Relevant ideas . .

Reason and Logic


     Why chide Fundamentalists for being unreasonable if reason itself is the random interaction of molecules and hormones in the human brain? If this is so, as the late Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov,  and a bevy of other atheistic "scientists" insist, why are they to be believed over anyone else, since the entire volume of their profound logic is, by their own admission, a result of random chemical reaction?  Atheists use words implying the existence of right and wrong in their struggle against religion, as do Communists in denigrating Capitalism use such bourgeois concepts as "evil" and "wrong", while insisting that Socialism is "good". But if absolutes, truth, or God do not exist, morality is totally arbitrary and becomes merely what I want", or on the national political level, what some want over what others want.

     This is the unspoken objection of many who do not support the OCA (an Oregon-based Christian PAC of the '90's) as much as they decry the popular notion that we do not choose our moral behavior, but are victims of nasty chemicals and delinquent molecules. The LBGT communities all deny the existence of moral absolutes, all the while insisting that the 99% of culture that oppose their behaviors are "evil" or "intolerant". But why is intolerance bad? While insisting that none could define morality, they really meant that we couldn't define it. Someone's moral or ethical view will can, and is currently be legislated into U.S. law. As Chesterton said, "those who don't believe in God don't believe in nothing . . they believe in anything".

     While behaviors that must be shunned and condemned for the preservation of civilisation itself are roundly excused for lack of moral absolutes, Moralists, and historians for that matter, are accused of bigotry, narrow-mindedness and downright (this is embarassing) evil. Why the double standard? If Fundamentalism is the result of random chemical reaction there is no evil involved, for evil implies choice. The objection of the Left becomes arbitrary, merely what they want. Both Good and Evil perish with the same sword. This will not do.

     Good and Evil do exist, and should this philisophical foundation fail, all argument and human thought is invalidated. We face the death of logic itself, reason becoming the victim of random action . . meaningless. Pilate's cynical question remains as relevent as ever" What is Truth?" The question is inescapable . . and relevant.