The Age of Irrationality

American thinker, Founding Father and celebrated deist Thomas Paine wrote a book late in the 18th century called "The Age of Reason." Paine's book was the American version of a movement taking place at about the same time in Europe that was dubbed, "the Age of Enlightenment."

What characterized this era of Western thinking was an examination of both religious belief and piety.

In Europe, prominent Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and David Hume questioned and attacked the existing institutions of both Church and State.

To set the stage, Europe had been ravaged by religious wars; when peace in the political situation had been restored, after the Peace of Westphalia and the English Civil War, an intellectual upheaval overturned the accepted belief that mysticism and individual revelation are the primary sources of knowledge and wisdom.

It was during the 18th century's "Age of Reason" and 19th century's "Age of Enlightenment" the philosophies of liberalism and atheism were explored and codified, out of which grew the philsophy of modernism that dominated much of the thinking during the 20th century.

From this point on, thinkers and writers were held to be free to pursue the truth in whatever form, without the threat of sanction for violating established ideas.

With the end of the Second World War and the rise of post-modernity, these same features came to be regarded as liabilities - excessive specialization, failure to heed traditional wisdom or provide for unintended consequences.

By the end of the 20th century, the natural progression of these philosophies resulted in much of the Western world entering what many call the post-Christian era.

Now, in the 21st century, a new philosophy is taking over the West. For want of a better name, one might call it the 'post-rational' era.

The previously mentioned philosophies gave great credibility to reason and logic. As the 21st century opens, these bedrock principles of rational thought are being thrown out the window in favor of what can best be described as wishful thinking.

We wish that Islam is a religion of peace and love, and therefore, no preponderence of evidence to the contrary is enough to shake that dream.

We wish the United Nations was an effective tool of international diplomacy and peace, and therefore, the preponderance of evidence that it disinterested in the former and incapable of the latter will be entertained.

In America, we wish that our culture reflected the purest principles of Christianity, and therefore, no argument to the contrary is convincing.

Let's explore the three examples I just outlined in a bit more detail.

President Bush, together with the rest of the Western world's leadership, are adamant in their contention that Islam is a religion of peace and love that was hijacked by a minority of fundamentalist extremists.

They repeat that each time that the West comes under Islamic attack, as if by saying it, it will become true. This isn't rational thinking, this is wishful thinking.

Last week, the Pope quoted a 13th century emperor's assessment of Islam, and was immediately excoriated for 'claiming' that Islam is a violent religion. In the first, the Pope didn't make the claim. He quoted somebody else who made that claim. And rationally, since the claim was made 700 years ago, it was referring to Islam in the 13th century.

No matter. Modern Islam, enraged at the thought that a guy who lived 700 years ago thought Islam was a violent religion, responded by unleashing a violent series of world-wide demonstrations and actions against symbols of Christianity.

The rhetoric from the Islamic world turned reason and rationality on its head. The head of the Islamic Republic of Iran issued a statement saying that "anybody who calls Islam intolerant brings violence upon himself."

That statement is so irrational that it sounds like something from Saturday Night Live. "Don't call me violent or I will kill you."

In protest at being called violent, Islamists burned Christian churches. A 61 year old nun was gunned down to protest the concept of Islamic violence. In dozens of world-wide demonstrations, the Pope was burned in effigy. Islamic groups issued death threats against the Pope. Others threatened to storm the Vatican and kill everyone inside.

In response, the Pope apologized profusely, with his secretary issuing a statement saying that Benedict’s position on Islam was unquestionably in line with the Vatican’s traditional teaching that the Rome “esteems Muslims, who adore the only God.”

To say that the god of Islam that sponsored the global rioting is the same God that told His followers to 'turn the other cheek' is more than just heresy, it is totally irrational.

The Western world murmured appreciatively at the pope's apology, while global Islam protested that it 'didn't go far enough.'

In Cuba, more than half the members of the United Nations met to call the United Nations a tool of the Western powers and demanded the United States be singularly be stripped of its veto power, with Secretary General Kofi Annan nodding in agreement.

The Non-Aligned Movement issued its unanimous support for Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and promised to go to war with any nation that tried to stand in its way.

In response, the United States, which provides the UN with both its headquarters in New York and a quarter of its operating budget, is sending President Bush to give a speech extolling the United Nations for its diplomatic contributions to the world.

President Bush's address is to be followed by a rebuttal address by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who peppers every speech with threats to wipe Israel from the map of the Middle East.

Last week, I wrote a column objecting to the Democratic Party's efforts to claim Christianity as the moral basis for its support of political policies like abortion on demand, gay rights and opposition to letting children pray in public places.

In it, I listed a dozen Scriptures that prove life in the womb is sacred to God, that God opposes homosexual conduct, and that Jesus Christ commanded the Church to advance the teachings of Christianity.

I also wrote, "Don't email me to tell me some Republicans are no better. Declaring yourselves to the lesser of two evils is incompatible with the argument that one can be a good Christian and a good Democrat. It isn't about Republicans. It is about Jesus Christ."

Every single email objecting to my column listed the evils of the Republicans.

I also wrote, "I challenge my next group of critics; before you write to call me names, address the issues that I raise here."

Every single response was a litany of name-calling. Not one single respondent addressed a single, solitary point that I addressed in the column. One, in an exchange that began by calling me an American Taliban and then progressed through the evils wrought by the Republicans, eventually got around to claiming my entire column was just a defense of Republicans.

After I replied by quoting the relevant parts of my column that predicted exactly that response and pointed out that he had not addressed a single issue I actually wrote, responded by saying, "My question to you is; where in the Bible does it say anything about abortion, gay rights are school prayer? Nowhere."

When I pointed out that I listed a dozen verses addressing those exact issues, all in the original column, flashed me back with, "If the democrats are trying to co-opt Jesus as part of their political strategy they are wrong also."

At last, a point of common agreement. To get there, I had to resend the whole column, a paragraph at a time, to rebutt each charge I never made.

Every reply I got dripped with irrational hatred for the Republicans without any addressing a single point of the column, which they were apparently prepared to let stand as written while claiming the whole column was wrong.

In the 21st century, it is evidently rational to oppose a war that US troops are trying to win while claiming to support those troops by hoping they lose.

It is rational to address the specific criticisms of one political party by pointing out the (different) failings of the other party and pretending that constitutes answers the first set of specifics.

It is rational to apologize for calling someone violent because they responded by turning violent.

It is rational to want to strengthen the United Nations in response to UN efforts to sublimate your influence at the Security Council.

The Age of Reason has been replaced with the Age of Irrationality.

The Bible says, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come." (2nd Timothy 3:1) In the same passage, Paul writes, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (3:12)

And anybody who openly admits that believes that to be a true prophecy is deemed 'irrational'.

Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor - 09.23.2006