Duped by secular rationalism

The consequences of getting the theology wrong have been played out in the history of the world. In the West there have been the unfortunate experiments of National Socialism in Germany and of Communism in the West and in Asia, where it still holds fast in China and North Korea.

Although Capitalism has seemed to be the victor in this war of theologies, it too is a distortion of the one theology that exists at the centre of Christianity. While we may boast of the material success of liberal democracy and even describe it as the end of history, we are beginning to observe its nihilistic heart as the pursuit of material security is attained for many only to leave a vacuum of purpose and meaning. The success of the West looks less and less like success as we begin to run out of the spiritual capital provided by Christianity’s truthful understanding of the nature of the world.

Theological relativism has its cousin in cultural relativism that found its origins not in a 17th century peace treaty but in modern academic anthropology. In an article entitled “The Culture Club” by Lawrence E. Harrison published in The National Interest, we find the following words:

Cultural relativism - the doctrine that cultures can be assessed only within their own value framework - was the brainchild of anthropologist Franz Boas. It has permeated the social sciences, and largely because of it a widespread presumption today exists that all cultures and all religions must be regarded as of equal worth and are not to be the object of comparative value judgments. However, when it comes to the relationship between culture and human progress, I find compelling evidence that some cultures and some religions do better than others in promoting the goals of democratic politics, social justice and prosperity.

Just as the Peace of Westphalia was cobbled together out of political necessity, cultural relativism arose out of the understandable need to observe other cultures free of ones own cultural blinkers. However, the upshot has been, for both movements, the denial that a real world exists and that we exist under the auspices of its necessity. Subjectivity has overrun objectivity. It is no wonder that the complaint from natural scientists about religion is that it is entirely subjective. Cultures do differ in their grasp of the real, and those with a more accurate grasp will interact with it in more successful ways.

By assuming that all culture is of equal value, especially religious culture, we have blinded ourselves to their obvious consequences. Weber pointed out that the Reformation countries in Europe did better than Counter Reformation countries and this difference persists to this day.

It is obvious that a culture that places so much emphasis on life after death will tend not to take this world seriously. Likewise, in Buddhism, detachment will produce a similar result. The concept of karma in Hinduism, that one’s fate is determined no matter how one acts, will cripple the will. A cyclic understanding of life and death will trap men in endlessly reliving the present. Pantheists will never deal with the world scientifically because that world is the habitat of the spiritual.

In the absence of a theology that confirms egalitarianism, society will be structured according to family and tribe and these will always subvert open and fair government based on merit. In the absence of a theology that emphasises service, public institutions will founder on the avarice of the individual. In the absence of a theology that emphasises justice for all, especially for those who cannot protect themselves or provide for themselves, human beings will be sacrificed to what are made out to be religious necessity but which serves baser purposes.

We in the West continue to hear the command to love our neighbour and we turn to impoverished countries in an attempt to help. However, because of the blindness caused by cultural relativism we may offer only material aid. We can in no way address the theological roots of a society’s ills. This is because missionary activity among indigenous populations has been blamed for the disintegration of native culture producing their present parlous state.

This analysis is a triumph of secular academics who steadfastly ignore many good results of European Christian mission and labelled such efforts as cultural imperialism. Of course there were many mistakes in the past and missionaries did not always understand that Christianity could influence indigenous culture without abolishing it. However, we now see that giving material help to societies who do not have a cultural base for competent and just government, serves only to line the pockets of the corrupt, leaving the population to starve.

Cultural relativism has produced a moral and aesthetic impasse. This finds its expression in the way “choice” has become the ethical buzzword, how the study of literature has become an exercise in petty politics and political correctness, how anything can be called “art” and foreign policy may be reduced to “the national interest”. All of this is aided by the separation between church and state which has restricted faith knowledge to the private sphere.

Where to from here? It seems that our society will have to learn even harder lessons before it will learn that it has been duped by what has been called “secular rationalism”. This movement will have to produce even more absurdity before we will see it for what it is.