SEKHMET
ATTENDS LOW MASS IN THE CHURCH OF PROGRESS
We
left Sekhmet, in Sekhmet Speaks 2, looking into the question:
Is the Church of Progress really a church? She had concluded
that the Church qualified as a Church on the philosophical level.
To
recapitulate: If, as a starting point, we concentrate on religion's
primary metaphysical function and call it, 'a system of undemonstrable
beliefs held without reference to physical evidence,' theologians
might not like it very much but we think it unlikely that Rationalists
would object. Yet they subscribe to just such a system of undemonstrable
beliefs --the Credo of meaningless described earlier (There
is a vast literature, much of it written by eminent, if marginally
heretical, scientists and philosophers proving this point from
many different angles.)
This
Credo has dispensed with the usual reliance upon a Divine, transcendent,
indivisible, undemonstrable god and substituted no less undemonstrable,
indivisible but untranscendent Coincidence as creator -- the
whole doctrine patched together with the Krazy Glue of Neo-Darwinian
evolution. But there is nothing rational or scientific about
that either.
Rationalists
claim that the inability to prove Divine intention proves the
lack of intention; that the inability to prove purpose, proves
purposelessness. This is obvious sophistry. If you cannot prove
you have been faithful to your wife, does this mean you have
been unfaithful?
We
cannot physically prove intention or purpose on the human level,
much less the Divine, yet we would have precious little science
without it.
Moreover,
to qualify as science, following the Rationalists' own precepts,
that very lack of intention and purposelessness must itself
be demonstrable, measurable, predictable and replicable. Of
course it is not, nor can it be, for the simple reason that
these criteria are value judgments, by definition beyond the
pale of both experimental and theoretical science. So the insistence
upon accident and purposelessness, and upon reason in turn is
metaphysics in its own right, a set of unprovable assumptions,
no more and no less metaphysical than the acknowledged metaphysical
systems of other religions, differing from them only in that
the assumption are wholly nihilistic.
Demonstrability,
replicability, etc. represent decisions; decisions made by the
priesthood to distinguish between what deserves inclusion in
the 'real world' and what does not. But following definitions
laid down by Church atheologians themselves, a decision, any
decision, cannot help but be a value judgment. Since values
are purely subjective, (according to the Church of Progress
but not according to most other religions) they have no objective
reality, and therefore play no part in the 'real world'. Thus,
ironically, according to its own standards, this Church is as
subjectively based as those it disavows. And therefore it, like
the others, is rooted irrevocably in physical unreality. The
Credo is neither science not reason; it is merely what most
scientists happen to believe.
So,
seen as a system of undemonstrable belief Rationalism stands
exposed as a religion. However, when Rationalism is commonly
criticized as a religion, its critics are often referring to
a corrupt and tyrannical institution set up to preserve those
beliefs from heresy or other forms of attack rather than a metaphysical
doctrine. In other words, these critics are drawing parallels
to the political rather than the philosophical aspects of the
church. This accusation is equally valid, and it has been leveled
often, even from within its own priesthood. The parallels between
this modern day Church of Progress and the organized Church
of Rome at its worst are legion but both diffused and concealed.
The relatively clear-cut roles played by the Pope and College
of Cardinals in deciding upon what is dogma and in enforcing
those decisions no longer exist. There is no formal hierarchical
structure to lay down the law. The Church of Progress (usually
but not always) eschews bulls, edicts and encyclicals and its
unspoken agenda -to enforce belief- is never acknowledged. Though
no less pervasive and invasive to society as a whole, the C.
of P. extends its influence on a tacit, consensual basis through
its three separate but complementary orders of Jesuits: Science,
Education and the Press.
For
two centuries, these have been the forces or institutions that
have shaped Western society, and consequently the rest of the
world. While their power is universally recognized, they are
seldom examined within their rightful religious context: as
guardians and proselytizers of the Church of Progress. In a
nutshell: Science calls the tune, Education plays it, the Press
gives it rave reviews. For over two centuries the three have
worked closely hand in hand. But that spirit of cooperation
is not quite what it used to be.
THE
JESUIT ORDER OF SCIENCE
Though
the Church of Progress insists its dogma is based upon science,
this is not true, and has not been true for almost a century.
The energetic rather than material nature of matter contravenes
the Church's simple-minded materialism while its fundamental
premise of a mechanical, accidental universe has been challenged
from within its own ranks by at least a few of its own most
eminent physicists and biologists. As bookstores add metaphysical
sections to cater to the exponentially growing interest, there
is often a separate shelf devoted to titles exploring the relationships
between metaphysics and the expanding frontiers of science.
The
important point to make here is that the latest findings of
science not only fail to support the basic materialist dogma
of the Church of Progress, but in many instances, particularly
in physics and biology, they appear to contravene it. Most of
these ideas have not yet made significant inroads into education
or the press. They are too complex, too remote and too philosophically
abstruse to unsettle the rank and file of Church unfaithful.
On the other hand, the hero worship science enjoyed through
all of the 19th and most of the 20th Century is no longer unconditional.
Over the past several decades, a number of heavily funded glossy
magazines intended to make the wonders of science intelligible
to the educated lay reader have foundered. Editorials in those
that survive repeatedly stress the difficulty of attracting
high level students to science. The authors imagine it is the
science programs that are to blame, but actually it is science
itself, this secular, earth-bound science that even on its highest
and purest level, concerns itself with practically nothing that
matters to human life.
Science
still commands considerable popular respect, but some of the
glamor has gone, and much of the trust. As the dire ecological
and environmental consequences of two hundred years of unrestrained
science-based technology come home to roost, science is saddled
with a measure of the blame. Its authority is on the wane. So
even though the general public has been hoodwinked into thinking
that science still backs up Church of Progress dogma, that support
does not mean what it once did. As far as the Church is concerned,
Science today is almost as much figurehead as formulator. It
therefore falls largely upon Education and the Press to inculcate,
foster and maintain the unfaith among the general public.
THE
JESUIT ORDER OF EDUCATION
What
is called Education is not education in any meaningful sense
of the word (derived from educere, to lead forth.) In reality
it is no more than a vast seminary program, designed to select
and develop candidates for the Church of Progress priesthood,
while producing a docile, unquestioning laity. The original
Jesuits used to boast, 'Give us the child until he's seven years
old and he'll be ours for life,' (or words to that effect).
In principle, the Jesuits of today's Church of Progress educational
programs would seem to wield even more decisive influence. They
have us in their power for at least twelve years, often for
sixteen or more, and during the first twelve we have the various
elements of the church Credo drummed into our heads without
respite. Neo- Darwinian evolution (evolution as a chance process)
is taught as though it were fact. Progress is taught as though
it were manifest destiny. All past civilizations are presented
as though they were but misconceived dry runs for the technological
age that superceded them. All that is not science is presented
as superstition, with the possible exception of Western secular
art and literature --which enjoy a certain status as harmless
diversions from the ongoing serious business of science/technology.
(In The New York Times the section devoted to the arts is called
Arts and Leisure. Imagine the ruckus if the section devoted
to science were called Science and Tinkering.) No hint is ever
given that other points of view exist, and may be held even
within the Church itself.
While
Progress is supposed to be furthered through the free interchange
of ideas, our extended introduction to Progress, through education,
is as thorough a form of brainwashing as anything devised by
those earlier Jesuits, or for that matter anything existing
under oppressive ideological political systems that make no
pretense of open- mindedness. Even so, the advantage enjoyed
by modern educators over these others is more apparent than
real.
Like
all religious institutions, this Church is viable only insofar
as its truths appear immutable, and the philosophy based upon
its truths coincides with real or perceived human needs. To
survive and prosper the Church (any church) must inspire allegiance,
devotion, faith --coercion will take it only so far. But there
are psychological as well as logical problems confronting a
Church forced by its own atheology to demand a fervent belief
in disbelief (in everything save Reason of course, and the various
elements of the Credo).
As
is so often the case with this religion that calls itself 'Rationalism',
a deceptive nomenclature confuses what would otherwise be much
clearer. A belief in something is called 'credulity'. Credulity
retains its hold through 'faith' which must play no part in
the life of the rational human being. On the other hand, the
no less passionate and equally undemonstrable belief in nothing
is called Reason. Reason is sustained through the diligent exercise
of skepticism But the role skepticism plays in a society dominated
by the Church of Progress is rarely recognized for what it is:
a euphemism for negative credulity, or cynicism, which manifests
invariably in shrill debunkery -- as anyone who has looked into
the evidence for such diverse topics as astrology, the paranormal,
UFO'S, crop circles, lost civilizations and alternative medicine
knows full well. (Later, Sekhmet will take a skeptical look
at skepticism itself)
This
attitude has nothing whatever to do with a keen critical sense
--perhaps the last quality the Jesuits of Education care to
inculcate. For a keen critical sense along with knowledge of
the metaphysical and historical alternatives to the Church of
Progress Credo would lead swiftly to mass defections. As it
stands, cynicism and the need to debunk what cannot be incorporated
into the Credo is certainly a frequent corollary of a modern
upbringing.
But
it is far from universal. That renaissance of interest in spiritual
matters gathers strength in direct defiance to Church indoctrination.
This amounts to heresy, and is treated accordingly. But meanwhile,
even the ongoing campaign carried out by Education, designed
to inculcate negative credulity produces wide-scale unexpected
effects, effects that are not specifically heretical but nevertheless
counterproductive to Church goals.
The
intellectually incurious respond to the Church in any case only
on its bread-and- circuses level: the cheap thrill of technology.
For this majority, church allegiance is maintained only through
perpetually re-stimulated enthusiasm (the space program, for
example, is the psychological equivalent of selling indulgences
and the easy remission of sins that the corrupt Church of Rome
resorted to when it was losing its grip -- though the discovery
of what appear to be artificial structures on Mars puts a whole
different spin on what would otherwise be bread and circuses
and of course is treated accordingly: with abuse and/or calculated
neglect, a form of consensus censorship). Yet widespread public
enthusiasm and interest in space exploration is accompanied
by little passionate unfaith. Indeed, many at this level of
comprehension accept material C. of P. benefits and, ingrates
that they are, violently reject its metaphysics and embrace
the mindless evangelical religion that is the other side of
the same counterfeit coin.
Most
of the intellectually better-equipped also resist deep educational
indoctrination. Some vestige of good sense, or perhaps merely
an instinct for self preservation combined with insensitivity,
allows them to direct their energies toward ambition or success.
They live out their lives, perhaps aware that something is awry
but yet not sufficiently disturbed to track it to its spiritual
source. It is perhaps this that Thoreau had in mind when he
said 'most men lead lives of quiet desperation'. By more contemporary
thinkers, and especially by politicians, a life lived according
to such values is often called 'the pursuit of the American
Dream.'
The
chief victims of an education that deifies skepticism are, of
course, the sensitive. For the only legitimate emotional response
to the negative metaphysics of Rationalism is despair (the Existentialists
were quite right on this point, wrong chiefly in the direction
they took to find a solution). Despair takes many forms among
the young, not all of them commonly recognized as despair. The
rapid increase in teenage suicide is the most dramatic; drugs
are the most obvious; with apathy, rebellion, violence, and
an aimless, frenetic hedonism close behind. All happen because
of, not in spite of, modern education.
If
proof of this sweeping assertion is required, you need only
look at what happens when the Church of Progress converts a
tribal, or so-called 'primitive' society to its values, or even
when it supersedes a highly sophisticated and intellectual but
non- technological society. The results are invariable: suicide,
drugs, apathy, violence, rebellion and an aimless, frenetic
hedonism. (See the telling indictment in anthropologist John
H. Bodley's VICTIMS OF PROGRESS, Benjamin Cummings, 1982)
Modern
education is to the mind what AIDS is to the immune system.
Prolonged, repeated exposure enhances the danger. And all of
us, without exception, are called to skepticism (who can avoid
going to school?). Yet, miraculously, not that many are chosen.
Susceptibility varies widely, and seems mainly restricted to
a certain psychological type. Happily for the future of humanity,
skeptics cannot be produced at will through education; not in
the kind of numbers that ensure the continued hegemony of the
Church. While none escape unscathed, many escape. The creative,
the courageous and the lucky do not cave in under the strain.
They zero in, more or less swiftly, more or less accurately
on the problem, locate its source and look elsewhere --often
into the past-- for those true, spiritual values that alone
can produce and sustain normal functioning human beings. The
restoration and restatement of those values in acceptable contemporary
form is the real challenge facing humanity. The various catastrophes
threatening our planet are all, without exception, results,
not causes. All follow naturally, inescapably from adherence
to the debased, joyless, negative metaphysics espoused by the
Church of Progress in the name of Reason. When and if different
values prevail, different results will follow from them... whoops!
Sekhmet sees she is running out of room. She will deal with
the Jesuits of the Press, with skepticism and self-styled skeptics
and with the C. of P.'s Unholy Office, or Chamber of the Inquisition
in upcoming essays.
