Resources

The Abolition of Man

If someone were to come to me and say that excepting the Bible, everyone on earth was going to be required to read one, and the same, book, and then ask what it should be, I would with no hesitation say The Abolition of Man.

So wrote Walter Hooper, C S Lewis' private secretary and now literary advisor to Lewis' estate. C S Lewis wrote this tiny book in 1943 with Nazism and Stalinism very much still alive. The sub-title to the book is "Reflections on education with special reference to the teaching of English in the upper forms of schools." Lewis was very wise. He saw that the general culture's ethos is, as someone has put it, "always embedded and embodied in the books we require our children to read, the books we use to teach them." So Lewis took an elementary English lesson text-book he was asked to review, and commented as follows regarding one chapter: the authors …

quote the well-known story of Coleridge at the waterfall. You remember [if you did English literature] that there were two tourists present: that one called it 'sublime' and the other 'pretty'; and Coleridge mentally endorsed the first judgment and rejected the second with disgust.

Then Lewis tells us that the authors of the text book comment as follows:

When the man said This is sublime, he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall … Actually … he was not making a remark about the waterfall, but a remark about his own feelings. What he was saying was really I have feelings associated in my mind with the word 'Sublime.

And the authors add:

This confusion is continually present in language as we use it. We appear to be saying something very important about something; and actually we are only saying something about our own feelings.

After more critical discussion of these authors and why they are wrong, C S Lewis says this:

The school boy who reads this passage in the … book will believe two propositions: firstly, that all sentences containing a predicate of value are statements about the emotional state of the speaker, and, secondly, that all such statements are unimportant.

A Professor and her daughter

All that was in 1943 book. Here is something from nearly 70 years later in 2009. It is a distinguished US Professor of Social and Political Ethics, writing about her daughter doing her homework while in a US state school; and at the same time she was writing about Lewis' The Abolition of Man.

The Professor tells us her daughter …

… was required to complete a work-sheet on distinguishing fact from value – values, of course, defined as subjective opinions having no cognitive status, hence no defensible truth warrants: pure positivism. She read aloud as she did this and as she was trying to figure things out. Her mother, myself, got a bit agitated as I tend to do when confronted with this sort of thing in the guise of education. To help her understand, I said 'Well, Jenny, if I say something is "wrong" does that mean I am stating a fact or a value?' – values [it was said], to repeat, being the things that we all have and, moreover, one cannot distinguish between them as they all come out of the same subjectivist stew.Predictably, Jenny answered that would be a value. I continued: 'Well, Martin Luther King said slavery was wrong. Suppose there is someone who said slavery is good and we should bring it back. Couldn't we say he is wrong and Martin Luther King is right and that slavery is bad, full stop?' Jenny was stumped for a moment, and troubled, and then she said: 'Well, I think slavery is wrong, too, but that is just my opinion.' Our discussion didn't end there. of course, but this experience reinforces Lewis's claim concerning the pervasiveness of the sorts of teachings he indicts in his essay.

Pierre Manent

And that has all come about because all that now holds authority in our society corporately, and what is more and more being "institutionalized", are science on the one hand, and liberty on the other. This is Pierre Manent's view and I find it a helpful way of looking at the modern world. He writes:

We, the citizens of a democracy … [now] recognize the authority of science in the theoretical domain and of liberty in the practical domain. These are the two most widely recognized authorities in our societies. Of course, some among us also recognize other authorities, such as, for example, the authority of a Church or a religious Law, and this recognition can lead to conflicts of authority. But the most compelling authority, the one that inspires our laws and, beyond the laws, sets the tone of our society, is indeed the twofold authority of science and liberty.

Is that not true? For "science" has come to be associated with truth; and "liberty" is generally recognized to be a good thing. So because of this general agreement, in the absence of common beliefs, these two authorities have come to dominate our lives. Manent goes so far as to say:

Our societies are organized for and by science and liberty. This is a fact and is, I believe, the main tenet of our present world.

However, he then goes on to ask:

But what do these great words "science" and "liberty" mean here? Are these notions not both hackneyed and vague? As for science, can we speak of science, when there are several sciences, very different from one another, and distinctions, and even oppositions, for example, between the natural sciences for which mathematics is an indispensable and essential tool and the human sciences that seem to resist mathematization. Do quantum physics and sociology, for example, equally partake of science? The ambiguities surrounding the notion of liberty appear even greater. Which liberty are we speaking of? Did some of the greatest conflicts of the past century [the 20th] arise from the fact that men conceived different ideas of liberty? What common ground is there, for instance, between the liberty of the liberals and that of the Marxists, except for the fact that each party declares that what the other party offers is nothing but slavery topped by imposture?

Science and Liberty

But having said all that there is a common intention in all science, and that is this. Its aim is to see the world as it is, not as it ought to be. It aims to remove from our thoughts all that we wish it to be. We want to see the facts and nothing but the facts. But that doesn't help you know what you are to do with that knowledge of those facts – to build atomic power stations or atomic bombs.

Then, of course, there are so many different types of liberty – religious, political and economic for a start. Also the concept of "liberty" is complex. For there is no absolute meaning to the word except "without restraint". It is, as what we call a "trouser word". To communicate a truth or a possibility it has to go with what it is free from, such as "slavery", or "a payment for a ticket" or, freewheeling and "not peddling" a bicycle, or "no longer in prison", or "to sit where you like" and so on. But in the modern public world it has come to mean that man is free from any over-lord. He is now sovereign and not God. That has, for a century or more, been true of man in his social world through democracy; it is now, married with science and with the horrific abuse that is transgenderism, true of man in God's created world, as well.

And all that is why we cannot go on for ever without the public challenge to this dominant world view. For as a world view it is without reason; that is it fails to give, in a satisfying way, an explanation of what is going on in life. For the static facts of science in no way answer fundamental questions about the purpose of existence and the true nature of mankind. But we have to be convinced of this ourselves. For there has to be a straight contradiction and no cognitive contamination, as I will explain.

Aristotle's Four Causes

Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, argued that for a satisfactory explanation you need to know four things – he called them "causes": one, an efficient cause; two, a material cause; three, a formal cause; and, four, a final or purpose cause. So, to take a very simple example, explaining a table satisfactorily: the efficient cause or what caused it to exist, answer - a machine or a carpenter; the material cause, answer - wood; the formal cause, or what it is, answer - a table (as distinct from the first part of a DIY cupboard you are making); and the final or purpose cause - answer, for eating off or writing on.

But with regard to human beginnings and human nature, natural science can never "scientifically" and satisfactorily explain us human beings in this space time universe, as Aristotle suggested. Science cannot provide efficient, formal or final causes. It can provide answers to the "material" aspect of human nature and explain much of our physical selves but little of our intellectual selves with their logic and language and nothing of our spiritual selves apart from the important fact that empirically "our hearts are restless until they find our rest in the God of the Bible" (to borrow from Augustine). So that is why, sadly, as we've seen, all sorts of other gods take our true God's place, or as it is more anthropologically likely, modify people's true intuitions of God to suite their own liking.

So convinced of the foolishness of the modern world, how do we begin?

Be definite over eternity

Let me quote Thomas White from his Metaphysics of Democracy:

A fundamental priority of the church in the modern world is to uphold the truth that the human being has a spiritual soul that is not subject to corruption at death and that has an eternal destiny, either for perennial happiness with God or for misery in perpetual alienation from God … This teaching has a number of important effects in a modern context. It underscores the irreducible dignity of the human being as distinct from other animals. It affirms man's true moral autonomy and freedom against all temptations to fatalism or materialism. It provides a fundamental metaphysical explanation of universal human equality and irreducible personal dignity. It shows that the temporal secular state cannot have final dominion over the destiny of the human person or over the competence of the Church. Most importantly, it establishes that man's true purpose is found in something that lies beyond the horizon of temporal existence in this life, beyond political life in civic society and the realm of empirical measures and sensate pleasures.So long as the Church's message to the modern world is one of accompaniment in view of purely material ends (clean drinking water, a more just distribution of resources, the stability and harmony of families [necessary as these are]), her services to the state may be welcome, but they will never be essential to human flourishing. What is not essential is optional, and what is optional over time will fade to oblivion. If the Church does not offer the human being more than life in this world, she offers the human being nothing that he cannot find elsewhere. By contrast, if there truly is a spiritual dimension to the human person, then not only is the spiritual adventure of human existence invested with transcendent purpose, but also that purpose is to be found in the smallest details of temporal and civic life. As Solzhenitsyn noted in his famous speech at Harvard in 1978, religion can subsist without democracy, but democratic polity in its modern form becomes hollow and fragile without reference to religious transcendence. The capacity to name evil and seek the good requires a moral code. A culture that cannot name God ceases to be able to name evil for what it is, and loses its capacity to name the ultimate good that can unite the aims of human beings to one another. Real progress is not measured by material technology, but by the advance toward spiritual life.

But how do you communicate that message Thomas White talks about, including heaven and hell in the real world?

Two Politicians

Let me give you the advice of two Christian politicians. They wrote a paper entitled In the Arena – practical issues in concrete political engagement.

Here are a few extracts from a long article:

Political engagement is hundreds of miles removed from polite, theoretical discussions of lofty principles [like I have just been giving you!]. It involves applying theoretical principles to very concrete, specific issues and situations where opinions differ, interests clash, and information is missing. Translating a framework of basic evangelical principles for political engagement – such as justice and freedom – into concrete political action is no easy task … History is littered with attempts of sincere, Bible-believing Christians to bend the political world in ways Christians now agree could not have been the will of a just God. One thinks of the crusades of Medieval Europe, the religious persecutions of the Reformation era, American slave owners using biblical references with which to justify slavery, and – more recently – the opposition of many white evangelicals to Martin Luther King Jr, and his efforts to bring about greater racial justice.These past errors stand as witnesses to the need for us to proceed with caution and careful thought when we take on the awesome task of applying basic biblical principles to today's swirling, confusing political world.

They then talk of some basic principles, such as, one, the sinful nature of the political world; two, the limitations of Christians engaged in the political world; and, three, the political world being downstream from culture. But what does "being downstream from culture" mean? It means, I quote:

to truly shape the direction of the nation, Christians must be strategically 'upstream' of politics. The options available to elected officials, whether of the legislative or executive order, are limited by public opinion, and public opinion is shaped by much more than political rhetoric. The elites in higher education, the news media, and the entertainment industry shape our worldviews – our hearts and minds – and are as much a determinant of political outcome as the men and women we elect to represent us in the political arena.

Some issues

But someone has to be first in standing firm publicly. The entertainers and many others will say that the laws and regulations of the legislators, and the directions from the management of the BBC, limit their options for clear witness to the truth (for example, BBC rules now require programme makers to have 8% LGB material). But surely, we all need to stand firm publicly and not to wait for others.

Then our two politicians get round to advising people who are full-time parliamentarians and cite a number of challenges. The first one took my notice. It was this:

First, Christians quickly realize that they must advocate in the public square for their positions using 'natural law' arguments that are accessible and persuasive to all. It does little good to argue for the sanctity of life using Psalm 139.13 when your opponent, or the public you are trying to convince, does not hold the Bible as authoritative. One must craft arguments that appeal to everyone, Christians or not. Although Scripture must always be our guide, we must be able to defend our position with arguments that resonate with those who do not share our reliance on the Bible. We can appeal to human beings' God given reason, the evidence God has placed in his creation, and the precepts he has written on all person's hearts (Romans 1.19-20).

But the trouble is those people referred to in Romans 1 already …

knew God … but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise they became fools" (Romans 1.21).

So when arguing in public for the sanctity of life in the context of abortion, you should use overtly Christian arguments, not only "natural law" arguments, as Paul did in Athens. He reminded his hearers of the true theistic intuitions of Greek poets and also affirmed Christian truth. For it too can be intuitively understood.

Regarding the sanctity of life in this context, you can preface what you say, with "I speak as a Christian." But you don't then have to be just "text quoting." No! But nor do you just quote the statistics of the number of women who have serious illnesses or addictions or breakdowns or divorce or a failure to conceive again etc, after abortions. But you say that you believe that human life is sacred because human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, and so deserve our respect; and the conceptus is not a potential human being but human with potential. For you believe that the pre-born child is human (and so killing it is murder) because the incarnation of Jesus Christ began with his conception, and Jesus reveals true man as well as true God; and also science now reveals that the conceptus contains the entire genetic material that is the new person developing. So the history of a person begins not with their birthday but their conception.

True humanism

And you explain you are a true humanist. The abortionist and the euthanasist in reality are promoting not humanism but animalism or even brutism. And you could finish your speech with a personal testimony of the virtue of the Christian position, such as the following from our Professor, who helped her daughter with facts and values. She writes:

In 2003, the eighteen year-old son of one of my cousins died. He was 'supposed' to have died when he was an infant. He was born anencephalic. He could never speak, nor feed himself, nor crawl, nor walk, nor do any of the normal things human beings generally do or learn to do. According to the doctors, there was no "there there." Aaron was definitely a prime candidate for euthanazing or, as the moral theorist Peter Singer candidly puts it (in approval), infanticide. But to anyone who met him, Aaron was a beautiful child with the biggest blue eyes and the most striking dark eye-lashes imaginable. He stared out at the world, making no apparent distinctions, until his mother came into view. Then his face would 'beam' or 'light up' – there is no other way to put it. He knew her and he loved her and I would deny anyone to claim otherwise. Her love and care and devotion kept him going for eighteen years. And when he died an entire family – parents, sibling, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins – and an entire community mourned their loss.

And the Professor concludes:

My cousin, Paula Jean, did not bemoan her fate. Nor did she curse God or wonder 'what might have been.' This had been given to her and she would do her job joyfully. In those eighteen years, this young man, who could not move on his own, never developed a bed sore. The story of Aaron and Paula Jean is a story of human endurance and receipt of the gift of grace.

Thank God for such people.