6. ILLUMINATION: Education as a Way Out of the Shadowlands

Your Library Is Your Paradise

The Renaissance humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam was a champion of classical education. He understood that man is full of faults, but he had hope that he could improve. Through grace he could become God’s co-creator. He praised compassion, humility and moderation. ”Your library is your paradise,” he said.

Martin Luther’s friend and colleague Philipp Melanchthon followed the same line. He too recognised the importance of education. Melanchthon combined the principles of the Reformation with the with the classical heritage from ancient Greece and Rome. This laid the foundation for a rich intellectual tradition.

Unfortunately, many Protestants today seem to have neglected this. Now is the time to rediscover and revitalise our educational heritage! (The Germans call this Bildung; this is a broad term that emphasises personal growth).

A Precious Treasure Not to Be Lost

A good place to start is with the ancient Greeks. There are those who reject ancient Greek democracy because it excluded women and slaves. Certainly there was no small amount of elitism, sexism, racism and fascism in the ancient world. Neither the people of the Bible nor the classical philosophers were free from such things.

But the dark background need not discourage us. It is precisely the liberation from the might-is-right philosophy that is important. Both successes and failures can be relevant to us.

Since these people lived in a completely different culture, we can try to see ”similarities between different things and differences between similar things”. In this way we can search for the principles that underlie the art of being human.

The accumulated experience of humanity is a precious treasure, and to forget it is not very progressive. To move forward, we must learn from history. To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child, said Cicero.

The Search for the Best Regime

It is quite impressive that ancient Athens had a system of government that was as inclusive as it actually was. They developed a democracy that did not rely on bureaucrats and professional politicians. Instead, they relied on the participation of citizens and their ability to use their common sense.

Athens was at odds with Sparta, which practised a much more brutal form of slavery. They could not understand why Athens gave power to the uneducated masses. Instead, their system of government was an oligarchy, the rule of the few.

The Spartans worshipped the god Phobos (fear) for his ability to create discipline and uniformity. Their society was marked by extreme collectivism and their culture was – Spartan. The Athenians also had their follies, but they had a rich and flourishing culture.

Athens and Sparta represented two contrasting political ideals and clashed for influence among the Greek city-states. These two ideas that are still in conflict.

The first idea is that all citizens are basically equal and should have a say in the affairs of society. Everyone has common sense, and if they don’t, they can develop it over time through engagement in society and equal dialogue. If people are treated as adults, it is possible that they will actually become adults.

The second idea is that people are not equal. Humanity can be divided into ”the clever and enlightened” and ”the stupid and unenlightened”. To create a good society, the former must have power over the latter.

Plato lived in Athens, but he followed the second line. He wanted to introduce aristocracy – ”the rule of the best”, that is, rule by a noble and cultured elite. He was highly critical of democracy, which he believed gave free rein to passions and irrationality. Sooner or later, he argued, it would degenerate into tyranny. The great challenge for democracy in our time is to prove Plato wrong on this point.

We should remember, however, that what we now call democracy is more a legacy of ancient Rome than of Athens. Cicero lived in the Roman Republic, which had a kind of mixed form of government: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. The rule of one leader can create capacity for action. Rule by the wisest can provide expertise. Rule by the common people can promote common sense. Cicero believed that a well-designed constitution takes the best from each.

We Can Learn From Plato

In a chapter of the book Adventures and Reflections, I describe my work on water supply in Nepal during the Maoist insurgency. There I argue for Karl Popper’s idea of the open society. Popper is known for his harsh criticism of Plato. Too harsh, I think. Even those of us who believe in democracy can learn from Plato’s ideas.

Plato's scepticism about democracy can be hard to accept. However, it becomes more understandable when we realise that he was mainly criticising what we call populism. Today we are painfully aware of how easily democracies can fall into darkness. Populism can create a cult of power that leads to incompetent leadership, authoritarianism and tyranny.

We can also relate to Plato's famous parable of the cave. We're constantly bombarded with unreliable information from all sides. It's hard to separate fact from fiction. Fake news spreads quickly, and many people get caught up in distorted views of the world. It feels like we're living in a world of shadows, confusing illusion with reality. We long for real knowledge and a true understanding of the world.

The Illusion of Freedom in the Shadowlands

Is this freedom?

• To say whatever comes to mind without inhibition.
• To follow your impulses and do whatever you want.
• To give vent to your overinflated ego.
• To let go of the reins of your inner tyrant.

Isn't true freedom about being liberated from such narrow and self-centred horizons? The Swedish philosopher and educator Alf Ahlberg believed that a functioning democracy requires us to develop the ability to think freely. The problem is not a lack of freedom of expression, but our tendency to enslave ourselves.

Ahlberg argued that we humans are very good at convincing ourselves that we are more rational than we really are. We defend our opinions with reasons that seem logical but are really based on desires, sympathies and antipathies. We see facts that flatter and please us, and turn a blind eye to what humiliates and angers us. We easily fall prey to social prejudices and superstitions. He wrote:

In our narcissistic culture, free thinking is synonymous with following your innermost feelings. Freedom means inflating your ego and giving it free rein. Your subjective opinion becomes something sacred that should not be violated. True is what feels right. Good is what feels good.

Socrates was adamant that these are not the same thing. Such subjectivism makes us easy prey for those who are skilled at manipulating emotions.

Ahlberg argued that fascism and other totalitarian ideologies are based on primitive subjectivism. Collective feelings of flattery, hatred and revenge are believed to be good because they are pleasurable.

The Path Out of the Shadowlands

Plato can be a friend in need. In The Republic, he admittedly put forward some undemocratic and rather absurd ideas. It was shocking to his contemporaries in Athens that he used the collectivism of Sparta as a model. His student Aristotle thought he went too far.

At the same time, The Republic can be surprisingly progressive. Socrates described an ideal society ruled by educated and noble leaders. Plato’s own brother Glaucon listened and was deeply impressed:

Wise women must be educated to rule society as philosopher-queens, thought the feminist Plato. In Athens in 400 BC, this was a revolutionary idea. Unfortunately, no one took it up.

There are both good and bad political ideas in The Republic. But what is perhaps most relevant to us today is not its politics, but its psychology and virtue ethics.
Plato divided the soul into three parts. The first is reason and the second is desires and drives. The third can be described by words such as combativeness, ambition, passion and spiritedness.

Chaos arises when, for example, desire begins to rule over reason. Or when the urge for action becomes an unbridled desire for power. Plato argued that there must be no internal civil war between the three parts. He wrote:

Inner health is about the creation of inner harmony. According to Plato, the three parts of the soul (reason, will and desire) must be coordinated so that each has its proper place and function.

A disorganised soul, he believed, was bound by its desires and fixations. It is like being chained up in a dark cave, lost in shadows and illusions. ‘The Form of the Good’ is like the sun that makes everything appear in its proper light.

The way out of the cave, according to Plato, is through education and virtue. He reflected on what would later be called the four cardinal virtues. Today we could interpret them in the following way:

• Wisdom, e.g. knowing what you don’t know.

• Just-mindedness, e.g. to separate the issue from the person.

• Moderation, e.g. not going to extremes.

• Courage, e.g. not letting fear rule over reason.

Can a democracy function well without the Platonic cardinal virtues?

7. STRENGTH: Keep Your Head up When Everything Goes Wrong

The West Must Rediscover Its Compass

The ideas of the Greeks were passed on to the Romans, who developed a philosophy called Stoicism. It is relevant to those who want to be grounded in reality and work for the common good. Stoic philosophy contains some ideas that belong to an outdated worldview, but also things that are timeless.

It is in many ways embedded in Christianity. Many of the Christian church fathers, and probably St Paul, were influenced by the Stoics. Luther, Melanchthon and Erasmus had one thing in common: all three liked the writings of Cicero, which contain many Stoic ideas.

Alf Ahlberg wrote: ”The humanist tradition is based above all on a fusion of Stoicism and Christianity”. He argued that the Western humanist tradition has been shaped by a number of religions, philosophies and epochs. It developed during the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Its ancient roots lie in Judaism, Christianity, Greek philosophy and Stoicism. He wrote that this is ”the great line of our culture, on whose existence and vitality its whole future depends”.

The synthesis of Stoicism and Christianity is the origin of a precious treasure: the belief in human rights. This idea has matured and developed throughout history. This was mainly done by Cicero in antiquity, and then by Christian philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages, and Locke and Kant in the Enlightenment.

There are times when the West seems to have completely lost its moral compass. That is when we need to reconnect with our historical and spiritual roots.

Not Callousness!

A common misconception is that stoicism must lead to an emotionless and cold state of mind. It is true that it can be exaggerated, but what it is really about is self-awareness and self-control.

It’s not a matter of suppressing emotions, it’s a matter of getting to know them, accepting them and dealing with them. Too much stoicism is harmful, but in moderation it is healthy. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is a modern successor to stoicism.

Training Exercises for the Soul

The ancient Stoics were inspired by the philosophy of Socrates, which included the idea that it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong. They saw him as an example of how to live in a stormy world with inner peace and without corrupting one’s soul.

The Stoics believed that man’s most precious possession was the integrity of the soul. This means that external things such as success and wealth are less valuable. This can be compared with Jesus’ statement: ”What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?”

The Stoic Epictetus saw God as a primal force that creates an inner strength in the soul. The Serenity Prayer is rooted in his philosophy.

Most of what happens in the world is beyond our control, but what we can control are our reactions, said Epictetus. We can control are our opinions, desires and aversions. For a Stoic, it is important to maintain an inner peace of mind that is independent of external circumstances. You must not allow yourself to be enslaved by base thoughts.

”We have nothing to fear but fear itself”, said Franklin D. Roosevelt. The ability to feel fear is, of course, absolutely vital. We live in a dangerous world and if we couldn’t feel fear, we would put ourselves in dangerous situations unnecessarily. What Roosevelt warned against is a fear that impairs judgement. Dangers and threats must be assessed with a balanced mind that neither overreacts nor cowardly closes its eyes to reality. We must be careful that fear does not lead to delusion, tunnel vision or blindness.

The trials and tribulations of everyday life can become exercises in keeping your balance. Epictetus gave the following advice to someone visiting a bathhouse (in the Roman Empire around 100 AD):

According to Stoicism, it is important to be able to think negatively and try to imagine unpleasant surprises. This may sound like pessimism, but it is actually optimism. It’s like saying to yourself: ”Even if I encounter difficulties and setbacks, I have an inner readiness to deal with the problems”.

For a Stoic, it is particularly important to reflect on one’s mortality and to be grateful for the life one has. This puts the world into a truer perspective.

It is important, however, that these Stoic exercises are not overdone. It should not lead to emotional coldness, indifference and an inability to care. Feelings of frustration and anger can be important motivators. The main thing is that anger does not become a pleasure and an unrestrained habit.

Power Does Not Always Corrupt

It is often said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, it seems that there is one exception and that is the emperor and stoic Marcus Aurelius. He had unlimited power to do whatever he wanted, but he tried hard to resist the temptation.

A Stoic sets limits to himself and his actions – not everything that can be done should be done – and has enough self-discipline to respect those limits. Power does not provide freedom from the burden of following principles.

”Beware of being a tyrant,” Marcus said to himself. ”So be honest, good and upright, love justice, be pious, be kind and loving, and be steadfast in the discharge of duty.”

Those who have power over others must first have self-awareness and self-control. This philosophy of life is relevant to politicians, civil servants, police officers, managers and others whose duty it is to serve a higher ethic and the common good.

Why be honest if it is more profitable to be corrupt? This was Glaucon’s challenging question in The Republic. Socrates’ answer was illuminating. A healthy body has value in itself. The same is true of the soul. The soul of the unjust is sick, while the soul of the just is healthy. Inner health has an intrinsic value, even if it is not always ”profitable”.

Justice is the defence against the idea that might is right. There are those who say they are fighting for justice, when in fact they are fighting for power and revenge. This is what happens when one lacks inner justice. The struggle for justice is both an inner and an outer struggle.

Anger can be the driving force to fight against injustice, but what about hate? It is important to learn to distinguish between these emotions. Hate can cause suffering to others and it can seriously damage your own intellect. It is wise to make this a rule of life: Anger may be OK, but hate is not. It is a matter of setting limits for yourself and learning not to cross them.

Hope When Everything Seems to Go Wrong

The Christian belief in life after death can lead to a pious escape from the world, but it doesn’t have to be that way. On the contrary, it can become a source of inner strength. Hope protects us from emptiness and cynicism.

Heavenly hope gives the feeling of having a home. It creates a natural stoicism that is not forced or contrived. Even if everything goes wrong, all is not lost. Hope becomes an inner source, which is less dependent on circumstances. The heavenly hope can therefore also create an earthly hope. Bonhoeffer wrote:

8. INTEGRATION: Handle Differences and the Round Squares of Life

Four Pitfalls When Attempting to Create Harmony

How can people from different cultures live together in harmony? What should they do when they are strangers to each other and have very little in common with each other? Should they strive for unity or diversity? Do they want to live in equality, or does one group try to dominate? This leaves four possibilities.

1. Mosaic: Equality and Diversity. In a mosaic, people from different cultures live side by side. They stick to their own traditions and do not change their language or ways of living and thinking. No one culture is considered superior to another. However, the harmony is easily disturbed and there is a constant fear of domination. In this situation you have to be politically correct and walk on eggshells so as not to offend anyone. Everything is linked to identity, pride and inferiority complex. The danger is that people get on each other’s nerves.

2. Segregation: Dominance and Diversity. In a segregated society, some groups of people float on top. It’s like oil and water: they never mix, no matter how much you stir. An example of this is South Africa and Namibia under apartheid. Some people believe that it is a divine order that some people should have power and privilege. If others just submit, they can be accepted like children in a family. Social harmony, they say, should be based on submissive respect and patriarchal benevolence.

3. Melting pot: Equality and Unity. A melting pot is created when all communities cut the roots of their respective traditions and see only what they have in common. It can easily absorb ideas and impressions from all corners of the world. It develops a cosmopolitan culture characterised by easily consumed food, art and music. The melting pot becomes fluid and unhistorical, shunning anything complicated. Those who cling to their traditions are seen as abnormal.

4. Homogenisation: Dominance and Unity. People in a homogeneous group tend to think that what is common must be normal. And what is normal must be natural. And what is natural is probably a divinely ordained order. All deviant elements must be eliminated or transformed. Here it becomes admirable to be politically incorrect, and those who pick on minorities are seen as tough and strong. The most brutal forms of homogenisation are ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Which of these strategies should we choose? Notice that they all have one thing in common. They are different ways of avoiding what is foreign and different. The hope is to eventually reach a state of harmony, free from friction. But the result is often just the opposite.

Instead of seeking harmony at all costs, we could set a new ideal. We could aim for the ability to integrate.

Humble Pride and Respectful Honesty

We must learn how to deal with pride in our nation, tradition, faith, uniqueness, identity, etc. Pride is like drinking wine: one or two glasses is pleasant and increases self-confidence, after three or four glasses you lose your judgement and say foolish things, after five glasses you become aggressive. Everything in moderation.

We should strive for a kind of ‘humble pride’. We should be proud enough to look after our own communities and preserve our cultural heritage. And we should be humble enough not to look down on other people and to acknowledge the darker parts of our history.

We need to learn the art of reconciling opposites. What often causes polarisation is the struggle between the politically correct and the politically incorrect. These are two extremes to be avoided. Politically correct means being respectful but not sincere, which easily leads to hypocrisy. Politically incorrect means saying what you think without showing respect, which easily leads to bullying. 

A well-integrated person can hold two thoughts in his mind at the same time. It is possible to be both truthful and considerate. The ability to solve this round square is essential for those who really want to communicate and be understood.

Avoid Stubborn Dogmatism and Lazy Relativism

Dogmatists cannot be wrong. But neither can relativists, because in their minds there is no right or wrong. Both are unwilling to listen to counter-arguments. Neither understands that they are trapped in their intellectual fixations.

Socrates was able to engage people and encourage better thoughts and ideas. Know thyself! he said. Be aware of your own ignorance! Only then can we free ourselves from delusions. To become wiser, we must help each other through dialogue.

This was not a dialogue between deaf people, where no one listens to the other’s arguments. If the person who disagrees with me is right, I am the first to give in, Socrates said. He said, ”Wherever the winds of discussion blow – there we must go”. It is this kind of give and take dialogue that can provide the Platonic insight: truth is something that can be approached and that in some sense exists.

”I have the absolute Truth,” says the dogmatist. ”Your truth is not my truth,” says the relativist. Neither seeks truth through dialogue with others. Trapped in their shells, they cannot change, grow and evolve.

But suppose there is an objective Truth that stands above our favourite private ideas. Then the possibility opens up that our opinions need to be corrected. Being guided by the Truth keeps us awake from both dogmatic and relativistic slumber. Those who do so can make an important contribution to our troubled world: spreading the art of dialogue and reasoning.

Phronesis – An Old Virtue in Need of Revival

An important key to integration is what Aristotle called phronesis, which can be translated as practical wisdom, common sense and good judgement. This is something that is developed through work and life experience and through education.

It is an intuitive form of knowledge that involves being able to discern what is essential and what is non-essential in any situation. It means being able to consider different courses of action in order to choose the best one.

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle developed a theory of how we can cultivate the emotions to harmonise with judgement. He emphasises the need for good habits. When we were children, our emotions were a little 'raw' and not finely tuned to good judgement. We tended to like doing bad and unwise things. We had an aversion to doing good and wise things. Emotional refinement requires consistent practice. When we create good habits, we feel pleasure when we do good things and pain when we do bad things.

This process is related to the cultivation of virtues, especially phronesis, which is related to moderation. In practical life we often need to find the golden mean and not go too far in either direction. It is important not to overreact or underreact.

‘Half-Educated Experts’

Aristotle distinguished phronesis from techne, or technical knowledge. This form of knowledge is also needed, of course, but if aid becomes a technocracy without phronesis, it will too often make serious mistakes.

Experts are indispensable because they are knowledgeable in a particular field. At the same time, they are inherently more ignorant of what lies outside that area. Like all human beings, they are limited.

But what if they lack knowledge of something important, namely knowledge of their ignorance? What if they have a weak and diffuse understanding of their limitations? If they lack self-awareness, they tend to overestimate themselves and make confident statements about things they do not understand. Since the domain of competence is like a small island in a large ocean, it is likely that they are often in uncharted waters without realising it.

It was this kind of ”half-education” that Socrates thought he saw in the technicians and engineers of his time. He noticed that although they were very knowledgeable in their field ...

A technocracy is a government of ”half-educated” experts. Being an expert in one area can create a false sense of being an expert in everything.

The Practical Relevance of the Humanities

Knowledge gaps are often filled with illusions of knowledge – prejudices, false assumptions, simplistic solutions, etc. This is the result of blind ignorance.

Humanities studies and Bildung can cultivate an awareness of one's own limitations. It creates a kind of enlightened ignorance – an understanding of what one does not know. This can foster the ability to navigate a world of constant change, ambiguity and contradiction.

Broad-based education is important for those in leadership positions. We need educated leaders who can combine expertise with good judgement. Such people may not always have the right answers, but they are often good at solving problems through dialogue.

This ability can be developed by getting to know the different dimensions of life. This can include, for example:

• Nature and culture.
  
• Humanities and technology.
  
• Tradition and progress.
  
• Quantity and quality.
• Facts and values.

9. X-FACTOR: Embrace Life’s Mystery and Spark a Love of Science

This chapter deals with the origin of the world and life. Its purpose is not to question the scientific models of the Big Bang or evolution. What I am sceptical about is the popular but strange idea that these models provide support for atheism.

In the Beginning

It seems that many believers are uncomfortable with the Big Bang theory. The whole world was created with a bang, just like that. Science has explained everything and there is no need for God, say some atheists. Many believers feel provoked, while many atheists feel vindicated.

But it could also be the other way around. The person who coined the term ”Big Bang” was the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who was an atheist. He was initially very sceptical about the whole theory and suspected that its proponents had deeply religious motives. In an interview with the BBC, he said: “The reason why scientists like the ‘Big Bang’ is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis [i.e. the creation story in the Bible]. It is deep within the psyche of most scientists to believe in the first page of Genesis.” He invented the term as a mockery.

For an atheist that really understands science, the Big Bang can be a rather provocative theory. The Big Bang is not about the creation of the universe, but about its history. Specifically, what happened in the first microseconds, hours and years, and how the universe expanded and cooled.

How it all began, how the ”explosion” itself was initiated, how matter and the laws of nature were created – these are questions about which science finds it difficult to even speculate. If a miracle is an event without a natural cause, then the entire universe is one gigantic miracle.

The Big Bang does not explain the creation of the world, but its historical evolution. Similarly, Darwinism does not explain the creation of life, but its evolution. How the first living cell came into being is a notoriously difficult puzzle for science to solve.

The two most important questions – the creation of the world and of life – are unanswered by science. These huge gaps in knowledge can be a source of discomfort and irritation for atheists.

Beware of The Illusion of Understanding!

Evolutionary biologist Henry Gee blames the mass media and popular science for spreading false ideas about evolution. In an article in the journal Nature, he writes:

What Gee objects to is that such images give the false impression that evolution is some kind of progressive principle of improvement. Nature is seen through the lens of human optimism. You are led to believe that there is an inherent force in nature that pulls everything towards the higher, the better, the stronger. 

Evolution is of course a historical fact, but popular science sometimes gives explanations that have nothing to do with serious science. For example, they use phrases like ”the struggle for survival leads to the improvement of species as weaknesses are gradually eliminated” and ”nature’s blind watchmaker randomly produces new prototypes” and ”nature uses the principle of trial and error”. And so on.

This brings to mind competing companies that are driven to constantly improve their products. Or innovators creating and refining their inventions. You see similarities between very different things and get a strong sense that everything fits together – ”synthesis without analysis”. It is believed that competition among animals is similar to competition among humans, and that both cases lead to the same kind of progress and development.

Nature is thought to work in much the same way as human creativity and invention, which is rational and goal oriented. Many people therefore believe – unconsciously – that nature is imbued with a human-like intelligence and will.

It becomes somewhat comical when one realises that many who claim to be atheists actually believe in a supernatural vital force. Needs that are denied in the conscious mind often play their tricks in the subconscious. 

The Mysterious X-Factor

Over hundreds of millions of years, bacteria have evolved into lions, birds and humans. The question is, how did this happen? Everyone should agree that mutation and natural selection are at least part of the explanation. It is a combination of law and chance. But scientists disagree about which is more important. So there are two schools of thought, one emphasising law and the other chance.

In the second case, chance-evolution, there is no need for a God. This is something that fits well with atheism. The path from bacteria to birds depended on a long series of lucky accidents.

But how can you tell whether an improbable event was the result of blind luck or a godsent wonder? Who can tell the difference between chance and miracle? Chance-evolution leaves the door wide open for God!

Guided evolution means that species were created by an intelligence. This position fits well with the idea that God creates everything with his finger, i.e. theism. A related alternative is living force evolution, which is similar to pantheism. It is also known as vitalism.

Whichever way you look at it, it is hard to escape a mysterious X-factor. It is difficult to find a position that provides a firm and secure foundation for atheism. 

The True, the Good, the Beautiful

If evolution were driven solely by the principle of survival of the fittest, we would presumably value those qualities that favour our physical survival. But everything does not fit into this pattern.

How is it possible that a brain shaped by life in the jungle and savannah could produce such sophisticated intellectual endeavours as algebra, quantum physics and space exploration? How can you ascribe almost divine qualities to the mind while claiming that man is nothing more than an animal?

Think about how we care for others, even if they do not directly contribute to our survival. We care for all children, regardless of ability, and we care for the elderly, whether they are productive or not. This is a clear sign that we value more than just survival. Many of us react with resistance to cold, rational calculations that suggest we should get rid of the weakest.

Also, why is it in our genes to love music? Isn't this an unnecessary trait for a ‘survival machine’? Music has been man's constant companion throughout history. It is deeply rooted in the human soul. The value of music is enormous, even if it serves no direct practical purpose.

Science is a quest for truth. Ethics is the quest for what is good and right. Art is the quest for the beautiful. The true, the good, the beautiful – this is sometimes called ”the Platonic Trinity”. Does it originate from the mysterious X-factor?

If you want a sense of intellectual control, this is what you can get: soulless materialism with no divine spark. This leads to complacency that kills the spirit of exploration and inquiry.

Science has not and will never demystify the world. On the contrary, the more you discover, the more you realise how little you know. This is true of the individual as well as of science as a whole. The mysteries just keep getting deeper.

Albert Einstein showed the way to true enlightenment when he said:

We must let go of the intellectual desire for control and accept that there are things we will never understand. We need to move away from the illusion of understanding towards genuine insight, however limited. In this dark age of growing anti-science sentiment, we need to light a spark of love for sound science and real truth-seeking!

10. COUNTERFORCE: Discover an Ancient Vaccine Against Fascism

Does Darwinism Lead to Social Darwinism?

Secular humanists base their values on reason and compassion, but reject the idea of a higher power. They accept some Christian morality, but not belief in God. For many atheists, secular humanism is attractive because it denounces religion while retaining some of its good values.

Darwinian apologists (such as Richard Dawkins) insist that there is no meaning or purpose in the universe. In life there are only blind evolutionary forces of survival of the fittest. They claim that only these blind forces have produced our own species, Homo sapiens. They explain that this does not mean that humans must be psychopathic monsters, always selfishly prioritising their own survival at the expense of others. Things like empathy, self-sacrifice and cooperation are beneficial to collective survival. Secular humanists argue that it is therefore perfectly rational to believe in both a purposeless universe and humanism.

Is this an effective way of (so to speak) separating Darwin from Hitler? The ability to empathise alone does not make us broad-minded humanists. Empathy can actually lead to violence. Seeing members of one's own tribe attacked can create a sense of empathy that triggers collective and selfless action – to eliminate another tribe.

Can humanism really be rooted in pure Darwinism? 

Is Secular Humanism a Good Basis for Human Dignity?

There is a counter-force to fascist ideologies, and that is a belief in the inherent dignity of the human person. On what can such a belief be based? It is important that it is firmly grounded, otherwise it is nothing more than a castle in the air, which disappears at the slightest strain.

Some secular humanists believe that human dignity can be based on certain human similarities or characteristics: empathy, the ability to think and feel, etc. They believe that all these wonderful qualities are a product of natural selection. A bizarre logical consequence is that they should recognise that elimination of 'barbaric' tribes could be justified if, for example, it increased humanity's capacity for universal empathy.

Anyone who wants to be a 'hardcore Darwinist' and a humanist at the same time faces a dilemma. Should you embrace or reject a 'morality' that says it is good if some people are wiped out? Should you embrace or reject the idea that every human being has intrinsic value, regardless of their fitness to survive?

Secular humanism is a widespread ideology in the Western world. But it is, to put it mildly, a shaky foundation for human dignity. When it collapses (as it is doing today) it is not a pretty picture. Call a people "barbarian hordes" and "monsters" and suddenly unhinged brutality is justified.

Secular humanism lacks deep historical roots. However well-intentioned, it is fragile and easily broken. It is a weak counterforce to fascist ideologies that dehumanise certain groups of people and regard them as inferior and worthless.

A Better Foundation for Human Dignity

The belief that every human being is created with an inherent dignity can rather be anchored in the biblical idea that we are created in the image of God. This likeness manifests itself in our desire for truth, goodness and beauty. Man's love of science and music is a sign of a deep inner link with the Creator.

Some object to this and say that it is not very humble to think in this way. Some proponents of science claim that humans are mere animals and that we are utterly insignificant in the grand cosmic scheme. Is this really an expression of humility? Do we (as some believe) become more eco-friendly by seeing ourselves as animals? Or does it open the door to dark and sinister forces (like fascism) that dehumanise people and destroy the planet?

There are also some Christian preachers who reject the idea that we have value as created beings. They argue that humans are fundamentally worthless and that only those who recognise their unworthiness will be saved. This teaching is presented as profoundly humbling, but in fact the opposite is true. The consequence is that only Christians are given real value, while non-Christians are degraded. This phenomenon is called 'Christofascism' and it is very common today.

Belief in God as the Creator of all is like a spiritual vaccine. When Christians downplay this belief, they expose themselves to the virus of fascism. To counterbalance our tribal instincts, we need a healthy dose of universalism.

The Three Parts of the Lost Counterforce

When talk of human dignity is not grounded in anything, it often becomes mere lip service. But when the belief that all human beings are created in the image of God becomes a fundamental part of who we are, we instinctively reject humiliation and dehumanisation. It creates a unifying bond. Dividing identities (like nationality) becomes less important than this unifying identity. It becomes natural to think that the golden rule and principles of justice apply equally to all.

Add to this another statement of faith. The Cross and Resurrection is a story of how Christ suffers and dies at the hands of the powerful, yet survives and triumphs. It is a complete reversal of conventional logic and worldly principles. Instead of ‘survival of the strongest’, it is about ‘survival of the mild-hearted’.

Many in our society are attracted to the idea of unbridled power. What begins as an admiration for strength and toughness can turn into callousness and brutality. The ability of not caring becomes a source of pride. Heartlessness becomes a virtue, gentleness a weakness. Such an attitude fits perfectly with fascist ideology, which glorifies uninhibited cruelty and sees it as something to be admired and embraced as a way of life.

Faith in the Cross is a protection against this fall into darkness. It leads to a transformation of the heart and challenges the common perception that strength lies in the ability to dominate. The fascination with power disappears. Gentleness, not heartlessness, is the true value and source of strength.

Even though self-defence can be justified, it is only a necessary evil. Callousness and aggressivity must never become a pleasure or a way of life. Even in battle, one must observe international laws of conflict, which are designed to preserve human dignity as much as possible, even in the heat of combat. A spiritual counterforce of self-control and restraint must be applied in all circumstances.

To believe in the Cross is to have faith that good will triumph over evil. It is a symbol of protection and protest against a world where might is right and ruthlessness is the key to success. Believers are emboldened by the promise that they will live even if they die. They gain the courage to refuse to take part in games that corrupt the soul. It is better to suffer injustice than to do injustice. 

Now combine these two beliefs with a third: God as a spiritual guide out of the shadowlands.

In the Christian tradition, God is Creator, Saviour and Helper. This is the divine Trinity. Together they are a unified and formidable counterforce to destructive ideas and ideologies. This has been forgotten by most people in our modern age. Perhaps it's time for a renaissance?