In defense of “extremism”: why worldview matters

It’s an understatement to say that I’ve undergone some major changes over the past few years.  In 2001, I had just gone from being a fat and nerdy Christian homeschooler to being a drug-addled ultra-liberal party-boy, shedding my video games for the pursuit of women and a reckless lifestyle.  But not long after that, after college, after all the glamor of hedonism began to wear off and I began to feel deep hangover within my soul, I began to slowly drift back into conservatism.  And after that, Christianity.  And boy, did I ever swing back hard.

I swung so far to the right, actually, that my college “friends” we pretty worried.  After the overwhelming majority of them left me, I was stuck with my new self, a radically different person, since the one who’d lived a short while ago was for the most part dead.  But nowadays, even after explaining who I was to many mainstream Christian conservatives who know me (and the Leftists who seem to think that as a straight-laced conservative, I have no clue about Noam Chomsky, or drugs, or homosexuals), I seem to get a uniform explanation about why I swung into radical, unapologetic Christian conservatism. 

Many in the public are content with labeling me as a pendulum.   Once far to the left, the momentum of my personal energy and taste for extremes swung me far to the right.  Some people, they would say, have a tendency to consume the most radical ideas, whether due to a need for intellectual stimulation, or need for acceptance or identity within a definable clique (the latter which I personally define as political/philosophical/theological hipsterism).  And of course, they can in certain cases be correct.

But I’m not so certain this is the case with many radicals.  Rather, what I’ve begun to find is that the majority of the public appreciates this idea of radicals and pendulums simply due to the fact that the public is generally unwilling to take their own personal beliefs to logical conclusions, and then apply our God-given sense of morality (or what C.S. Lewis would call “natural law”) to them.  And those of us who do take beliefs to conclusion, well, we turn out a little radical.

For instance, many people are quick to label animal rights arsonists and monkey-liberators as freakish Leftists, but few really have an adequate reason for doing so.  The general public is sure, of course, that granting animals equal protection to humans under the law would be absurd and immoral, but they oftentimes forget that this search for equality rests upon a common western belief: that the purpose of law and morality hinges only upon the management of pleasure and pain, and that animals can feel pleasure and pain.   Surely, we should be able to understand that this radical stance for animal rights has less to do with immorality, and more to do with a logical acceptance of a poor–yet widely accepted–moral foundation.  After all, under this atheistic premise for morality, there exists no good reason to exclude animals from the protection we receive, if both animals and humans contain the very similar experience of pain and pleasure which the law exists to protect.

And while many people who believe in evolution would be quick to call Leftist secular humanists “radicals” for accepting postmodern relativism, a deestablishment of tradition, and an overwhelmingly tolerant attitude toward the breaking of sexual norms, we oftentimes forget that this kind of radical’s belief system flows from the same source as the general American public: the idea that all humanity evolved from goo, culture is a construct, mankind is still evolving, and moral truths must have evolved from nothing and are still evolving at this very moment.  Simply put, while many moderate evolutionists would downplay the necessity of constant evolution and embrace ideas like objective morality, the only reason they do so is due to their own inconsistency and a need to operate according to non-evolutionary moral foundations.  Most people simply can’t handle the belief that a meaningless evolutionary human existence should absolutely result in a dissolution of objective moral truth, or at least a radical disdain for the “anachronistic” governmental and moral principles of our founding fathers.  

Of course, Christians get the same treatment.  Those belonging to so-called mainstream Christian religion claim that (Biblically-based) radicals are responsible for making them look bad, when in fact the only reason the “fundies” take radical positions is because they’re unwilling to compromise what mainstreamers already have abandoned: that God exists, the universe was created according to certain principles, that special revelation of those principles was given so that we can function optimally, and our very purpose is rooted in Him and His word. Although those taking their religion seriously oftentimes are labeled as lunatics, the truth is that many times they’re only applying mainstream religious truth claims to both their lifestyle and their expectations for the purpose of law (to promote the healthy and safe function of the human organism according to the laws of nature and of nature’s God, if that sounds familiar).  Because theological consistency results in a radical departure from secular humanism, there really isn’t any reason for a Christian moderate to exist.  Rather, instead of Christian moderates being considered reasonable, they should begin to question whether they do in fact believe what they claim they do, and if they do believe it, whether or not they’re even willing to follow.

Even anti-abortion activists–the ones who assassinate abortionists–are fully understandable to all in the political spectrum if their operating worldview is understood.  For instance, both the Left and Right are interested in protecting human life, and they oftentimes do so with the threat of violence, and this violence is oftentimes applauded.  Few Leftists today would call the famous revolutionary abolitionist John Brown’s violent acts immoral, since the very slave trade and abuse of human beings was at stake.  But this leads us to wonder: if the Left were suddenly convinced that the unborn were in fact human beings with human rights, would they not support Tiller’s murder?

It seems to me, then, that these problems of extremists don’t lie within the extremism.  Rather, logical human beings with any inclination toward righteousness must necessarily accept nothing less than the radical path.  So we shouldn’t be asking ourselves whether or not people’s actions are radical, but rather whether or not they conform to a proper worldview.  From that point on, we may proceed to call their worldviews–and the actions proceeding from them–moral or immoral, correct or false.  Before then, we really find no sense in judgment.

Unfortunately, the major problem with today’s society is that we falsely claim that a multiplicity of worldviews can coexist without taking their logical assertions to any functional conclusion.   And when consistency of thought is applied, we tend to believe that the solution isn’t a correct worldview, but rather a legal minimalization of radicalism, or some sort of impossible pan-worldview system of law which encompasses every single viewpoint and acts fairly.  In short, this cultural multiplicity not only necessitates an abandonment of both reason and righteousness, it opposes them. 

So as we prepare to take our stances this day, my recommendation would be to stop, take a deep breath, and instead of bickering about consequential movements, let’s get to the root problem.  The reason Christians and conservatives have been losing the fight for America isn’t because they’re not fighting hard enough on the issues.  It’s simply because Americans have accepted and promoted an evolutionary, postmodern worldview which doesn’t correspond at all with Judeo-Christian conservative values. Our problem is one of evangelism. 

And while we absolutely have a duty to love our neighbors as ourselves, we should never pretend that the laws of nature and of nature’s God are disposable, or that we will be happier when we choose to operate apart from them.  In one easily remembered step, the war to restore common sense and the duty to function according to those laws of nature first necessitates a God.  When we learn to combat the lie of evolutionary postmodernism, maybe then we can make some progress.  Until that day, however, we can expect defeat from the radicals who would otherwise be on our team.

For my readers out there who aren’t Judeo-Christian conservatives (and even those who are), I have a few important questions for you.

First, what worldview shapes your actions?  Whether you are an evolutionary postmodernist, a believer in utilitarian morality, a Muslim, a Jew, or a Christian, where would it take you if you applied it consistently to your lifestyle?

Are you pretending to be level-headed, when you’re really just compromising the foundation of your beliefs?  And if you are, does this mean you really believe it, or are afraid to follow it?

Can every worldview be correct, or does the correctness of one necessitate the falsehood of others?

How can we blame others for taking their worldviews to their natural conclusions, if we’ve already declared that all worldviews are acceptable?

While sectarian struggles may at first appear barbaric and childish, if they “disappear” by denying the effects of thought, would we have evolved?

Last, can society ever really take a “neutral” worldview stance in government?  Or is even a neutral worldview stance enforcing a particular moral code, stemming from a particular worldview?

For great information about how to bring God back into the public conscience, I recommend these FREE scientific magazine subscriptions and FREE videos.

The Institute for Creation Research: Acts and Facts (free magazine)

Answers in Genesis: video on demand (free lectures about specific topics)

The Discovery Institute:  God and genetics, God and astronomy, God and physics/biology/astronomy (free documentaries)

This entry was posted on 24. July 2010 at 02:00 and is filed under philosophy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print