on mere perception, and
- our existence cannot be based on our perception but on God’s existence
The superiority given to perception and reason lies at the heart of today’s misconception that human beings exist without God; that everything depends on human perception – not on an objective reality.
Descartes lived in a world which assumed the existence of God, but today we live with the assumption that God does NOT exist. Instead, self or “I” is at the centre of everything. My perception matters, regardless of all other factors. This mentality lies at the heart of today’s obsession with individuality – a sense of individual importance which translates philosophically, politically and legally into the demand for Rights – a “Rights Fundamentalism” which trumps all other considerations, however legitimate or necessary those other considerations may be.
By definition, however, God’s existence cannot be predicated on the perception of existence in the mind of his creatures. That denies the the concept of God. It denies the very meaning of the word, “GOD”.
Now, if God does actually exist, his existence must necessarily be manifest. By definition, an all present, all knowing and all powerful, God must be ever present and ever active – and it must show.
Evidence of this inevitable manifestation includes the finely tuned balance and the extreme complexity of planet Earth. It includes the existence of developed and higher life forms. It includes too the point Descartes himself repeats that our ability to conceive of God must itself derive from God.
If all this evidence for God is actually evidence of God’s existence, then those who deny God’s existence are exalting their perception and their reason above the perception and reason of their Creator. They are denying the truth of their situation; they are denying their actual place in the scheme of things; they are denying the Rights of God over their lives. They necessarily warp their perception of reality and of how our world works; they therefore act on false assumptions which lead to inappropriate actions which in turn create problems, not solutions.
This can be illustrated with one critical example today which has serious consequences for our existence and for the survival of our planet.
If God is Creator, then this world, this universe must be God’s personal property – and that property includes human beings. We are therefore not the owners of this planet with the right to dispose of it as we please. Instead, we are mere stewards of this planet, responsible for that stewardship to the Owner. If we took that view and so took up that responsibility, we would treat this planet correctly.
But because we do not believe that we are God’s creatures and therefore stewards, we treat the planet totally irresponsibly ! The requirements and restraints imposed by God and by the realities of how God’s creation operates, do not really concern us. Believing ourselves the masters of this world – we do as we please, not as we should.
It is evident from the state of the planet today that we account only to our own human desires. We act as if we were god, as if planet Earth belongs to us.
It is patently obvious that our greed is out of control and so we fail to consider our long term needs. We stand condemned as selfish and as morally inadequate stewards of God’s world. Instead, we deceive ourselves by the presumption that we own the planet and so we mortgage our children’s future to pay for today’s excesses. We fail to recognise the need for restraint, for harmony, for sustainability. Instead we rape the planet, totally negligent as to consequences. Why ? Because we refuse to recognise we must answer to the Owner.
We are locked into our selfcentred desires, in rebellion against the true owner, God. We are locked into the deception that we are masters of our destiny – we foolishly deceive ourselves that man is god. In reality, however, we are mere creatures absorbed with ourselves and our wants.
Therefore we fail to observe the essential moral injunctions issued by our Creator: we fail to show respect, patience, self discipline, and consideration for others – all of which would prevent our ecological suicide. Instead we obey our own self centred desires and values. The result is the devastation of our planet; the result is the persistent inhumanity of powerful human beings and nations towards the weak and vulnerable.
The outcome of our rejection of our Maker is in evidence everywhere. The refusal to live by God’s standards and injunctions results in living just as we please, regardless of the consequences across every domain of life.
By contrast, God our Maker is the ultimate morally responsible Being. That is evident in the harmony of Creation and in the caring provision God has made to sustain our lives. That provision is evident in the manifest design of the natural world. And God’s morality is communicated to us in our conscience – in our awareness of moral obligation.
We think it depends on how we think and perceive. Indeed it does ! But that depends on perceiving and behaving correctly – as stewards of God, responsible to God. Not by deluding ourselves that we are our own reference point !
Most people have a pretty good idea of what the word “history” stands for. It’s the story of how we got to where we are today. It is the narrative of what has actually happened up until the present.
For me, history has cause and purpose: ultimately, God would save us from ourselves to be like Jesus and so live responsibly in harmony. Those who refuse God’s offer of help, will live this life in the state which they have chosen. That will also be their choice eternally.
Many professional historians have their version of Purpose in history. Among them, there are two schools of thought: the Marxist and the Whig. There are also Historians who believe that there there is no such inevitability; it all depends on the choices people happen to make; there is no Purpose to which events lead.
Personally I don’t see this world getting any better. I do see a world of increasing affluence and technological sophistication as each successive generation benefits from the discoveries of a previous generation and builds upon them. But I see no progression whatsoever in the basic problem of humanity: sin – the taint of rebellious immorality in the heart of each and every human being. Both the Marxist and the Whig believe in things ultimately getting better. But that is not the reality, is it ? Wars and famine abound, even in the world today with its unprecedented levels of wealth and education.
Both of these schools of thought start with a presupposition about our existence and how it must work out. For the Marxist, it’s the inherent clash of economic classes; while for the Whig, it is the inevitable progression of human knowledge and capability.
Those who think like this invariably believe in Evolution. They believe that human beings themselves developed from a much lower, simpler life form to become the complex and sophisticated beings we are today: ie a self aware life form with the capacity to manipulate its physical environment to self advantage – ranging from high speed travel between sophisticated urban environments to high speed computerised communications.
Yet all this progress towards more and more complex, organised systems is all predicated on a spontaneous assemblage of atoms. A highly sophisticated life form is supposed to have emerged from small scale and random collections of elements.
But how can our intelligence emerge where none existed before ? How can a simpler life form become a more complicated one ?
To this, the philotheist has an answer: the necessary intelligence is given by the designer – the Creator. But the Materialist can have no such answer. The Designer does not exist. So their notion of progessive development must be fundamentally incoherent: order comes out chaos, spontaneously; complexity somehow emerges from simplicity. Implausible and Impossible.
Then there is the other philosophical view of history. That view says that nothing is inevitable at all, and that everything is haphazard and chance. We don’t know how it will fall out until it actually happens. There is no preset purpose of plan. It all depends on the multitude of interactions at work.
Well, I agree we don’t know how it will work out until it actually happens. That is because God the designer of our universe chooses not to reveal it to us, beyond the very general notion of saving a people out of this world to worship God in the next life. Apart from God’s elementary moral code, how God will organise events on earth to achieve his purpose is hidden from us.
In pursuit of that ultimate purpose to secure an elect for eternity, God also reveals the attitude and morality by which we must live to please God, relying on God’s Spirit to make it possible. That lifestyle is revealed in every human conscience and in the moral codes laid out in the Bible.
So, the philotheistic view of history says there is a plan, but that the plan requires each of us to live a moral life, and do so by God’s power. On the other hand, human interpretations of history impose a human oriented/centred system of thinking. Human beings must strive to work out both plan and purpose of their existence themselves. It is all up for grabs. That applies both to the random view and to the view of persistent Progress. Both systems require human beings to act on human beliefs, relying on human effort. Human beings become their own god – and with disastrous consequences.
In the philotheistic interpretation, however, God becomes the purpose and God becomes the means. Our responsibility as human beings is
- to live in harmony with each other, and
- to do so by the power which God supplies
Human centred conceptions of history, however, place human effort and human ideas at the centre. Dangerous ideas like class struggle. And that provides a clue as to the ultimate problem. Human ideas are a counterfeit of the divine order; human ideas exploit our fundamental awareness that our existence has purpose, substituting man’s explanation of that purpose. Thus human ideas mirror the spiritual reality of who we are but place human beings – not God – at the centre.
The Marxist counterfeit supplies an alternative message of salvation [or deliverance] from the woes of this life. Karl Marx provides the new Holy Scriptures defining life and salvation. The communist party is the new church, the bearer of Marx’s new ‘gospel’ message. This new priesthood not only spreads the word of Marx, it is also very willing to offer up the sacrifice of its enemies to the Material god as Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism all too often demonstrated.
The Whig notion of Progess is likewise counterfeit. The Purpose is Progress is according to this world’s values and goods. Progress is about improving the human situation in this world. There is no other life to consider because there is no other world. Improvement is inevitable and cumulative. And yet the world suffers mounting problems in every domain of life because Materialism cannot solve sin.
How can there be a problem with Law ? Surely every civilised society makes and enforces laws to be obeyed on pain of sanction ? All societies have laws. Indeed, an objective code to which anyone with a grievance may appeal is a mark of civilisation.
The rule of law is much vaunted in democracies. Law provides the objective code according to which all behaviour must be judged. Where the law rules, then no person may claim exemption from its constraints and its sanctions, no matter how rich or important they may be.
All this is true. All this is vitally important. So why is there a problem with Law today ?
In the western democracies, law has become more than just regulation of human behaviour according to moral norms. Law is no longer just a matter of imposing criminal sanctions against murder, theft and rape. It is no longer just a matter of regulating differences of interest among parties to a contract, or imposing taxes on trade. Law has become something more.
The something more began to be manifest in 19th century England. In the wake of the industrial revolution, certain problems emerged. People moved from country life and farm work to urban living and work in factories.
In the countryside, the local squire or landlord oversaw local life and people worked as families in the fields and exercised crafts in the home. But in the towns, there was overcrowding in housing and no proper sanitation; there was employment of children in often dangerous environments in factories; there was complete upheaval of the settled social and economic life of the countryside.
Government stepped in with social legislation to counter the abuse of child labour and to combat life threatening diseases in overcrowded and insanitary towns.
The great English Jurist, FW Maitland, commented in a series of lectures at the university of Cambridge in 1888, that English law had developed over the previous 50 years to such an extent that it now affected every domain of life by imposing new general duties and a plethora of particular prohibitions.
Much concerned the growth of law relating to Administrations tasked to improve the common welfare, from a duty to register the birth of every child to compulsory education for all children.
The State was intervening to promote improved physical conditions for the general welfare. In 20th century England, that continued with compulsory provision for sickness, pensions and unemployment.
While intrusive, such laws were concerned for improving social conditions for all, and they were ad hoc responses providing specific remedies to particular problems.
But by the 21st century, the law has become an instrument for something more sinister. It has become an instrument to fashion peoples mindset – their very attitudes and their thinking.
Previously, the State was merely making up for the material deficit in people’s lives by, for example, providing hospitals and schools. This of course entailed a serious expansion of both public expenditure and government control.
But because the State pays for all this, it has come to assume the right to dictate how people think and behave. This conforms precisely to the Marxist mentality where the Enlightened Ideological Elite takes total control of the State and the Political Agenda in order to enforce social and economic Equality.
The domain of life and culture which once belonged to the family and to social networks such as churches, has now been usurped by the All Providing, All Knowing State. Individual liberty of thought and feeling is to be corralled and channelled into politically and philosophically ‘correct’ thinking which absolute social justice demands.
One extreme example of this today is China’s emerging Social Credit system. In this mass surveillance system, a person’s every action is monitored, recorded and assessed with punishments and rewards determined automatically by specially engineered algorithms. This has been made possible by today’s internet connectivity. Today everything about us is recorded by computers and by mass surveillance cameras.
Under the system being piloted in China, people have actually been excluded from normal, everyday activities without any form of indictment or examination of the evidence to show they have contravened a specified law. Deified MAN now rules, using man’s creation: Technology. MAN no longer accounts to God.
The West is not immune from this mentality. Witness the extensive controls applied to combat the Covid 19 Virus in western democracies.
Prior to March 2020, even the scientists and specialists advocating extreme measures to combat Covid 19 doubted that such constraints could be introduced in western democracies because of the cultural and legal tradition of individual liberty.
I am shocked and deeply disturbed by the totalitarian measures taken by western governments to counter a threat the like of which has happened before [eg AIDS in the 1980s] but which no western government ever dreamed of containing so drastically.
It is a symptom of the dramatic shift in the mindset of the Materialist Western Intelligentsia. The presumption that the elite knows best in every way, on every matter, has now shoved aside all previous norms, including respect for responsible and intelligent adults who disagree with current official thinking.
It is a God-like attitude, and it reflects the nature of the abuse to which Law is now put. Law has become an instrument of the Materialist Religion. It reflects the mindset and values of that religion. It implements rules to ensure that its interpretation and its answers to problems are not only paramount, but that they are the only possible answers.
I was already middle aged when the Human Rights Act 1998 was passed into law in Britain. I was under the distinct impression that I lived in a free country, albeit one increasingly subjected to the hostility emanating from the politically correct mindset.
Today, Law is no longer simply a framework to define serious wrongdoing, or a mechanism to provide justice – including economic ‘justice’. In order to guarantee total Social Justice according to MAN centred ideas, it now redefines and constrains every aspect of thought and behaviour.
Politics concerns power. It concerns the manipulation of power; it concerns the legitimacy of authority; it concerns different ideologies which influence the direction and the way in which power is applied. It concerns control by certain human beings over other human beings.
Politics has an impact on us all, especially via laws, regulations and their enforcement. Politics becomes particularly significant for us all in times of crisis, or perceived crisis. Right now, politicians are telling us that there is a world crisis caused by Covid 19. Therefore they must take extraordinary powers to combat this mortal threat.
But what they are doing, how and why, throws into sharp relief the mindset and preconceptions at work in politics today. It throws into relief the nature of politics and the extremes to which it goes to claim control over our everyday lives.
Politics inevitably reflects the values and assumptions of the time. We see this today across a world now obsessed with Materialism, a Materialism which defies all other norms, traditions and national or cultural boundaries.
Such is the power of this religious philosophy that even places of worship were closed down in obedience to government. In a society convinced of God’s existence that is unthinkable; it is akin to treason against the Author of life itself. But in societies preoccupied by Materialism, the very idea of God is a superstitious, archaic irrelevance.
That is the problem with politics. The Creator does not exist, and therefore cannot help. Human beings alone can determine how to view the world and how to solve its problems.
That is a massive and fundamental shift of perception, of cultural paradigm and therefore of human action. Human beings alone now perceive issues, according to their predilections, desires and capabilities. God is irrelevant.
But of course for the God believing, God is at the centre of all. God is at the centre of this Covid crisis. God can solve this problem because God is the Source of life, God is the Sustainer of life, and God is the Summation of life. A crisis like this is not outside the perception and power of God – it is within God’s capacity either to prolong or to rescind this crisis. In fact, a crisis of such magnitude ought to tell us that God is telling us something.
God is telling us that God is God – not men. That if we want to solve our problems we must go to God. Mere men are finite and self absorbed. God is not. The key facts of the Covid crisis speak volumes about human shortcomings and inadequacy. And they point us to the fundamental need to observe God’s guidance, not shun it or mock it.
For example, humans have created this crisis. It sprang from the failure to contain the virus in China. Whether it originates in a laboratory, or whether it jumped from infected animals to humans in a wet market in Wuhan, it manifestly demonstrates the failure of human beings to behave responsibly. And the initial denial and cover up by the Chinese authorities merely confirms human failure.
This is all prima facie evidence of human failing. It is evidence of rebellion against God’s most basic Rules – Rules written in the moral conscience of every human being. The 9th Commandment of the Old Testament states explicitly, Thou shalt not bear false witness. The very 1st Commandment states, Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Politicians have usurped the place of god at every step of this crisis. From lying and cover-up through to taking away the freedom of thought and action from ordinary people over their own every day lives. GOVERNMENTS demand obedience to faulty policies and dubious practices, as if these were the fundamental Truths of our existence.
Governments shut down the places for the worship of our Creator. Such is their contempt for our Creator; such is their contempt for those who know their need of God.
Those who acknowledge their Maker, know that God has allowed such nonsense to grip governments. They know that human beings are manifestly foolish and deceitful. They know that the ultimate answer to this problem is not official propaganda and the vast profits of multi-national drug companies; it is not the desperate counter measures of control by closure – all of which merely makes the condition of our society, economy and politics far, far worse.
The foolishness of the self deified MAN takes one serious problem in one particular domain – ie healthcare – and multiplies it, creating a man made crisis across every other domain of life. The economic cost is yet to be ascertained, but we know it has undermined the position of millions of the already hard pressed poor. And we know, too, that it has fabulously enriched the richest on the planet – the very people who do not need yet more wealth.
What was a serious problem in the health domain has been turned by men who think they can act like God into an unprecedented and comprehensive disaster. But a disaster which human beings in governments continue to tell us was unavoidable, and they had no choice but to act like God.
Men have put themselves in the place which only God can occupy. They demand mastery over life and death. That prerogative no longer belongs to God. And the price they are prepared to pay is to sacrifice the livelihoods, individual dignity, and the liberty of countless millions.
By playing God, they demonstrate they are incapable of being God. Terrible consequences follow when mere men play at god. Yet they expect us not only to acquiesce in their foolishness, they demand that we obey unquestioningly. They demand we reject our Maker and reject God’s expectations. Instead, they demand we treat government diktat as divine – to be obeyed as if our lives depended on it !
They reject the most fundamental truth about our existence. God gave us life; God gives us life; God has the Right to take our mortal life.
Actually there is no problem with technology itself. The problem lies in the human psychology at work in the use of technology.
Now technology is what ? I use the term to describe all the mechanical artefacts of human beings. From smart phones and computers to cars and household gadgets like washing machines.
Now, I do not propose a return to a primitive and archaic lifestyle by abandoning all these “advances” in the application of science. Nor, indeed, do I advocate any form of objection to the enquiry and study of our natural, physical environment.
What I suggest is that we don’t know how to manage technical gadgets to our true benefit. We tend to abuse them, and so abuse ourselves. And in doing that, we begin to reconform ourselves according to an environment framed by humans, and not by God.
But is that really a problem ? Yes, it is. Because God understands what we are and what we need. Whereas human beings are prone to exploit to their own advantage.
Look at our children today. They are overwhelmed by gadgets. How many families today have witnessed the phenomenon of a child at the meal table preoccupied with their smart phone, ignoring social interaction ? How many children today have a computer and computer games in their own room without any parental oversight ? How many parents know the agonising struggle of trying to ween their children off such obsessions ?
Why do/should parents bother ? Answer: because many parents recognise the harm being done to developing minds. The habits being formed are reactive, not responsible. The machine dictates to the child, not the other way round. And it dictates because the child does not appreciate being manipulated according to the presumptions and paradigm programmed into the machine.
Now, we all have to adjust our behaviour to be able to make use of gadgets. We have to learn what we need to do to operate them.
But gradually those gadgets are determining how we think about the world and how we react. The social media phenomenon which began at the start of this century is a good example.
The algorithms are designed to serve the purpose for which the machine is set. Those algorithms are designed to facilitate communications. But human attitudes are not all that they should be. While algorithms can make no moral judgements, there are yet philosophical and moral assumptions made by those who design the algorithms.
Algorithms which identify your interests and can suggest related topics can be useful. But they can also influence your thinking to choose certain products and ignore or reject others. Certain products and services are too often suggested because the promoters pay to put them there. Those promoters finance the corporate concerns which supply your internet connections and platforms. The provider finds that payments to corporate promoters are vital to their operation.
The consumer is lulled into allowing their choices and reactions to be limited to what others have decided to offer. Few people trouble themselves to ask all the relevant questions and look at all the alternatives which may be available – both of which are necessary in order to make responsible choices for yourself.
We are surrendering both our independent and rational way of thinking and our range of choices to someone, and something else. In fact our consent is being engineered to correspond to someone else’s agenda. Corporate interests have been doing this for decades via television advertising, indeed via the choice and nature of programmes sponsored and available on traditional terrestrial television. The internet has reinforced that process in a very powerful way.
But whereas with television, the offer was simply put out there; there was no immediate means to determine who and why people watched or bought. But the internet has changed all that. Corporate concerns seek to guarantee their sales and thereby income for themselves and their investors. The internet enables them to identify who is watching and why. They build up psychological profiles of every person watching, and they can immediately pitch a product or service to them at the very point at which people are open to watch or buy.
This is revolutionary. It means that corporate interests and agendas can exploit our instincts and predilections immediately – at the most opportune time. It means that unless we take conscious control of this process, all the time, and identify the ways in which they do this, and consciously counteract it, then they will have control by default.
This manipulative and controlling psychology has penetrated and corrupted politics. We are now accustomed to political parties conducting focus groups in order to tailor their output and appeal in order to gain votes. They make promises expressly in order to get votes, but they are prepared to retract that promise once elected. It’s as if we pay for product before taking delivery, and then find ourselves obliged to take the shoddy or broken item which is subsequently delivered to our door. It is too late to send it back, and the decent goods are not actually there to send to us anyway !
Right now, politicians want to oblige everyone to be vaccinated against Covid 19 – regardless of the questions and evidence to the contrary. They have adopted the crude and insulting methods of “engineering consent” espoused by Edward Bernays. The French and the British governments both set up teams to devise and implement publicity programmes designed to solicit acquiescence and unquestioning obedience.
Intellectual debate plays no part in this one way process. We are to receive as Gospel Truth what the government says and therefore obey unquestioningly. It is tantamount to rule by diktat dressed up to make it look as though the required response is our own free choice.
In reality it is the imposition of the evil idea that they have the right to dictate our thinking and our reactions. It is the triumph of Man as god. The civilised mindset of life being God centred and God dependent is eradicated.
The problem with Theology is simple. It is no longer the study of God [theos = god; logos = word]. What was once a study or examination of the Christian God, now looks increasingly like an exercise in anthropology.
Like the rest of philosophy and academia in the formerly Christian nations, Theology today reflects the anthropocentric [human centred] mindset which prevails in the western Intelligentsia. The idea that God is anything more than a human superstition is regarded as ridiculous. So, the study of manifest superstition must necessarily default to a matter of comparing religions, not learning about God. Theology now examines the various human interpretations of religion; it no longer focuses on who God is and the ramifications of that for us.
So, the discipline or study supposedly concerned with God is now obsessed with Man and the phenomenon of religion. Indeed, it is now wrong to talk of “man” or refer to God as male. Theological insights must instead be derived from today’s human oriented perspectives and priorities. Hence, for example, Black Theology, Gender Theology and Liberation Theology. None of this, however, figured in the Christian and Jewish scriptures. Clearly, today’s intellectual priorities reject those of the past and impose their own perspectives.
It is now outmoded and intellectually inadequate to focus on concepts arising from the quintessential Truth of “I AM” – Creator, Sustainer, and moral Determiner. Such focus would oblige us to acknowledge our dependance on God for life and for guidance how to live. To acknowledge we are God’s creatures would oblige us to obey God – we must belong to God, and God must have all rights over us. We are beholden; we are not free from being spiritual dependents !
But Enlightenment thinking grants us that freedom to censor our reality. We are set free from superstitious conceptions like God. We now place God under the microscope and investigate religious ideas and practices for the fables we wish them to be. God as a concept has become peripheral; if we bother to consider it, we consider it only in terms of human wants and desires. Man now plays at god with God.
This problem has existed from the early Christian era. Explaining the Christian God according to the paradigm of human centred philosophy goes back to the early years of the Christian church. Tertullian [c.160 to c.225] was moved to defend faith and Scripture against the assumed superiority of Greek philosophy. Indeed we can chart the problem of subjecting theology to philosophy via 13th century Aquinas into modern times.
The 19th century produced serious attacks upon Christianity as a revealed religion. In the world of natural science, Darwin promoted Evolution, while in the world of theology Feuerbach argued that essential ideas of heaven and eternal life were merely projections of human desire – ergo not actually real.
Today in the 21st century, the attack upon a traditional, orthodox Christian perspective and paradigm has reached extremes. For example, in the University of Oxford, one theological institute now treats Critical Race Theory as Truth. White Racism is now original sin and to purge Anti-racism has become a quasi religious crusade where every domain of life must be purged of The Ultimate Sin – racism.
This is not surprising. When human beings become the final arbiters of morality, they inevitably pervert the true psychology and conception of our spirituality into something man oriented and dangerous. It is patently obvious to any normal person that such ‘anti-racism’ is perverse. It digs up the past to provide evidence against the descendents of those deemed to be the oppressors. The sins of the fathers are to be visited on their children. The desperately needed free Pardon no longer comes from God; it comes from the priesthood of atheistical fanaticism and can only be purchased by submitting to their counterfeit conception of sin and their method of continual confession to earn forgiveness.
Having now marginalised the self declared, self revealing God called “I AM”, the modern anthropocentric philosophy imposes a wholly new and terrible morality in its place. That moral system rejects the self evident truth of sin in every heart to impose instead “whiteness” as sin [a variant of Marxism].
This new, man generated and counterfeit creed displaces the fundamental theistic truth that all humans are both good and bad. We are all made in our Makers image, yet tainted by sin. Evil can never therefore be reserved to any particular type. It is a human condition which every human being is individually responsible to combat.