The Age Of Dogmatic Skepticism
By JOHN YOUNG
We are said to be living in a period of intellectual freedom, where we have thrown off the shackles of the past. Yet we are constantly told what to think, and penalized if we think differently. The intelligentsia boast of having open minds, yet refuse to consider views opposed to their own.
The sciences are seen as the highest form of knowledge, yet are not allowed to interfere with current dogmas, as when biology confirms the commonsense fact that men and women are different.
Capital punishment, even for the most horrendous crimes, is condemned as a barbaric relic of a cruel and ignorant past, yet the killing of preborn babies is proclaimed as an indisputable right.
There is outrage against sexual assaults on children, yet the homosexual behavior that promotes these assaults is defended to the point where condemnation of homosexual actions can land one in serious trouble.
Perceived unfairness to women is strongly opposed, even to the point where men are disadvantaged, and there is outrage when women are sexually assaulted, yet there is a strong campaign to allow men who claim to be women to participate against women in sport, and to share bathrooms and toilets with women.
Broad-mindedness and open dialogue are held to be important values, yet any attempt to defend traditional values, and even ordinary commonsense, are fiercely opposed, with their defenders targeted, abused, and often in danger of losing their jobs.
Anarchy is openly promoted, as in the appalling riots that are becoming so frequent and destructive, while the expressions of commonsense values and biological realities are repressed, even to the point of having their defense declared illegal.
How has society come to this state? How has the rejection of scientific facts and ordinary commonsense swept through society? It is a complex subject, but in this article I want to look at the influence of erroneous philosophies. Their influence can easily be overlooked while we concentrate on more immediate influences.
René Descartes (1596-1650) lived at a time when old certainties were being questioned and the sound scholastic philosophy of which St. Thomas Aquinas is the greatest master was neglected or distorted. Descartes was concerned about the conflicting views and widespread skepticism in the intellectual world of the time, but did not understand Thomistic philosophy and that it was the solution.
Instead he thought the solution was to dismantle the whole philosophical edifice and start again. So he set himself to doubt everything that could be doubted and to build his philosophy on the foundation of what could not be doubted. And the thing that could not be doubted, he asserted, was his own existence.
Thus his famous first principle: “Cogito, ergo sum”; “I think, therefore I am.” It satisfied him, but very few other philosophers. They were more impressed by his arguments in favor of skepticism, with the result that doubt spread more rapidly in philosophical circles.
Philosophy, which should provide the rational foundation for all our thinking, was no longer sure of itself: There was no longer a philosophical foundation.
One reaction was the empiricism of David Hume (1711-1776) who reduces all knowledge to sense knowledge, making it impossible to know anything transcending matter. And that is the de facto position today for many people, particularly those with a tertiary education. They may not fully articulate this, but they are at best doubtful about the existence of realities transcending anything our senses can reach.
It is assumed that blind evolution accounts for the world we live in and ourselves. There are no eternal laws to guide our behavior, no Infinite God whom we must love above all things, no everlasting life awaiting us after death.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) realized that the empiricism of David Hume led to extreme skepticism, and added: “Whether with such a terrible overthrow of the chief branches of knowledge, human reason will escape better, and will not rather become irrecoverably involved in this destruction of all knowledge, so that from the same principles a universal skepticism should follow (affecting, indeed, only the learned), this I will leave everyone to judge for himself” (Critique of Practical Reason, first part, book 1, chapter 1, section 2).
Kant’s fears have been realized and, contrary to his expectation, the skepticism has filtered down to the man in the street, particularly through the education system and the media.
Of course the will is involved also, not just the intellect. When people live immoral lives they too often try to justify themselves by denying that evil is evil. So attempts are made to justify abortion, and it is pretended that sexual perversions are normal.
The case against these should be clear and cogent, but instead people who put a rational case for healthy moral beliefs are denounced as narrow-minded bigots. They must be punished, by the law or by the media.
J.K. Rowling defended a woman who had forfeited her job for saying that the distinction between men and women is fixed by their biology. And what happened? Rowling was viciously attacked online and attempts are being made to damage her writing career.
Clearly we are living in a time of intellectual and moral anarchy, where we need to remember St. Paul’s warning that our wrestling is not against flesh and blood but against Principalities and Powers: that is, against Satan and the other fallen angels (Eph. 6:12). So we must employ the spiritual weapons of prayer and sacrifice.
But the destructive effects of bad philosophy are a major cause of today’s confusion, and the remedy for this is the sane philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, which is really a development and deepening of our common-sense knowledge.
C.S. Lewis points out that when we are on the edge of a precipice, the most progressive direction is backwards.
