RAPID RESPONSE REPORT

 

DEFENDING HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

 

12/18/2000 ISSUE #8

 

Editor:  Bill Crouse

 

THE POSTMODERN VIEW OF MAN

 

Several months ago my wife (a high school science teacher) attended a national conference for science teachers in Orlando, FL.  In one of the plenary sessions the speaker opened his lecture by ridiculing Mr. Rogers (of the highly acclaimed children’s program on public television) for how he opens his program by telling the children they are special.  His point was:  man is not special.  For the PM the only difference between man and animals is quantitative, i.e., man has more brain cells.  To say that man has rights at the expense of another species is "specieism."  There are actually journal articles which refer to the rights of bacteria, trees and apes suing in a court of law, dolphins having "human" rights, etc.  We are not making this up!  One of the leaders in the movement to de-humanize man is the Princeton professor, Pete Singer.  The New Yorker calls him the most influential living philosopher.  While we might question that, he certainly sells a lot of books!  His book, Animal Liberation, has sold nearly a half a million copies.  He believes the political left, with which he identifies, should build its worldview primarily around Darwin and not Marx.  He takes some heat for this, but academia is clearly intrigued and in awe of the man who so blatantly defies the old western view of man (read Christian view).  For the PM, man, like everything else is a social construct, an extension of culture.  There is no such thing as personhood, reason and intrinsic human value.  Note the following quote:

 

"For three thousand years at least, a majority of people have considered that human beings were special, were magic.  It's the Judeo-Christian view of man.  What the ability to manipulate genes should indicate to people is the very deep extent to which we are biological machines.  The traditional view is built on the foundation that life is sacred....Well, not anymore.  It's no longer possible to live by the idea that there is something special, unique, even sacred about living organisms."

This quote is from Robert Haynes, president of the 16th International Congress of Genetics.  I found it in a terrific article from one of the guys (Jim Leffel) at the Xenos Center.  The article is: "Engineering Life:  Defining "Humanity" In a Postmodern Age."  You can find it here: www.xenos.org/essays/medeng.htm   There is a good article/interview with Pete Singer at the website of Reason Magazine.  This is the same periodical which so effectively critiqued B.F. Skinner's behaviorism a few decades ago.  While we do not always agree with the libertarian perspective of Reason, it often has provocative articles.  Here's the Singer interview:  www.reason.com/0012/rb.the.html

 

Of course this PM view of man presents them with some real difficulties.  If man is not qualitatively different than the animals, on what basis should we treat man differently?  There appears to be none, and it is easy to see why Singer believes we should treat a chimp with more regard than a human fetus.  Leffel in his essay says: "How, for example, can we speak of protecting human rights without identifying the bearer of those rights."  Though they dread hearing it, the Nazi dictum that there is some "life not worth living," is very PM.  Need we keep reminding our readers of the close affinity of PM and Fascism.  Mortimer Adler, editor of The Great Books, and author of about 50 books, anticipated this moral dilemma back in the 60's when he published what I believe to be one of his most insightful books, entitled: The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes.  As you might recall, about 10 years ago Adler announced that he had converted to Christianity.  I believe he was in his eighties at the time.  I personally believe that this ethical dilemma had something to do with his disenchantment with humanism.  The lesson here is that we should push PM's on this ethical issue--the basis for benevolence toward our fellow man.  I have a brief outline available surveying this subject which you might find helpful    www.fni.com/cim/briefing/humdif.html

 

Before we can converse with PM's about the subject of who man is, it stands to reason that we should be thoroughly familiar, not only with the PM view, but with the Christian view.  I think Francis Schaeffer's little book: Pollution and the Death of Man is a good survey of both sides of the issue.  Yes, the book is about ecology, but Schaeffer very wisely deals with the issue of man in that context.  It's still very relevant today.

 

OTHER ARTICLES OF NOTE

 

Nancy Pearcey just keeps churning out good articles.  She makes us all look bad with her productivity.  How does she do it?

 

In the light of the recent court decisions in the presidential election she has written "The Roots and Remedy of Judicial Imperialism:  Why Judges Make Law.”   In a PM world how do judges make legal decisions? www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?command=view&id=533&program+CRSC

 

The article by William Kristol and Jeffrey Ball that she quotes from ("Against Judicial Supremacy") can be found here:  www.weeklystandard.com/magazine/mag_6_12_00/kristol_bell_art_6_12_00.asp

 

In First Things, Pearcey reviews Pete Singer's new book on politics and Darwin A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation.  In this review, Pearcey says the real reason for Singer's emphasis on Darwinian evolution is that it frees us from an anthropocentric view of nature.  This is a fantastic article.  www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0010/reviews/pearcey.html

 

In Issue #4 of RRR    www.fni.com/cim/rapid/RRRFour.htm

 we reported that the Vatican issued a notice that all religions were not equal.  In fact, the declaration proclaimed the superiority of Catholic Christianity.  Our research indicated that this initiative was the work of Cardinal Ratzinger, who some have called "the Pope's bulldog."  Well, apparently he is now on a short leash and in the doghouse!  The Vatican just issued a counter declaration in which he proclaimed that heaven is open to all religions.  (www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000114832908976&rtmo=kCkYqkYp&at.../wpop08.htm

In response to the previous declaration, the Pope now says heaven is open to all as long as they are good.  This is in line with previous universalistic teaching of the RCC and the Second Vatican Council.  Now the Pope is not a PM, but the pressure to issue this clarification was certainly due the fuss that arose among multiculturalists.

 

Michael Medved, a notable critic of Hollywood, has written another piece to go along with his repertoire:  "Hollywood's Contempt for its Audience."  www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/medved2.asp

 

 

Finally, two articles about religion growing on university campuses.  The first is from the Los Angeles Times: "Faith's Social Reach: Academia is Getting Religion."  http://www.thedailycamera.com/livingarts/religion/28prese.html 

 

The second is from the Boston Globe: "Back to Nature, Paganism growing in Popularity on Nation's campuses.  For some strange reason the Globe eliminated this article from its archives.  It could be that the universities named in the article complained.  Before it was eliminated it was posted at this secondary site:  www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39fef0c825fd.htm  Since this is a secondary site beware of quoting from it in any scholarly publication.  I have the original, and the only difference I found was the date.  The article was first published in the Globe on Oct. 28, 2000

 

Next issue will be in January, 2001.  Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year from the CIM staff.

 

For Christ and His Kingdom