Bruce Charlton's Notions

Leftism is not a religion, it is an anti-religion; Leftism - like all religions, like all world views of any kind - is indeed based upon metaphysical assumptions.

The slur of accusing Leftism of being 'a religion' is that being 'a religion' is A Bad Thing. The implicit (if unarticulated) contrast is with the accuser's own world view - which is covertly assumed thereby Not to be 'a religion' but to be... what? 'Based on 'evidence', or 'observation', or 'facts' or something....

What the accuser is implying here is that a world view based upon basic assumptions is a religion - and that a religion is A Bad Thing because it is possible (and better) to have a world view that is Not based on assumptions, but based on evidence/ observation/ facts or whatever. 


This is the incompetence of the slur. Because all world views are actually and always based on metaphysical assumptions.

It is these assumptions that define and validate whatever counts as evidence/ observation/ facts. Because - for the accuser of another world view 'being a religion' - some things count as evidence/ observation/ facts and other things do not.

But how to tell evidence/ observation/ facts from the other things that are not really evidence/ observation/ facts? 


The usual (incompetent) answer is that these particular evidence/ observation/ facts under discussion) are validated by another bunch of evidence/ observation/ facts... OK, but what then validates those evidence/ observation/ facts?

In the end - if we are honest and competent, it is either an infinite regress which must be 1. false - or, 2. explains nothing - or else 3. 'infinite regress' is itself the metaphysical assumption!

Either one of them; or we get down to some metaphysical assumptions that are regarded as Just True.

But few people are competent thinkers, and even fewer are honest thinkers (the two are related, since competence follows honesty) - so people do not acknowledge the necessity of assumptions; and we get the accusation that "X 'is a religion' - whereas I personal am Not religious".


Therefore Leftism is Not a religion, but it is - of course - inevitably, based-upon metaphysical assumptions... But then everything is based on metaphysical assumptions - so saying 'Leftism is a religion' is either untrue, or thoughtless-meaninglessness parading as meaning; or else (too often) a dishonest attempt at propaganda.

The lesson? we all of us, every one, actually has a world view based on metaphysical assumptions that are unsupported by evidence/ observation/ facts.

The distinction ought-to-be between those who:

1. Acknowledge that they have metaphysical assumptions, and those who (ignorantly, incompetently or dishonestly) deny that they have metaphysical assumptions.

and...

2. Those who know their metaphysical assumptions, and those who - while they acknowledge their existence - do not know them.


For me (and this is one of my metaphysical assumptions) - our destiny (in The West, among adults who are psychologically mature enough to read this) is to first acknowledge, then become-aware-of, our own metaphysical assumptions.

By become-aware-of I do Not mean 'communicate to other people', nor do I mean even 'articulate to ourselves' - what I do mean is to become aware of, apprehend, grasp intuitively, our own metaphysical assumptions.

If so, then...

3. We need to reflect deeply upon our own actual metaphysical assumptions; and discern whether these metaphysical assumption Which We Personally Have are valid.

Or not.

*
The term 'metaphysics' refers to the most fundamental assumptions upon which Men base their explanations.

A metaphysical belief, therefore - and by definition, has no 'evidence' to support it: none whatsoever.

This means that in an unthinking, habitual age of 'science', empirical investigation and 'data'; any person's metaphysical assumption can be destroyed by pointing-out that there is 'no evidence' to support it. 

This is the strategy of Metaphysical subversion.


*

Metaphysical subversion is a false argument - because:

1. There never is any evidence to support metaphysical assumptions - else they would not be metaphysical assumptions; and

2. The concept of evidence is necessarily built upon metaphysical assumptions - all 'why-type' questions eventually lead to an assumption - even when, as in the case of 'science', these assumptions are seldom talked-of except to deny their reality or necessity.

I wonder how many millions of intellectuals and educated people have fallen for this rhetorical trick?

I certainly have!

*

We are born into this world, it seems, already believing in the supernatural, in gods/God, and believing that many features of our environment are alive and aware and purposive.

(I regard this knowledge as having been built-in.)

In other words, we naturally have in-place the necessary metaphysical assumptions to 'believe in God'.

*

In the modern West, these spontaneous inborn assumptions are attacked by the prevalent secular Leftist society; and they are attacked mostly on the basis that there is no evidence for our assumptions.

(There is no actual evidence against these natural metaphysical assumptions!; in the sense that there is no evidence against them which does not depend upon equally evidence-free metaphysical assumptions.)

The only 'respectable' position to hold in modern Western society is therefore that there is no evidence for the existence of gods/ God, because the assumptions which lead people naturally to believe in gods/ God have 'no evidence to support them'.

*

Having been mislead into abandoning his in-built metaphysical assumptions, having decided - in other words - to reject many of his own spontaneous beliefs about the nature of reality, modern Man then finds himself wondering why it is that God has failed to provide compelling, overwhelming, evidence of His existence!

(A trap: a fly bottle! Wander in, and there seems no way out!)

In other words, Modern Man decides to reject the evidence for the reality of God on the basis that this evidence rests on (natural, spontaneous, inborn) assumptions for which there is no evidence; Man therefore overthrows his in-built assumptions; finally Modern Man complains that there is 'no evidence' for the reality of God!

This is metaphysical subversion triumphant: completely incoherent, deeply dishonest, wholly lacking in rigour - and (almost-completely) successful!...

*

I am slowly and carefully re-reading Owen Barfield's Worlds Apart (1963) - one of his best books - which is a profound 'Platonic dialogue' between characters representing different philosophical and scientific viewpoints. 

I have just worked through sections in which Linguistic Philosophy, and then Freudian Psychoanalysis, are expounded: firstly in all their irrefutable nature, as if each 'must be' true; and then revealed to be wholly a product of assumptions that have been chosen.  

This is how it is - at least in our era: we choose our reality by choosing our fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality (i.e. metaphysics; which is that philosophy which is concerned with the deepest assumptions of the nature of reality). 

Choosing and accepting different sets of assumptions leads to different world views - each of which is irrefutable once entered. If you have ever talked with a Marxist, Freudian, or SJW - you will know that there is no possible evidence that does or could refute their system - once the assumptions of that system are accepted; and, indeed, exactly the same applies to a Christian of any denomination, or to adherents to other religions. 

The conclusion is that our relationship with the world is rooted in metaphysical assumptions, and these assumptions are chosen... Thus we choose our reality. 

So what determines our choice of assumptions? Why does somebody choose one reality rather than another? In particular - why do so many people choose assumptions about reality that lead to a miserable, futile, meaningless, demotivated life? 

To be specific, and to take a mostly-past example, why did so many people (especially Americans) choose to believe Freudian Psychoanalysis was the truth about reality; when that reality was so utterly nihilistic? 

Those who chose the metaphysics of psychoanalysis could, in principle, have chosen assumptions that sustained purpose in life, life beyond death, and a meaning in life that included real and eternal relations with other Men, Nature and God... Yet all this was rejected in favour of embracing psychoanalysis...

As an up-to-date example we have the dominating, hegemonic, political attitude of 'leftism' (including All mainstream political groupings and parties) - which again is rooted in metaphysical assumptions that see human life as purposeless, meaningless, and oppositional (rather than creative) in its ultimate nature. 

Why would anybody - so many hundreds of millions of people - choose to believe assumptions that lead to such a pointless and worthless concept of their own (and everybody else's) life?

I think we can see the answer in terms of a basically perverse attitude, that regards anything bleak and depressing as thereby true. 

There is a prior, and unconscious/ unarticulated, assumption that anything true, beautiful and virtuous is a fake. 

This is the idea that has, for the past century, sustained high-status art and literature which is overwhelmingly (and deliberately) hope-less and hope-destroying, disgusting... Which assumes that life is futile and seeks to reveal the selfishness, hedonism, manipulation that lies beneath all apparent 'good'. 

In other words; people in The West overwhelmingly choose to choose a reality in which evil is true, and Good (and God) are fakes. And they regard anything else as childish, ignorant, deluded - or some kind of fraud. 

Where does this attitude come from? I believe that it is rooted in the pre-mortal nature of those people who are incarnated in the modern era; amplified by evil-choices un-repented, and reinforced by the society which these people have built. 

In other words, the ultimate cause is the innate nature of Men; but Men are free agents; and their disposition does not dictate their choices. Yet men have, overwhelmingly, chosen to make choices to disbelieve in God, the soul, the spiritual world; and more recently to reject God and favour the side of the devil. 

Men are not naturally Christian, but have chosen actively to reject Christianity, including the promise of eternal resurrected life - and to regard it as an evil which should be eradicated. 

Thus Men who were born with a greater disposition to evil, and a lesser spontaneous knowledge and experience of the divine, have amplified (rather than repented and worked against) these traits; which is why Men (in the West, primarily) have overwhelmingly and increasingly chosen to believe nihilistic metaphysical assumptions. 

My conclusion is that people actually choose the reality they live-by (whether consciously, or mostly unconsciously); and most people in The West have apparently made the choice to believe ultimate assumptions about reality that lead to the conviction that life is futile and without coherence, and is extinguished at death.

This, in turn, leads to a conviction that there is nothing to be learned from life, that the short-term is the only dependable reality, and that our personal state of happiness/ pleasure (or misery/ pain) is the only reality that really matters. 

There is no long-term (especially not eternal) purpose; so there is no long-term or strong motivation. 

There is no reason to remember experience (because our reality is not permanent in value), and no possibility of valuable learning (because here-and-now is the only dependable truth) - therefore people try (as best they may) to live in the present, and to live in accordance with... whatever incentives are most dominant in the present.  

So far it seems that our dispositions tend to dictate our choice of assumptions; but of course we are (by our nature) free agents and able to choose differently. 

But we can choose differently only if we are consciously aware of the fact of our choosing. 

If we are unaware that there are metaphysical assumptions, and that we have in fact chosen to believe some assumptions rather than others - then we are trapped; because the assumptions dictate what counts as evidence. 

Freudianism (or Marxism, or Scientism, of Christianity...) explains all possible 'evidence'; therefore only when the Freudian realizes that he has chosen to believe this and this as his assumptions concerning the nature of reality, is he then able to choose differently. 

What might be his motivations for choosing differently? 

Well, at one superficial level he might want to choose the beliefs that sustain the 'happiest' possible life, in which there was present those motivations that are subjectively most satisfying. But in practice, that does not seem to work - modern men are pre-immunized against this; by the assumptions that such happiness-seeking people are mindless, gullible fools; or else cunning manipulators.  

We cannot, of course, make an appeal to 'the truth' because that is begging the question: The Truth is precisely what needs to be established by choice of assumptions. Once someone has already made a choice of assumptions (and this applies to all post-adolescents), then 'the truth' of whatever he has chosen is confirmed by all subsequent experience. 

I think the only possible motivator to change assumptions is intuition, that deepest and most ineradicable of evaluative inner convictions. 

If the Freudian can get to the point of recognizing and becoming aware of his own primary assumptions and the fact that he has chosen to believe them rather than other assumptions; then intuition can (and will) get to work on them.

All assumptions are chosen in modernity - yet intuition recognizes some as arbitrary while others 'ring true'; some assumptions are dead, inactive, unsustaining - while others awaken motivation, creativity - and Love. 

Perhaps Love is The most important thing. Anyone who is capable of Love and values Love; will find his intuition working on his own core assumptions, evaluating them in terms of Love. 

And it is Love that leads a Man to reject the assumptions of Psychoanalysis, Linguistic Analysis, Scientism, Leftism etc... (i.e. recognizing them as love-denying, love-less and love-destroying assumptions) and which begins to move his choices towards Christianity...

And - by Love - within Christianity; his chosen assumptions will move towards that true Christianity that was exemplified and taught by Jesus Christ - rather than the errors and perversions of Men.

Kristor, of The Orthosphere, is very good at expounding his own metaphysical assumptions (which are essentially those of Thomistic Roman Catholicism); but when it comes to making a comparative evaluation of different metaphysical "systems"... well, he just doesn't ever do it!

Kristor is an old internet pal, going back to the time before I was a Christian, and we interact affectionately offline. Indeed I would regard him as a pen-friend, a good person, honest and trustworthy and (so far, at least) On the Right Side in the spiritual war of this world!

But for more than a decade this matter of what it is to conduct a metaphysical enquiry is one concerning which I have been apparently (across multiple online interactions) utterly unable to get across my argument.

In a recent post; Kristor discusses the matter of whether reality is ultimately one (monism) or many (pluralism). By his argument, Kristor apparently supposes that he has logically rejected pluralism as in essence incoherent, therefore necessarily wrong. 

Yet what he has done in his discourse is merely to demonstrate that when someone has accepted the assumptions of monism - then swapped-out the assumptions that everything is one and replaced it with an assumptions of pluralism, the result does not make sense. 

I say again: Kristor believes he is conducting a metaphysical enquiry and comparing different metaphysical systems - but he is not. 

In actuality he is just expounding his pre-existing metaphysics, rooted in pre-existing assumptions (and I assert they are assumptions) concerning the fundamental nature of reality. And then Kristor is correctly demonstrating that his Thomism becomes incoherent if one was to introduce pluralism into it... 

Which is - of course - true! Pluralism does not (and cannot) cohere with an otherwise monist metaphysical system! 

Kristor's argument does not at all mean that pluralism is necessarily incoherent; for example when pluralism is one part of a different set of fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality.

I think the fundamental reason why I "cannot get-through" to Kristor on this matter, why we keep having the same non-argument over and again, is that he regards his own metaphysical assumptions as necessarily true; and this blocks his ability (and interest) in making any other assumptions - even for the purposes of philosophical debate. 

And perhaps Kristor regards his own assumptions as necessarily true because he does not acknowledge that they lead to any fundamental problems. 

For example, I think he does not acknowledge the ineradicable depth of the problem of explaining genuine free agency for Men in a reality conceptualized as created from nothing by an "omni-God". Nor do I think Kristor appreciates the ineradicable depth of the problem of accounting for the existence of evil in a reality wholly-created by a wholly-Good (and omnipotent) God.  

And, to speculate further! - I think Kristor does not acknowledge the depth of these problems, because he is satisfied by those abstract and complex "answers" provided by Thomism. 

And (to complete the circle) these are answers that themselves assume the metaphysical primacy of abstractions. 

(As examples; Kristor - following traditional RC teaching - assumes the fundamental and necessary truth of God's omniscience/ omnipotence/ omnipresence (etc) - and these are abstractions. Similarly; creation-from-nothing (ex nihilo) is assumed to be necessary, and that is an abstraction. More fundamentally; Kristor's understanding of God as God, is an abstract one: his understanding of God is in terms of the definitional necessity of God having certain abstract attributes - such as those above.) 

Although we can note that such a focus seems to date from early in the history of Christianity (albeit there is no evidence of it in the contemporary eye-witness account of the Fourth Gospel) we can still ask why is it that abstraction occupies such a fundamental position in Christian metaphysics? 

And our answer will depends on further assumptions regarding the nature of Christianity. For Kristor (and apparently for most Christians since some time after the ascension of Jesus) there can be no such thing as Christianity except from within the perspective of The Church (however that "The" is defined). 

For Kristor; "The" Church just-is Christianity; and this is not a matter for legitimately Christian metaphysical enquiry. To challenge or doubt what has been assumed for maybe 1900 years; makes no Christian sense: to do so is simply Not to be a Christian. 

To assume (as I do) that "being a Christian" is a primary reality that has no necessary link to any particular metaphysical assumptions; and no necessary relationship to any church in general or particular; does not for Kristor imply the legitimate possibility of further enquiry - but invites explanation in terms of ignorance, insanity or sin. 

This is related to other matters concerning what Christians ought to be doing, here-and-now. 

For Kristor; Thomism is just true, the nature of Christianity derives from the truth and necessity of the RCC; and therefore all legitimately Christian futures must build upon these. 

But for me; this version (as I regard it) of Christianity has deep metaphysical problems, that require better metaphysical solutions (or else, Christianity will continue to disappear). For me; "modernity" has been - in part - an increased conscious awareness of the unsatisfactory nature of traditional Christian (e.g. monist, omni-God, abstract) understandings of human freedom and the origins of evil. 

I regard metaphysical awareness and enquiry as non-optional, as absolutely necessary if Christianity is to avoid (what I see as) the long-term, relentless, and accelerating trend of either explicit or de facto apostasy; which (for me) was made evident in 2020 - when all the Christian churches (including RCC) willingly (and without later repentance) subordinated themselves to the globalist agenda of totalitarian evil. 

So! These apparently trivial interpersonal debates between myself and Kristor - or, failures to debate, as I regard them - are like the tip of an iceberg of differences; that I regard as ultimately sustained by a deep and long-term problem of wrong metaphysical assumptions about Christianity being instead regarded as necessary and true metaphysical assumptions. 

Note added: 

Kristor responded to this post here. 

@Kristor - I - like you - reject "radical ontological pluralism" - as being incoherent - so everything you say about that subject is (I'm afraid) irrelevant.

Instead, you can and should assume that I regard every single theologian of the past as significantly in error; and that there really is nobody else who has the same metaphysical assumptions as I do.

You are candid enough to acknowledge your assumption that since I am in a minority of one, therefore I must necessarily be wrong - so (from your perspective) there is no point in wasting time on finding out what I do believe!

I don't blame anyone for ignoring anything - we are each responsible for our own salvation, primarily. But I personally believe that this attitude of seeking truth in (some kind of) consensus of past and status, is both anti-Christian (in the sense of being opposed to what Jesus said and wanted), and (here and now) a guarantee of choosing the wrong side in the spiritual war of this world.

(We are not so alone nor so ignorant as you assume! Much true knowledge is born into us as children, and God has ensured that each of us has sufficient wit to discern his own salvation - with the personal guidance of the Holy Ghost. God would surely not have been so foolish as to depend upon each and every person getting good guidance from his external social environment!)

But, there again we are up against utterly different basic assumptions! Yours is that anything true and important on the subject of Christian theology has already been said - and therefore truth should be sought among external authorities.

My assumption is that the prime reality of our life of salvation and theosis is rooted in a personal relationship between ourselves and Jesus Christ, and that we not only can but must (post-mortally if not before) take personal responsibility for our ultimate choices.

You complain that I do not explain myself in the comments sections of blog posts. True enough! I have given up on that mug's game!

Instead; I have written hundreds of blog posts (as well as the Lazarus Writes mini-book) over the past decade, explaining and re-explaining my metaphysical assumptions and arguments from as many different angles as seemed helpful - and as simply and clearly as I am able.

I have also addressed the specific critiques you make. But I expect you would not find my points acceptable - exactly because your basic assumptions are so completely different.

(For example, your discourse takes place outside of Time/ Time-less/ in simultaneity of Time (sub specie aeternitatis); whereas I assume that Time is (as it were) intrinsic to reality (because the pluralism of primal reality is made of Beings, and Beings are living and "dynamic" conscious entities). Therefore, for me, all fundamental explanations require allowance for Time. This has many consequences. For instance, I believe we began with pluralism, with many uncoordinated entities; and God's creation - which is happening in Time - has-been and is progressively imposing "unity" or cohesion upon that primal "chaos". For me, this explains why both oneness and pluralism, creation and chaos, are part of our mortal experience.)

It's all there, on my blog, for anyone who is interested - of which only a handful of people have been, but those few seem to understand me accurately enough. And if someone is Not interested - well, that's his business, but not mine. After all, my main motive in writing so many hundreds of posts per years, is to clarify and critique my ideas for my benefit. The readers are mostly just looking over my shoulder.

In sum, you have clearly set-out some of the Many reasons why you do not want to engage with what I actually believe. You feel no Need for it, and already assume I Must Be wrong.

While, on my side, my unique theology has happened only because I have already (to my own satisfaction) known and rejected that which you regard as true.

What I am saying is that our decisions rule-out any genuine metaphysical discourse - which explains why this has never actually happened!

While it only takes one side to make a war - it takes at least two people to have a metaphysical discussion!

Let us understand that a skyhook is a "mind-first" force or power or process, an exception to the principle that all design, and apparent design, is ultimately the result of mindless, motiveless mechanicity. A crane, in contrast, is a subprocess or special feature of a design process that can be demonstrated to permit the local speeding up of the basic, slow process of natural selection, and that can be demonstrated to be itself the predictable (or retrospectively explicable) product of the basic process.

From Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel C Dennett, 1995, The full argument can be read on pages 73-84.


Dennett's Skyhook argument/ joke is famous and popular among 'Skeptic'/ atheists - the sort of person who finds it endlessly amusing to refer to Christianity as a cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - as a put-down of religion.

However, if you review the argument and reflect on it, what it amounts to is a denial that metaphysical assumptions are necessary. That metaphysical assumptions are skyhooks, hence nonsense.

By calling them skyhooks, metaphysical assumptions of any and all kinds are being mocked as imaginary, arbitrary, impossible. incoherent, ridiculous.

By contrast, natural selection is put forward as a theory without metaphysical assumptions - here terned a 'crane': that is a theory that builds entirely from the evidentially-known ie. from science. A crane is therefore, is asserted not to be based on any metaphysical assumptions at all.

'Cranes' are an example of metaphysical denialism.

The assertion is made that there exists a 'crane' mechanism for progressive change that does not require any metaphysical assumptions; and - unlike a 'skyhook' a crane is real and actually works...

Whether Dennett truly believes that natural selection in particular, and science in general, are (somehow?) not built-upon metaphysical assumptions is unclear to me.

But I don't think Dennett really cares whether his argument is true; because his motivations are quite obviously, and gleefully, destructive of Christianity in particular and religion in general. To club them to death, any false argument is welcome.


In reality - Dennet must be ignorant, dishonest or evil - or some combination thereof. And Dennett's self-styled skeptik/ atheist fanboys likewise.

If we want to name-call metaphysical assumptions 'skyhooks', then everybody and all theories and all ideologies are necessarily hanging-from skyhooks all of the time - the difference is that some religious people recognise and acknowledge their assumptions, while atheists Never Do.

Modern Man's fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality (that is - his metaphysics) is By Far the most important reason for the continued and increasing rule and domination of evil in this world.

This is because Metaphysics Rules! (OK?)

Over the long term, and irresistibly, how we regard the fundamental nature of reality will dissolve anything that contradicts it. 

I see people all over the place, in daily life and writers, who are flailing-around and going around in futile circles; because they are trapped by metaphysical assumptions of which they are unaware, or deny to be assumptions (but instead regard as "facts"). 

Their intuitions, hopes, aspirations, insights, instincts, logic, may point away from the mainstream ideology; but these are all eroded and made-ultimately-irrelevant by the deeper conviction arising from ultimate assumptions: "But, it's not real!"

All the potentially good things in life (e.g. beauty, virtue and morals, truth, coherence, relationships) are continually undermined by corrosive convictions of that have become primary assumptions: 

There is No God; this universe is Not a Creation but made by "physics", "mathematics", "evolution"; there exists only The Material realm (nothing spiritual, no divine); every-thing that ever happened was either utterly random, or else determined by physical cases.   

And these, and other similar, assumptions structure reality; so that people cannot help but regard life as without purpose or meaning. 

Unless these metaphysical assumptions are changed - then nothing else matters in the long run; anything else - any other changes or aspirations - will be destroyed. 

But metaphysical assumptions cannot be removed; they must be replaced. 

This is because we do not and cannot consciously live without metaphysics. It is not possible; because all meaning, action, purpose... depends on assumptions. Without these is only chaos.  

And this means that people will-not, they cannot, give up their current metaphysics; until they are able to replace it with another metaphysics. 

Which is why our situation is so difficult! People hold themselves in a double-bind. They will not first give-up their current metaphysics because it explains everything already. They will not adopt another set of fundamental assumptions because - from their current POV - any other metaphysics is just arbitrary, false and... wrong!

To happen, metaphysical change needs to be simultaneous. As the one dissolves, the other takes its place.  

(This is a "conversion experience.")  

Everybody has already experienced this, because we are born and spend early childhood with very different assumptions; and during childhood and adolescence have absorbed mainstream modern materialist metaphysics from our social situation.     

But that was passive and unconscious; and thus seemed like "reality" - seemed like The Facts - seemed an inevitable consequence of growing more mature, informed, intelligent; and came from externally, from "authority" and from "experts", and was endorsed by all the institutions with power, wealth and high status. 

Whereas from here and from now; what needs to happen is conscious and active - thus inwardly initiated and sustained; and has aspects of becoming more childlike ("immature") and simple-minded ("dumb") and apparently arbitrary ("crazy"). 

Metaphysical replacement is also something done alone - there aren't people, or organizations (not even churches - except partially and therefore incoherently) that encourage it - because that is the nature of the modern world. Modernity is built on modern metaphysical assumptions. 

You see the depth of the problem? You see why so many people and organizations are embarked on a strategy of self-destruction and chaos? You see why this multi-generational trends has been to very resistant to change and reverse? 

They are simply manifesting their metaphysics. 

The good news is that the answer is in our own hands, each and all of us... 

And that is the bad news as well. 

Probably the single most important thing that modern people needed to do in the 20th century, was to wake-up to their own fundamental metaphysical assumptions: for each person to become consciously aware of their primary beliefs concerning the nature of reality - and then to discern and make a commitment about whether these ought to change. 

Man transformed through the twentieth century (although the change began earlier, and continues). But the transformation was at an unconscious level - a matter of instincts, motivations and gratifications. 

This transformation was un-conscious, it affected Men whether they acknowledged it or not; because the transformation was deep, it made changes in many superficial ways to do with attitudes, motivations, gratifications and behaviours.

Most Men did not awake to this transformation - that is, they did not become consciously aware of it in relation to their own metaphysical assumptions. 

Most Men either denied the transformation - asserting that Man was the same as ever, and Men who had changed ought-to revert to how they had-been. These were 'traditionalists' broadly-conceived. 

Or else Men simply accepted the change at the level of surface changes in attitudes, motivations, gratifications and behaviours. These changes were justified (regarded as 'a good thing') post-hoc and without personal evaluation; explained and rationalized by means of concepts drawn from the surrounding culture. 

These concepts were (overwhelmingly) materialist, atheist, leftist in nature.

Because individuals remained 'asleep' and unaware; they could not (would not, did not) discern and choose the expression of underlying (instinctual) transformations; because they had no deep basis for comparison - because they were not aware of their own deepest and most important assumptions*.

Traditionalists found themselves in a situation where Men had changed, they themselves had-changed, at an instinctual level that altered the basis set-up of human behaviour; yet they tried to re-impose traditional behaviors upon deeply transformed human beings. 

In other words, by failing to become awake and aware of their own deepest assumptions, they necessarily regarded traditionalism as a surface-level phenomenon - consisting of prescribed principles, rules, actions etc; which they intended to re-impose on the altered instinct-level changes of modern Men. 

Unsurprisingly, this pseudo-traditionalism (of the surface, but not the instincts) utterly failed - it never happened anywhere. It was just a theory. 

No person and no society genuinely reverted to a traditional way of being. Because the most that could be achieved was surface conformity to prescribed principles, rules, actions etc. Yet old-type ways applied-to new-type people; was a very different matter from old-type ways arising-from old-type people. 

The feeble superficiality of traditionalism was evident when the power of global totalitarianism waxed in 2020; and the traditionalists almost wholly embraced the agendas of materialism/ atheism/ leftism. And, because they remained asleep and unaware of their own metaphysical assumptions; they could not even perceive their assimilation to evil purposes. 

What was, and is, needed is a spiritual awakening in terms of individuals becoming aware of their own actual and basic metaphysical assumptions; the assumptions they make about the fundamental nature of reality. 

When these are brought to awareness, they can be evaluated - the individual can make an active choice of whether to embrace or reject each (and the totality of) their current assumptions.  

If this deepest of levels is reached, then the more superficial changes at the level of human instinct (i.e. our set-up in terms of motivations, attitudes, gratifications etc) can be observed, and also evaluated - and we can see that the true implications of such changes are Not Necessarily those of mainstream/ materialist/ atheist/ Leftism. 

For example, Men have indeed instinctually changed in terms of sexuality - but when one has chosen to commit to a Christian metaphysics; such changes are no longer the deepest level. Behaviour is experienced as arising-from deep assumptions, and secondary to them. Thus we can evaluate our lives, and the choices of living. 

The surface level of observable behaviours and socially-imposed rules is no longer regarded as primary - our actions are no longer definitive - but seen in context of large and over-arching aims such as salvation and theosis. 

No specific action (considered in isolation) has innate meaning and value; actions are instead known as part of the larger purpose of life. We no longer accept an action merely because we instinctually desire it; nor do we reject it merely because it breaks a set of external rules. Ideally; we know its value as an unique phenomenon in an unique situation. 

We cease to regard Christianity in terms of lists to be obeyed or else rejected; and instead understand it as an harmonious path through mortal life, and aimed at resurrected eternal life. 

 

*Note: Mainstream modern materialist leftists typically deny that they have any metaphysical assumptions; indeed they may deny the validity of metaphysics. They say their basic assumptions come from science/ evidence - but what they really mean is that they have absorbed them passively, unconsciously, from external sources. Much the same, but for different reasons, applies to traditionalists. They may know their own metaphysics, but do not accept that these are personal assumptions. Instead they absorb them from external sources, as part of a religious 'package. What they fail to do is distinguish the metaphysical assumptions from the religion itself; and they do not isolate the assumptions and examine each by discernment before endorsing and committing-to them. The traditionalist need to dig deeper until he finds himself explicitly conscious of the primary personal acts of discernment that underpin any religious 'package'; and must acknowledge that here he is confronted by a pure act of intuition - for which he is required to acknowledge absolute personal responsibility. 

It is common and perhaps normal for modern people to find Christianity, or indeed any kind of religion or serious spirituality, unbelievable. Although sympathetic, they just cannot make themselves believe it.

This is understandable but a basic error - understandable because from the perspective of nomral modern thought then all religions is unbelievable, and error because this perspective a simply assumes the validity of the metaphysics of modernity.

In practice, nearly all serious reflection, or philosophy, is comparative rather than absolute - or, at least, that is how most people understand and express it. Indeed, to be comparative - genuinely - is a level of intellectual sophistication far beyond that of most experts.

When it comes to the basic assumptions about reality (i.e. metaphysics) this is even stronger; there are very few people who even try to do a from-within comparison of two different sets of metaphysical assumptions. Indeed, the tendency is nearly always to deny that these are assumptions and to assert that the assumptions are an inevitable consequence of observation and experience.

For example, the assumption of 'materialism' or positivism: this assumes that the only real things are perceptible by the five senses (vision, hearing, sight, touch, taste) and amplifications of these senses by scientific instruments (either directly detected or else indirectly inferred - sometimes very tenuously, in practice).

The materialist assumption is that something which is undetectable, unmeasurable, by the sense or scientific instruments does not exist. This is the assumption of all public discourse - in politics, the mass media, education, within institutional and corporate communications etc,

Consequently, all assertions of the reality of non-material entities are known for certain in advance to be un-true - therefore merely need to be 'explained-away' as errors of human psychology. Thus, modern metaphysics divides the world into the real versus the psychological - the psychological is a rag-bag of wishful-thinking, stupidity, deliberate deception, inbuilt biases etc. In practice, psychological causes are imprecisely allocated, because of their unreality - why bother being exact when we already know they are false?

*

The materialist assumptions of public discourse are only half the story, however; because there is another metaphysical system which operates simultaneously - and that is the primacy of psychology. This is the idea that although materialism is really-real, it is also trivial or irrelevant and psychology is the most important reality. This is the metaphysics of communism, of political correctness, indeed of mainstream modern politics of all types including supposedly 'right wing' and libertarian.

*

Therefore most people operate tow sets of metaphysical assumptions, and switch back and forth between them in an unprincipled fashion - if challenged on one basis, they switch to the other, and deny that they have switched.

If pushed, they will assert that the one arises from, and is linked to, the other - that psychology is rooted-in the material: that such and such material conditions will produce such and such psychological consequences. This is indeed the basis of the mainstream modern morality of utilitarianism - that the goal f politics is to minimise suffering and optimise happiness of the population. But this further assumption is not examined nor defended - it is simply a pseudo-answer to a potentially-devastating question.    

*

My point here is that the mainstream modern metaphysics, the basic assumptions from which nearly all modern people judge the world - is hardly compelling, even when regarded in isolation. But when evaluated in a comparative fashion, with the assumptions of religion, the relative weakness is immediately apparent.  

Such an evaluation can only be done by recognising that the basis lies in assumptions, by changing one's assumptions, and then by looking-at-life from that new perspective.

That is a necessary first step, but very seldom done. Only after that step has been done - and the world has been experienced from a different metaphysical base - is one in a position to make a choice between metaphysical assumptions.

On what basis is that choice? Well, there is a level of human evaluation which is non-metaphysical - and it is from that pre-metaphysical level that a choice can be made. This pre-metaphysical, non-theorised level of evaluation could be termed intuition, or gut-feeling, or 'the heart' - or natural and spontaneous common sense... but whatever it is called, it is the bottom-line and basis from-which we can choose our assumptions.

It is on this sense that Socrates was speaking when he asserted that the 'un-examined' life was not worth leading. The ancient Greek philosophers were metaphysicians; consequently they were engaged in exactly the activity I have described above - that is, they were examining, or evaluating, their basic assumptions by exploring from inside, and comparing, their consequences.

Once one has done this, then it is clear that very, very few people have done this; and the opinions of someone who has not done this are not compelling - because they don't know any better but have merely passively-absorbed their assumptions: they are in no position either to critique or to defend their assumptions.
 

Metaphysics refers to a person's ultimate beliefs - or more accurately his assumptions - about how reality is structured and works. 

These primary assumptions are usually implicit rather explicit; and that they are assumptions is usually denied (claiming instead that they are logically-entailed or based on overwhelming evidence). 

What I am seeing in these End Times, is that every person's superficial 'beliefs' and self-identifications are being stripped-away and his metaphysical assumptions are being revealed. 

This seems to be striking among self-identified Christians. A large number are being revealed as simply Not Christian - in the sense that they are merely using Christian language to live by mainstream atheistic, materialist, Leftist and anti-Christian assumptions. 

But among serious Christians of all denominations there is a gap opening between those whose primary loyalty is to their church - and whose core ethic is obedience to that church; and those who have taken ultimate responsibility for their own Christian faith.  

This is interesting because there are very large differences among and between the belief systems of Eastern and Western Catholics; and Protestants such as Anglicans, Methodists or Calvinists; and churches such as Mormons. 

Yet brought to a point by the events of 2020-21, in and among all of these there is this division that has opened-up between those serious Christians who are primarily obedient to the church authorities, and those who evaluate and judge their own church according to personal discernment. 

At a metaphysical level; this relates to a primary assumption concerning the nature of Man. Among those who put obedience to their church as primary; there is the assumption that the relation between each Man and God must be mediated by a church if it is to lead to salvation and theosis. 

That 'I' needs 'the' church, but the church does not need me. The church has a mystical reality and primacy that does not depend upon its 'members'. This precisely because God has made the church essential to each Man - so therefore God will sustain the integrity of the church, no matter what. 

Among those whose faith is based on personal discernment is the assumption that salvation and discernment are a matter that is primarily based on a direct and unmediated relationship between each Christian on the one hand - and God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost on the other hand. 

That 'I' do not need the church. The church may be helpful - even very helpful - but may be harmful. The church has no mystical reality distinct from its members; so that any church has the potential to become as corrupt as any other human institution.  

By this account, God's promise of the availability of salvation and the possibility of theosis is made to each individual, and not to the mystical-church. So that although churches might all fail and fall; God will ensure that every Man capable of love will always have a path open to salvation, and the potential to grow in divinity.  

What I find striking, as one of the second category who regards churches as optional extras at best and potential enemies in the spiritual war; is that those who have taken the path of the primacy of the churches are spread across all types of Christian churches of which I am aware. 

It seems to make surprisingly little difference whether a person professes to be Catholic, Protestant or Mormon. It is a person's actual metaphysical assumptions about how reality works, how salvation works, and the purpose of this mortal life  - which seem to be crucial.... No matter what their churches may say. 

This is, I think, because Christianity has been primarily church orientated, and therefore focused upon whatever happen to be the requirements of church membership - which are very varied, usually very restrictive and specific; but very detached from metaphysical assumptions. 

Churches will exclude people on the basis of their failure to endorse and/ or live by behaviours that are integral to that particular church's sustained existence - but they will take no serious notice of a person's ultimate metaphysical assumptions. As long as someone verbally agrees-with and sticks-by the rules - they are included - but fundamental matters of assumption are unknown or ignored.

It is this neglect of metaphysical assumptions that is at the heart of the current malaise, and the deep reason for the mass apostasy of Christian churches and their loyal members - because the self-identified Christians, it turns-out! - have near identical primary assumptions as the mass of atheists, non-Christians and - in particular - the Global Leadership class whose agendas are now structuring the lives of everybody, everywhere.

People (including church-loyal Christians) go-along-with the secular, Lefts (and anti-Christian) agendas of the birdemic, antiracism and the CO2-environmentalism, social justice, equity etc. because - in an ultimate sense - they regard-themselves as primarily obedient creatures - obedient to the institutions of their-church...

"I need the church, but the church does not need me" means that their core metaphysical assumption is that such Christians regard themselves as members (or 'a people') - entities whose individual personal discernment has no objective validity in relation to salvation and theosis.  

At root, they assume: If I am not a member, then I am nothing.  

Such is the metaphysical assumption that has been exposed in these End Times. And like all such assumptions it needs to be recognized, acknowledged as an assumption - and then evaluated.

A Fly Bottle. The fly flies up-into it (by analogy, he unwittingly makes a metaphysical assumption); but gets trapped in the bottle - eventually expiring into the pool of water. He does not instinctively fly downwards, and never discovers the escape route (by which he entered). To escape, the fly needs to retrace the route by which he got trapped: that is, by analogy, to discover the metaphysical assumptions that led to his current deadly situation. Only by such a retracing and discovery could the fly revise his 'assumptions', overcome his short-termist instincts ('always fly upwards'/ always do what is immediately expedient), and thereby become free of their potentially-lethal consequences. Since 'the fly' will not do this for himself - the metaphysician must teach him to do it!

I have been teaching and doing scholarship in the field of evolution by natural selection for more than twenty years; and have been deeply interested by the theory for much longer than that. There is a real sense in which I love the theory of evolution by natural selection!

Yet, what I will describe here is how mastery of this theory included - for a long time - being trapped by the metaphysical assumptions of natural selection. Love became an infatuation which was (like most infatuations) destructive.

When operating within the theory of natural selection - when actually thinking with its assumptions, definitions and procedures - it was not possible to perceive beyond or outside it. And, since this theorising was the most difficult and high-level activity I engaged in, and since it was the major conscious focus of my life for many years (at least 15 years, full-on) this exerted a distorting effect on my whole world view.    


The serious business began one afternoon in May 1994, sitting in a garden in the sun, reading an interview in Omni magazine with the evolutionary psychologist Margie Profet; and realising that that was what I wanted to do - and what I had, unwittingly, been preparing myself to do, since my middle teens.

I knew, after seven-plus years working in laboratories that: 1. I was a scientist, but 2, I was not an experimentalist - not from lack of aptitude, but from lack of interest. And 3. that theory was My Thing - I has enjoyed writing theoretical papers about my experiments far more than doing the experiments - and that is very unusual in biology.

(Biologists spend hundreds-fold more hours in doing than in thinking - and if that sounds like a criticism: it is! Doctors are even worse. Anyone in biology or medicine who has once spent fifteen consecutive minutes in really thinking about their subject, counts as an extraordinary egg-head.)

One of my greatest pleasures had been prolonged and deep conversations about biology - in the broadest and most historically-informed sense - with Dr Tim Horder, an anatomist at Oxford; where I would visit each year specifically for that purpose. I was already a doctor and a (sort-of) psychiatrist - but it was Tim that made me think as a biologist.

So, my problem had been how to become a theoretical scientist in biology; especially in a world where theoretical biology was almost-wholly mathematical-computational, but I was trained as a doctor. When I discovered evolutionary psychology, I discovered something I could do and that I was well-prepared to do - especially in relation to psychiatry.


I threw myself into evolutionary theory with immense energy and zeal - rising early to read books and papers, and seeking out people to talk-with and write-to. The learning curve was very steep, and I was writing theory papers within not-many weeks; and developing grandiose projects for changing everything...

In order to contribute to evolutionary ideas in biology and medicine, I needed to train my thinking to operate accurately within the constraints and according to the rules - and I became capable of both rigour and creativity in that field. The process led to many papers, and a book (Psychiatry and the Human Condition). 

My interest in biological evolution by natural selection then broadened (strongly influenced by a computer scientist colleague, Peter Andras), and eventually became utterly abstract; as I moved into Systems Theory (of the type articulated by the German legal theoretician and sociologist Niklas Luhmann). This was (or could be understood as) an absolutely general theory of selection - understood (by assumption) as the primary and metaphysical reality. This shift was marked by the Appendix to my next book - The Modernization Imperative.

It was indeed A Theory of Everything - and I proceeded to apply it... well, if not to everything, then at least to a wide range of phenomena including university education and research, science, medicine, health services, management and modern society in general. 

I was, in once sense, by now utterly trapped by my assumptions! I saw the world through selection-theory spectacles.

But, I had the advantage that although this was true at the level of habit; I was aware (thanks to this aspect of Luhmann being very explicit) of the nature of these assumptions - and that they were indeed assumed, and were not entailed.

And it gradually dawned on me that I was not compelled by these assumptions - that, indeed, they were intuitively unconvincing - and that they led to many consequences that I simply could not go-along-with... things like the destruction of all objectivity, and the impossibility of knowledge about anything (even systems theory itself, even oneself)!

So I knew that I was basing my fundamental beliefs on assumptions, I knew exactly what these assumptions were, I knew these assumptions were self-refuting; and I realised that such metaphysical assumptions have ramifying consequences of the greatest possible significance all-over life and reality.

Thus I was prepared and ready to change my ultimate assumptions, as I eventually did when I became a Christian; then again when I became (theologically, but not practically) a Mormon Christian.


That is where I am now - my interest/ obsession with natural selection went from biology, to general theory of complex systems, to metaphysics - to being focused on those first assumptions.

And I have developed a heightened awareness of the way in which we can be captured by our assumptions. The more we practise thinking within our assumptions, the better we get at doing so; but also the more prone we become to living as-if the whole of reality was actually nothing-more-than our simplified model-of-it.

Our disagreement with the World comes down to metaphysics. How does one choose a metaphysics? Rather, how does one choose between rival metaphysical assumptions? One cannot derive metaphysical beliefs from something more fundamental, because there is nothing more fundamental. One’s metaphysics must not conflict with experience, but that is a low bar; many systems provide some way of reading the observed facts. There are also internal checks. Whitehead says that a metaphysical system should be coherent, meaning not only that its parts don’t conflict, but that they all interrelate and co-depend.

Four necessary positive metaphysical assumptions

A few years ago I suggested that there are several Litmus Test issues, which the demon-affiliated totalitarian Establishment uses to pursue its agenda of damnation (these agendas include the sexual revolution, climate change, antiracism and - more recently - hatred of the Fire Nation and its leader - and some others). 

It is necessary to reject these Litmus Test issues, if one is to avoid being absorbed-into the agenda of evil; however rejection of such specific evil strategies is insufficient; and indeed double-negative ideology (opposition to that which is regarded as wrong) is itself a part of the agenda of evil.  

 

What is important are positive convictions; or more exactly positive metaphysical assumptions concerning the nature of reality - positive assumptions concerning the nature of reality (i.e. positive metaphysical beliefs) suitable to underpin, explain and guide a positive purpose to this mortal life.

I think there are at least four such assumption that it seems necessary to affirm; if one is to avoid being (sooner or later) sucked-into taking side with the agenda of evil. 

 

But in the first place, I need to clarify that "being a Christian", in what has until recently been regarded as the normal and socially-understood fashion of Christianity, has proved itself to be utterly insufficient. 

(This despite that Christianity is ultimately The Truth; and that a purposive and meaningful mortal life depends utterly on following Jesus Christ to resurrection to eternal Heavenly life.)

As of 2024 in The West; that a person identifies as, and believes himself to be, Christian and publicly states his Christianity; that the is an active member in good standing of a major/ large/ powerful Christian church or denomination - or is a priest, pastor, scholar or leader of such a Christian grouping... is Not a valid discernment anymore. 

2020 confirmed this to me: that one could be a practising, devout "Christian" yet firmly on the side of the agenda of evil (first the birdemic/ peck agenda, later the antiracism "MLB" agenda).

2020 saw a stark exhibition of the conformation of "Christianity" (that is, Christianity as defined by the church of which one is a member, this including any and all major churches in The West) to willingly and enthusiastic subordination of (supposedly) core church doctrines and practices to the then-expediencies of the evil establishment totalitarian agenda.

 

So - If not, then what?  

I suggest (at least) four necessary positive metaphysical assumptions that are needed to stay on the side of God, divine creation, and The Good in The West of 2024. 

Of course there aren't really four - and that these are separable and sufficient; and of course such things cannot briefly be explained or justified in a blog post. 

What I am trying to do is suggest (to a sympathetic reader) the kind of positive assumptions that are now required; and that these fit-together (as would be expected if they were indeed true). 

 

Four necessary positive metaphysical assumptions

1. That there is God, who is a person not an abstraction; and with a personal relationship with Men; and that we inhabit God's creation. 

Without these assumptions there is no purpose or meaning to life, and the universe has no relevance to our-selves - so we might as well shut-up and accept whatever happens to be happening. 

 

2. That we inhabit a living, conscious, developing universe. 

I believe that we cannot allow any-thing to be not-alive - if materialism is allowed even a toe-hold on our beliefs, it will end-up by regarding the universe as unalive and purposeless. We are compelled to choose. Either everything is "dead" - as modern science assumes; of all is alive; and, if alive, conscious, purposive, developing (evolving) through time. 

Eastern (including "Platonic") concepts of reality as a kind of stasis, play into the hands of the powers of evil; which is very keen on promoting oneness spirituality, Buddhism etc - for their own reasons. 

In other words: creation is alive. It seems evident, when I think about it, God would have zero interest in creating a universe containing "inanimate" stuff (or indeed "fields" or "forces") of the kind familiar from physics. 

 

3. This mortal life ending in death is followed by continued and personal existence. 

In some sense our "self" is immortal. Otherwise, there is no point to this mortal life.    

 

4. That purposive evil is real.

We need to assume, and believe, that there really is purposive (hence personalized) evil in this universe. 

 

That is, we need to recognize that there is a side of evil; a side opposed to God, divine creation and The Good. 

And realize, too, that evil is indeed a "side" in the spiritual war; the opposition in the spiritual war. 

For many generations, many people have tried to do without (to deny, mock, trivialize) the reality of purposive evil - but as-of 2024 this leads to de facto affiliation with the agenda of evil.

 

Evil is Not, therefore, particular Beings; but it is the side in the spiritual war to which any particular Beings give their allegiance. 

There are - strictly speaking - no Good or evil people in this world. All are mixtures. 

Therefore: Nice people can be (and mostly are, in The West) on the side of evil; Nasty people may be on the side of Good. 

 

(And, of course. Good people may be nice, and plenty of nasty people are indeed evil! We need to know all this, if we are not to be fooled by the 24/7 propaganda emanating from the agenda of evil, as well as our own likely prejudices and misunderstandings). 

 

If you consider that one of these four positive assumptions is unneccessary - or that there ought to be one or more further additions; you may wish to argue your case in the comments.

When science 'got going' from the 17th century, it simply operated on the basis of the metaphysical assumptions of the Western European societies within which it grew - therefore science was rooted in Christianity. 

In particular, science was rooted in that distinctively-Christian ethical concern with Truth - which science took as its primary morality. 

Thus the morality was that science should be done by those who sought Truth, and who always communicated Truthfully. 

If asked why Truth ought to be honoured; the discourse immediately moved outwith science, and into the higher and deeper assumptions within-which science operated: that is Christianity. 

In other words; science could never answer "why science must be Truthful"; because the Truthfulness upon-which science depends was not a part of science. 

The Truth imperative was an aspect of the metaphysical assumptions that science derived from its original 'host societies' of Christian Western Europe.  

The problem was that the metaphysical - Truth-valuing - assumptions necessary to science were unconscious, habitual - in a sense taken for granted. 

Science was rooted in Christian metaphysics - but science progressively ceased to be aware of the fact...

This led to an error; which was to believe that science was autonomous. 

To believe falsely that science had superseded metaphysics; did not need assumptions, but was instead wholly based-on 'evidence'. 

(Neglecting that what counts as 'evidence', and the meaning of 'evidence' are dictated by assumptions!) 

To believe falsely that the success of science in understanding, predicting and controlling the natural world had demonstrated that there was 'no need' for metaphysical assumptions (which were regarded as nonsensical, manipulative, or even meaningless). 

In particular, science was asserted to have no need for Christianity; and eventually Christianity was seen as opposing, harming, destructive-of science!

Meanwhile, for several reasons, Christianity began to fade from Western European societies, and with it the Truth imperative that had underpinned the success of science. 

Through the twentieth century science became at first indifferent, then hostile, to Christianity - and scientists were no longer brought up to believe that Truth was a transcendental reality and a moral imperative.

Consequently, other imperatives emerged to regulate scientific practice... 

At the end of this process, science had ceased to be science. 

The activities of 'scientists' were pretty much the same kind of thing as in the past - observations, experiments, analyses etc. - but the activities were no longer directed and underpinned by Truth.  

What resulted is the modern institution that calls-itself science; but which has become merely a generic bureaucracy - motivated and regulated by the expediencies of modern society - politics, profits, status-seeking, careers, fame etc. 

Instead of seeking and speaking Truth; modern 'science' serves and is motivated-by... whatever happen to be the dominant secular goals; which have been ever-increasingly to do with the demands of leftist and totalitarian politics. 

Thus, having dispensed with truth; 'science' (like all other social institutions: religion, law, corporations, education, health  services, police, military etc.) now does... whatever the most powerful and wealthy institutions require of it. 

Science in 2022 is not a means to the end of Truth; but a means to satisfy the requirements of those who fund and regulate science... Expediency, not Reality, is the bottom-line.  

The only way out from this impasse is via metaphysics - that is by discerning and critiquing the most fundamental assumptions regarding the nature of Reality. Science must understand, acknowledge, and critique its own underpinning assumptions - those 'within-which' science actually operates. 

Unless science's ultimate assumptions value Truth as an absolute ideal; then there will continue to be no real science, but only fake 'science', in the world of public discourse.

Note: For more on this subject, see my book Not Even Trying.

Regular readers will know that I have embraced CS Lewis's term and concept of 'things coming to a point' as characteristic of these times in The West. In general terms, this means that the challenges of the mainstream, dominant mandatory atheistic Leftism have created a situation in which good and evil are separated further apart and with clear water between them.

Discernment is, in a sense, easier than ever before; nonetheless the majority have already embraced evil, and this time in a situation where evil entails value inversion - the reversal of good and evil.

One way this happens, is that the corrosive scepticism of modern thinking (sooner or later) strips all issues down to the level of fundamental metaphysical assumptions; and ruthlessly reveals any incoherence or lack a full conscious endorsement of the assumptions upon which we base our living.

In practice this means that most people are deeply uncertain about their convictions, such that they lack the motivation and will to resist the corruption that is imposed upon them as carrots and sticks, as inducements and punishments, as feel-good attitudes and harsh coercion.


The trans agenda is perhaps the major current example. The situation now (and this developed rapidly over just a few years) is that adherence to the trans orthodoxies about sexual identity has become a litmus test of social status, and enforced by the weight of government, the law, the media and a licensed mob sustained by these.

Now, the claims of the trans agenda fly in the face of both common sense and personal experience (of the overwhelming majority of human beings throughout history and across the world) - but that makes no difference. The trans agenda wins.

The claims of the trans agenda are refuted by a vast mass of biological, medical and psychological science, over many decades - but that makes no difference. The trans agenda wins.


The issue of the difference between a man and a woman has therefore been driven all the way down to the level of fundamental conviction - that is of metaphysics. And, at this level, most people, including most Christians, find themselves confused and uncertain - or else in agreement with the trans agenda. At the metaphysical level, most people are weak, unsure, malleable when it comes to men and women being different.

This arises mostly because metaphysical assumptions are unconscious, denied or misunderstood by nearly everyone. Therefore most people are helpless in the face of false metaphysics when it is backed-up by overwhelming social pressure; by propaganda and force.

Most people in this situation reach for 'evidence' only to find that any and all possible evidence falls to pieces in face of assumptions that deny the validity of evidence as such. This happens because it is the metaphysical assumptions that determine what counts as evidence and shape what strength evidence is allowed - so that when assumptions are contradicted by evidence, it is the evidence which gives way.


Yet even among Christians who are aware of their own metaphysical assumptions, and endorse them - the discovery is often that the trans agenda is consistent with the ultimate beliefs derived from their theological understanding of the human condition.

Because mainstream Christians do not really regard sexual differentiation into men and women as a fundamental aspect of reality. It is of mortal significance only; and in the infinity of time after mortal life, as resurrected Men in Heaven - for the mainstream Christian sex has essential no role or significance - it is mostly a matter of memories of our mortal life.


In my opinion, the trans agenda strips reality down and back to the dichotomy where sex (the distinction between man and woman) is either regarded as 1. a fundamental attribute of ultimate reality - or else 2. sexual identity is ultimately unfounded.


Among churches, I think only the Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) have a theology that takes the position that the distinction between men and women goes all the way down; begins with an eternity before mortal life and continues through the etermity of post-mortal life.

(Roughly) We began as primordial intelligences of two kinds, and this continues through becoming children of God, incarnation, death and resurrection (or whatever comes instead for those who cannot or will not love, or otherwise reject Heaven).

Sexuality - the division between man and woman - is an ultimate fact of existence.


For Mormons, Man is dyadic - the unit of full-personhood is a man and women - potentially (among those with highest spiritual development) bound for eternity in celestial marriage by love, but always as a two - never separated and never fused - like a binary star.

If not in detail, then in essence something like this Mormon view is - I infer - the only alternative to an ultimate and eventual spiritual capitulation to the trans agenda in all its incoherent and evil extremity.


And as such, here we have an example of the way that modernity is acting upon Christians like a refiners fire, burning away all that used to be fudged or held on superficial grounds (such as 'evidence' from science or common sense, or by obedience to external authority).

We are forced into a situation in which we either make a self-aware statement of fundamental belief - or else (by our lack of conviction, our confusion, our cognitive dissonance) we get swept along by the modern agenda - which is the agenda of satanic evil.

We are her in this mortal life to learn from our experiences; and this is one of many ways in which God has used evil triumphant to provide experiences that may - if people are honest and chose well - lead to growth towards a higher divinity.

Almost everybody (in the West especially) has painted himself into a corner by accepting a raft of basic assumptions about the world that are so nihilistic that they actually want to destroy themselves, their society - and everybody else in the world.

Literally.  

Indeed, Modern Man positively insists that everybody in the world must believe exactly as himself or else be annihilated; despite that his beliefs are visibly, with a crazed acceleration, destroying everything and on the cusp of creating the By Far greatest cataclysm the world has ever seen (simply because there are now far more people in a far more interconnected world than ever before). 

All these crazed, despairing, self-loathing, other-hating people! 

And what they want more than anything else is not an escape from the self-imposed end of everything that they personally value most; but instead that the whole world be compelled to share in their existential collapse! 

They seethe with resentment and hatred against anybody or any place that does not enthusiastically agree with their futile anti-system - a system of pure negation that explicitly denies any purpose or meaning in the universe, in life, in mankind, in anything... 

So insane is this, that although they claim to live only for pleasure and to avoid misery (i.e. some variant of the utilitarianism that forms the only 'moral' basis of the entire bureaucratic-media world of institutions, corporations, government and all the social functions); they nonetheless agree-with an ideology (and demand policies) that purposively and visibly is destroying pleasure and inflicting suffering - including on themselves! Now and more to come!

...Hedonists who insist on the elimination of pleasure; terrified of pain yet co-creating a world of mega-agony. 

All that is on the surface; and it is almost ubiquitous - therefore its cause must be deep and widespread. 

Its cause is metaphysical - which means at the level of people's primary assumptions concerning the nature of reality. 

It is these metaphysical assumptions that have driven the world into its current frenzy of self-hating, other-hating suicide - such that the main object of hatred is anyone, anyplace, any era, that dissents from the orgy of self-loathing nihilism. 

One thing people will Absolutely Not give-up is their metaphysical assumptions; such that reality necessarily has no meaning or purpose, there is no God, no soul, that death terminates existence, that everything happening is an accident of determinism and randomness. 

And even many of those who reject these above assumptions, nonetheless absolutely Insist on painting themselves into a corner with incoherent, self-contradicting assumptions about the nature of God, Evil and human freedom. 

And these religious people have much the same character as the nihilists - in that they rage against those who reject their immiserating, paralysing, futile, life-dissolving, future-denying doctrines. 

The one thing that nearly-everyone is way too demotivated, sophisticated, skeptical and other-obedient to accept; is that Jesus Christ came to bring us everlasting resurrected life in Heaven; and that to make this choice requires only that we personally do what is necessary to follow him on the path he made for us. 

That is what the world conspires to reject; at every possible level.