An Epidemic of Anti-Intellectuals

January 14, 2008 @ 8:30 pm by Pressed

This post is a repost from October 2004

I am so often amazed at the things I hear people say. Some things are without a doubt unintelligible
and irrational. We live in a society that is flooded with humanism, liberal nonsense, and postmodern thought that contaminates the mind.

“He who is not aware of his ignorance will be only misled by his knowledge.” –Richard Whatley

“I think it is true [that] Hitler went to heaven (if such a thing as heaven really exists). He felt that what he did was right, and I think that if what you feel you’re doing is right, in your heart, then you can’t be wrong!” – Korn guitarist James Shaffer, (who apologized for his remarks two days later, quoted in Spin magazine.)

“If you feel that what your doing is right in your heart then you can’t be wrong” is one of the central messages in humanism. The world revolves around me and my feelings and whatever I feel to be right is right and whatever you feel to be right is right and even though our views conflict with each other they are still both right… In reality, the last time I checked 1 + 1 can’t equal both 2 and 7. There are just some things in life that do not allow for everyone’s conflicting theories to be right. There is a right and a wrong! However, if we go with the relativistic theory, then where does it end? Do we remove people from prison and abolish laws because we shouldn’t oppose our own feelings on what is right and wrong? Should anyone be allowed to steal and kill as long as they feel like it is right in their own heart? I don’t think we will take relativism that far, only far enough to justify some of the things we do and believe.

I think you are free to believe whatever you want about religion, morals, and life, but not everyone is free to be right about it. Just because you believe something to be true, doesn’t magically make it true. Believing that God doesn’t exist, or believing that people who do what they “feel” is right in their own hearts can get into heaven because of it, are both false assumptions . It’s just not true.

“In political matters feeling often decides more correctly than reason.” – Adolf Hitler

Here we go again with that word feeling. That seems to be one of the biggest problems when it comes to anti-intellectualism. People are more concerned about their feelings and less concerned about their thoughts, knowledge, common sense, and reason. We live in the “please-me” age where most people are more concerned about their own self pleasure and feelings than the moral and ethical good of society as a whole. The problem is that the desire to gratify ourselves and our feelings often leads to immoral and irrational behavior. For instance in the process of abortion it is the feelings of the women that cause her to irrationally get an abortion and the result is the ruthless murder of millions of children. How is that so different from Hitler?

“So long as we do not harm others we should be free to think, speak, act, and live as we see fit, without molestation from individuals, law, or government. . . .” John Stuart Mill

Here we have some relativism shrouded in good deeds. This statement is an argument for humans to do whatever they see fit for themselves as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. I can somewhat agree with this. I think people should be allowed to believe, think, and act freely, after all, everyone has the right to be wrong. However, my question is, who is to decide what does and does not harm others when it comes to ethics? For example, I would say that abortion harms others because it is the thoughtless murder of another human. But someone else who doesn’t ‘feel’ that a fetus is a real human, they may not see that as harming another person. Here we have a conflict. The same thing goes for Christianity. I see speaking out for what is morally right as something good for other people to help them to see the truth, but others who hear me speaking out against their actions see it as harm to them. When there is no morality or absolute law, things simply end up chaotic. Everything is in conflict.

“A man is not moral because he is obedient through fear or ignorance. Morality lives in the realm of perceived obligation. . . .” Robert Ingersoll

There is some truth to this. I think morality is an obligation, however the problem with this statement is that it is found in only what is perceived by the individual. If I perceive that it is my moral obligation to feed the poor, then in doing so I am being a moral person. Not because I am obedient to some ‘moral law’ but because I was obedient to my perceived obligation. The problem with this is similar to the last one. Who is to decide what is moral? It’s left with the individual and whatever they perceive. Again, we arrive at a place of chaos. There is no standard of morality that everyone should follow, it differs by perception.

“Has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? . . . No other human institution comes close.” Carl Sagan

While I believe that science is valuable, it is constantly finding itself wrong. Science has changed so much over the years, not because the world has changed, but because scientist realized that the old theories were completely wrong and had to change things. So, has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy of science? I think there is a religion that goes beyond the accuracy of science, and if science doesn’t prove what the Bible says now, it will soon enough when it catches up.

“A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.” - Robert Frost

__________________

So what is the problem? Here are several other quotes of people who have recognized some of the problems we face in our present society.

“We’re captive to this culture of relativism. There’s no truth, so who are we to impose our values on anyone else? All anybody can do — like a business school teacher — is help people think through problems and arrive at their own conclusions while telling them that no conclusion is any better than any other — a formula for disaster. This is what modern worldviews teach. But what happens when you allow people to arrive at their own moral conclusions? They do what is right in their own eyes, and we end up with the likes of Enron and WorldCom.” –Charles Colson

“It isn’t that we don’t know where to look for guidance in how to build lives of personal integrity and governments and institutions that reflect them. It is that we have chosen to ignore such things in the pursuit of immediate gratification.” –Cal Thomas

“In the context of narcissism, the mystery of children killing becomes less mysterious. That we have more such killers than we used to isn’t so much about guns and bullies as it is about our Me-First culture, a convenient mechanism of which is media fame.” –Kathleen Parker

“Santana High did everything modern schools do to reduce the chance of violence. They had counselors, conflict resolution, anger management and the rest. We are finding that without basic morality these are useless.” –Mona Charen

Pressed

Permalink  |  Comments (0)  |  Filed under: Ethics & Worldviews

Sex Education Vs. Abstinence Only Education

October 12, 2007 @ 11:56 am by Pressed

I hate to admit it, but I watch Boston Legal.  There are a lot of different reasons why I watch this show, but the most significant reason is I like to ponder the moral, ethical, and political quandaries they bring up in many of the court cases presented on the show.  For the most part Boston Legal makes conservatives look like idiots with mad cow disease and liberals are portrayed as the most sensible, logical, and tolerant people.  Allan (played by James Spader) always takes on the role of the sensible liberal.

This week Allan took a court case involving a young teenage girl with aids who wanted to sue her school for teaching abstinence only.  She was a 15 year old girl who had sex with her boyfriend (things got out of hand she says) and then she found out that she was HIV positive from that encounter.  She felt that the school itself was most at fault and she only took a small part of the blame in this.  Her school was teaching abstinence only in order to get government grants and she thought that the school should be required to teach safe sex education and that this safe sex education would have saved her life.

The question is, was the school at fault for causing this girl to suffer with HIV.  The obvious, logical answer is NO!  Regardless of what the school teaches in regards to sex, this girl was ultimately responsible for her actions.  If she wanted to have sex then it should have been her responsibility to find out all of the facts about sex before diving into it.  First of all, sexual education is readily available to teenagers and I find it hard to believe that this 15 year old girl would have been so naive as to now know that unprotected sex spreads disease.  Secondly it is her choice and she should be held accountable for that choice, instead she was attempting to blame someone other than herself for having aids.  She didn’t blame or sue the boyfriend who gave her the disease, she sued the school.  Thirdly, if she is going to sue anyone for blame other than herself then it should have either been the boyfriend for not telling her that he had HIV or it should have been her parents.  Sexual education should be something taught in the home and these parents should have been responsible as well.

Instead she passes the blame to the school and the school is only teaching abstinence only education in order to get a government grant and so ultimately it is the evil conservative religious finantics in government who are at fault for this 15 year old girl having aids.  Give me a break.  She made the choice to have sex.  It’s her fault.  Bottom line is that we don’t want to be held responsible for our own actions.

She won the court case and the school had to pay her 750,000 because they were at fault for giving this girl aids.  Ridiculous.

Permalink  |  Comments (8)  |  Filed under: Ethics & Worldviews

Ear Candy #2

October 8, 2007 @ 11:04 am by JD

So just what the heck is it to be “emergent”?  This has been a question that has been the source of some debate and confusion.  If you share the views of MBC board members Kerry Messer and Ron Turnbull, it means that you like to drink beer.  What does an emergent church look like?  Is it Rob Bell of Mars Hill or does it look more like Darrin Patrick of The Journey?  Is it liberal or conservative (or both)? 

 Here’s the deal:  as I see it, it’s just like everything else.  You’ll find variences within the “emergent church” just like you will among Southern Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.  Some are good.  Some are not. 

This weeks must-listen piece is from Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill-Seattle as he attempts to break down the emergent church and those in it for Southern Baptists at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  I believe that this came about in part because of the tension between the MBC and The Journey Church in St. Louis over their outreach ministry in a microbrewery.  I’ll say from the get-go that I agree with most of what he says and disagree with some.  Listen for yourself and see what you think.

Enjoy.

Permalink  |  Comments (0)  |  Filed under: Ethics & Worldviews

Should Your Daughter Get The HPV Vaccine?

February 12, 2007 @ 3:55 pm by Pressed

The HPV vaccine is a new vaccine approved by the FDA that is said to be 100% effective in preventing diseases that are caused by the Human papilloma virus (HPV). Don’t let this become too misleading. This vaccine only protects against four different types of HPV and therefore does not protect against all types of the virus. There are currently more than 40 types of HPV that can infect men and women. HPV is the cause of cervical cancer in women and other (less common) types of cancers. Certain types of HPV also cause genital warts in both men and women. This means that even with the HPV vaccine there is still a significant risk of cervical cancer and genital warts, diseases that will not be prevented by the HPV vaccine. This vaccine only reduces the risk, it isn’t really 100% effective. It is also less effective if you do not get all three doses (3 shots) at the right times or if you have already been exposed to HPV.

The HPV vaccine has been recommended for 11-12 year old girls, but it can be given to girls as young as 9 or as old as 26. The main goal is to get the vaccine to females before they become sexually active. The vaccine is mainly effective for girls or women who have not yet been exposed to the four different types of HPV covered by this particular vaccine. Anyone who has already been infected will not get the full benefits of the vaccine. It may still be effective for some females who have already been exposed to HPV if they have only been exposed to one or two of the four different types covered by the vaccine.

The HPV virus can cause cancer when it causes the cells in the cervix to change. While in many cases the HPV goes away, there are some cases that it doesn’t go away and instead it continues to change the cells on a woman’s cervix. This can lead to cancer. The percentage of people who will be infected with HPV is staggering. At least 50% of all sexually active people in the United States will get HPV. That comes out to be around 6 million people. Other than the vaccine to “help” prevent it there are no current treatments for HPV.

Should your daughter get the HPV vaccine? As a youth pastor should I recommend that the parents of the teenage girls in my youth group take their daughters to get this vaccine? Where should we stand on this issue as Christians and as responsible adults?

Let me first make this very clear. The only SURE way to prevent HPV is to abstain from all sexual activity. This works 100% of the time, it protects you from all 40 different types of HPV, and it almost completely eliminates the need for an expensive vaccine that may or may not prevent diseases related to HPV. Any parent who is concerned with their teenager’s health enough to make their daughter get an expensive vaccine should equally spend as much money and time making sure their daughter remains abstinent. The HPV vaccine is not a quick fix to deal with the sexual activity of teenagers. If parents are truly concerned with the health and wellbeing of their teen and desire what is best for their teenagers spiritual life then parents need to show the same amount of concern and effort for teaching their teens to be sexually pure as they show for keeping their teens healthy. The $360 it costs for the three doses of vaccine may even be better spent on $360 worth of abstinence protection and training.

Protecting your teenager from disease is not as simple as going to get them a few shots. Parents need to be actively involved in the lives of their teens. Not only do they need to talk to their teenagers about sex and sexual purity, but also they need to establish guidelines that promote purity. Parents who allow their teenage girls or boys to be in the bedroom or basement alone with their boyfriends or girlfriends with the door closed and the light off are asking for trouble. This type of freedom promotes sexual exploration, not purity. The best way for teenagers to prevent these HPV related diseases is to remain sexually abstinent and parents they need your help! They need you to set boundaries for them. The HPV vaccine is not a boundary. It is a vaccine that helps take away the consequences of having multiple sexual partners and therefore promotes teenage sexual activity rather than prevents it. Here is the rub. The HPV vaccine does not prevent pregnancy, HIV, 36 other types of HPV, or many other STD’s. All the risks of being sexually active (including cervical cancers) are still there and yet the vaccine is offering teen girls a false sense of security. If teenagers become even more sexually active after receiving the vaccine, they are at a greater risk than they were before the vaccine was administered.

In my opinion there are only a couple reasons that the HPV vaccine should even be considered. If you are a parent who, against better judgment, doesn’t really care if your teenager is sexually active, or if you are a parent who promotes it or gives your teen the freedom necessary to be sexually active then by all means get your daughter the vaccine. If you are a parent who is certain that your teenager is sexual active despite all that you’ve done to prevent it, then you may also want to get the vaccine (however, never give up promoting abstinence and remind them of all the other risks involved.) The most legitimate reason to get the vaccine is for any future risk that could be out of the control of your teen. While abstaining from sex is the best way to prevent it, you can’t always prevent the person you are going to marry down the road from making mistakes. Even if you’ve only had one sexual partner, if the person you are with has had previous sexual partners then you are still at risk. In the case that your daughter remains sexually abstinent but then desires to marry someone who may have made a mistake early in life then it would be good for her to receive the vaccine. Remember, however, that the vaccine does not have to be administered right away. Your daughter doesn’t need the vaccine right now if she is waiting until she gets married to be sexually active. When it comes to the point of marriage then she can consider getting the vaccine. Another responsible way of dealing with the issue is promoting abstinence with your daughter and waiting until she is old enough to make the decision on her own as to whether or not she wants to get the vaccine. This could prevent the early, false sense of security that teens with the vaccine could develop which may prevent them from making a choice to be sexually active.

This remains to be a sensitive subject with a lot of different points of view. From a Christian perspective, however, the right thing to do is for parents to promote sexual purity regardless of whether or not they feel the HPV vaccine is necessary. Any parent who has a real concern for their son or daughters health and future WILL do what it takes to help their teens live sexually pure. That doesn’t mean just paying for a few shots and calling it good.

Permalink  |  Comments (6)  |  Filed under: Ethics & Worldviews, Life Of A Youth Pastor

Halloween: Just Good Fun Or Demonic Tradition?

October 31, 2006 @ 3:34 pm by Pressed

Originally Posted On October 25, 2004

In my search to discover more about the history of Halloween I was taken to the History Channel’s website. On October 31st, 2004 they are airing a show on the history of Halloween, but if you can’t wait until then there is plenty of information on their website. Here is a quick overview of the history of Halloween from the History Channel’s website:

Halloween’s origins date back to the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced sow-in). The Celts, who lived 2,000 years ago in the area that is now Ireland, the United Kingdom, and northern France, celebrated their new year on November 1. This day marked the end of summer and the harvest and the beginning of the dark, cold winter, a time of year that was often associated with human death. Celts believed that on the night before the new year, the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead became blurred. On the night of October 31, they celebrated Samhain, when it was believed that the ghosts of the dead returned to earth. In addition to causing trouble and damaging crops, Celts thought that the presence of the otherworldly spirits made it easier for the Druids, or Celtic priests, to make predictions about the future.

To commemorate the event, Druids built huge sacred bonfires, where the people gathered to burn crops and animals as sacrifices to the Celtic deities. During the celebration, the Celts wore costumes, typically consisting of animal heads and skins, and attempted to tell each other’s fortunes. When the celebration was over, they re-lit their hearth fires, which they had extinguished earlier that evening, from the sacred bonfire to help protect them during the coming winter.

By the 800s, the influence of Christianity had spread into Celtic lands. In the seventh century, Pope Boniface IV designated November 1 All Saints’ Day, a time to honor saints and martyrs. It is widely believed today that the pope was attempting to replace the Celtic festival of the dead with a related, but church-sanctioned holiday. The celebration was also called All-hallows or All-hallowmas (from Middle English Alholowmesse meaning All Saints’ Day) and the night before it, the night of Samhain, began to be called All-hallows Eve and, eventually, Halloween. Even later, in A.D. 1000, the church would make November 2 All Souls’ Day, a day to honor the dead. It was celebrated similarly to Samhain, with big bonfires, parades, and dressing up in costumes as saints, angels, and devils. Together, the three celebrations, the eve of All Saints’, All Saints’, and All Souls’, were called Hallowmas.

Our celebration of Halloween is wholly different than what October 31st meant to the Celts. To them it was their religion, their belief, their life, and they were serious about it. They depended on the natural world and to see the predictions of the future. To do things to help them through the winter was important to them. In America Halloween maybe somewhat similar to the practices of a false religion or cultic practice, in reality, it is not the same. Is what we do at Halloween wrong? Is it the practice itself or the meaning behind it? For instance, they dressed up to attempt to tell each others fortunes during a festival in which they were sacrificing animals to a false god. We dress up and go door to door collecting candy and having fun. It seems to be there is a big difference in those two things. To Americans it is a fun holiday. Things like pumpkins, ghosts, ghouls, monsters actually entertain us. So how did this buisness of “trick or treat” become a tradition in the United States?

The American tradition of “trick-or-treating” probably dates back to the early All Souls’ Day parades in England. During the festivities, poor citizens would beg for food and families would give them pastries called “soul cakes” in return for their promise to pray for the family’s dead relatives. The distribution of soul cakes was encouraged by the church as a way to replace the ancient practice of leaving food and wine for roaming spirits. The practice, which was referred to as “going a-souling” was eventually taken up by children who would visit the houses in their neighborhood and be given ale, food, and money.

The tradition of dressing in costume for Halloween has both European and Celtic roots. Hundreds of years ago, winter was an uncertain and frightening time. Food supplies often ran low and, for the many people afraid of the dark, the short days of winter were full of constant worry. On Halloween, when it was believed that ghosts came back to the earthly world, people thought that they would encounter ghosts if they left their homes. To avoid being recognized by these ghosts, people would wear masks when they left their homes after dark so that the ghosts would mistake them for fellow spirits. On Halloween, to keep ghosts away from their houses, people would place bowls of food outside their homes to appease the ghosts and prevent them from attempting to enter.

I have found tons of information on the subject of Halloween and the history behind it. For Christians, the biggest fear of celebrating Halloween is the fear of practicing or participating in some type of cultic practice or demon worship. (I won’t get into, but these same poeple should not own Christmas trees if that is the case.)

To me, Halloween is nothing more than good fun, enticing some of the basic human emotions, fear and fun. We like to be scared, thats why we like scary movies. It’s not something that is associated with the devil. These kids don’t dress up and sacrifice people or animals to false gods. The devil doesn’t come in the form of a big monster or an ugly demonic creature that bites our heads off. The things we potray as evil are not what evil looks like at all. Satan and his demons were angels of light and were made as beautiful creatures. However, I am teachable in this area… I don’t have the answers and in fact this could be a disputable matter.

What do you think about Halloween? Demonic holiday or just good fun? Let me know in the comments below.

Permalink  |  Comments (19)  |  Filed under: Ethics & Worldviews