5
		PURITAN SECULARISM:
	THE AMERICAN VALUE
SYSTEM

GENERATION OF NARCISSUS by HENRY MALCOLM - THE ADULT ESTABLISHMENT (p.104-111)
With an Introduction by R. Buckminster Fuller

			


			The essential causes of conflict between the generations today is the dramatic difference  between the social, economic, and psychological forces which have influenced the two generations during two distinct periods of history. The Great Depression is contrasted by unparalleled economic affluence. The “righteous wars” of 1914 and 1939 had the effect of mobilizing the nation and influencing the values and attitudes of countless youths, who are today's adults, while Vietnam War has alienated the youth of today, resulting in a profoundly deep suspicion and distrust among the young of their own government and its allies in higher education and industry. Even the traditional mythological and religious beliefs which have been unique to Western civilization have finally been polarized into the conservative values of established morality and the radical or utopian values of the young. Prometheus stands against Orpheus and Narcissus. Moses is contrasted with Christ, while modern Puritanism is confronted with naturalism, romanticism, and paganism. And to top it all off, the classic dynamic known to psychologists as the Oedipal conflict no longer serves to function as the group psychology, known to all men who have experienced that familiar role of  institutional or group membership. We have become a mass culture without leadership; the word “system” best describes our interlocking institutions, and no one knows any longer where to place the responsibility for corporate and organizational action. In other words, a basic change has begun to take place which could not have been predicted only a few years ago. And it has come upon us with such speed that most Americans feel a profound sense of disorientation and confusion. Thus arises the tendency to criticize the young for all that seems to be happening, as though they were not themselves as much victims of these forces as anyone else.
	Through the vision of hindsight, however, it is becoming increasingly clear why many of these problems have finally risen to the surface. In summary, one could say that the religious basis  of our civilization has finally run its course, and we are now confronted with the instead of its substance. This, too, is partly what the so-called “Death of God” theologians were trying to tell us. It is what those who have espoused  a new  kind of “religionless Christianity” have warned us of. And it is what presently threatens every major establishment denomination in the Western world, especially in this country. Indeed, one might even call it “Puritan secularism,” or Calvinism gone to seed – a kind of religious frame of reference which no longer has anything to do with the meaning behind reality, a prescribed belief, and a ritualized  form, totally indistinguishable from middle-class existence.
	Curiously, it has been Western religion, particularly Protestanism, that has provided the philosophical thrust that fostered the development of science and technology. Most scientists don't understand this and seem convinced that their roles and disciplines are what Daniel Bell has called “value-free.” This is because they are scientific disciplines, committed to a supposed rationality, empiricism, and logic. The rational man is not supposed to become involved in questions of value and belief, or what has been called “the infinite regress of value  questions.” But all this seeming objectivity among the technical types is totally misleading, because there is a value system in the world of science and technology which comes directly from the most fundamental beliefs and assumptions of Western civilization. Unfortunately, twentieth-century man has tended to overlook most of these basic values, usually taking them for granted, and thus has allowed the scientists and technicians to conclude that they are free from the complicated questions of economics, religion, politics, and sociology.
	Many scientists and technicians react to such arguments with indignation. They are convinced that science is, by its very nature, void of complicated value conflicts. Where it otherwise, many of them argue, it would not be a true science. To men like these, each discipline is an entity of its own, with its own language, instruments of measurement, and scales of exactitude. For a scientist to condition his own use science by questions of social, political, and philosophical significance, he would have to surrender his long-standing commitment to objectivity. But what these men continue overlook is that even their so-called commitment to objectivity is a fundamental value assumption. By its very nature, it presupposes an entire system of related values about the nature of reality, which forces the scientist, whether he likes it or not, into the arena of value questions.
	To place these hidden value assumptions in a historical perspective, it is best to realize that they have their roots deep in the traditions of Western religion. To the average scientist, this may come as a shock, since history reminds him only of the fundamental conflicts that science has had with religion. He recalls the confrontations of Copernicus and Galileo with the Catholic Church. He remembers, not too long ago, the “monkey trial” against the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools in the South. And perhaps even more recently, he recalls the great debate over the problem of conscience in the making of the atom bomb. And he knows all to well that while men like Oppenheimer are considered rebels and idealists, while men like Teller remain faithful to the discipline of scientific empiricism. But no matter what qualities he may feel characterize the truest scientist. He cannot escape from his own value assumption – that science dictates its own demands for truth. And where did science acquire that assumption? Wasn't it Archimedes, Aristotle, Bacon, or Einstein who taught that science was governed by its own laws of truth? But had it not been for the overriding value-assumptions of their civilizations, it is hard to see how these men would have been free to act upon their belief. For the fact remains that science and technology have flourished only in those cultures where the basic value system of the people tolerated them. And one cannot avoid the fact that Western civilization has provided such an environment.
	In fact, three basic beliefs, characteristic of the Jewish and Christian traditions, have been essential to modern science. Although there have also been many parallel concepts over the long haul of history, these three notions have continued to remain orthodox assumptions to Western thought, especially American Protestantism. In biblical terms, they are (1) God is not a part of creation; (2) all reality must be understood in terms of history; and (3) one must understand the present in terms of the “last days,” or what the prophets called “the Kingdom of God.” As such, these three beliefs provide the essential basis for all biblical religion. But even more important, they have become, over the centuries, the roots of Western man's understanding of reality. Of course, they have not remained in their pure biblical form, especially in modern times. A great deal of what certain theologians called “demythologizing” has occurred, leaving, in most cases, the kernel of truth without the religious or theological form.
	Interpreting these three concepts, however, we find how distinctively American they seem to be. For example, if God is not a part of the created order – He created the world but is not part of it – it follows that the fundamental nature of all creation is “secular.” If we were to contrast this with many other values or beliefs – say. From the animistic religions of Africa, Latin America, and Asia – we would discover that most other peoples of the world believe that the universe is filled with sacred and divine power. This means, therefore, that certain places are immutable and untransgressable to man. In biblical religion, however, God may intervene on occasion into the world of creation, but He can never be understood to be natural to it or be seen as part of it. He may reside on the “holy mountain,” the burning bush, or even in the person of Jesus Christ. But He cannot become “created.” This means, therefore, that the universe which God has created cannot possess places or space which “contain,” in their natural state, the Being of God. Only that which God Himself chooses to invade may possess the Divine presence.
	In recent years, however, the demythologized version of this very same belief served the scientist and technician quiet well. For it means that he has a universe available to him which is free from the animistic and sacred prohibitions of religion. He is therefore free to measure, label, manipulate, and alter that universe, limited only by the boundaries of his skill and resources. In this sense, the modern scientist (and all those who willingly support his work) is a secularist of the highest rank. Indeed, he is quite free to “think the unthinkable,” to plan the total destruction of the earth, to contemplate various means of controlling the human organism's brain, nervous system, and bodily functions, or to create the very future itself, if the need and priority demands for it. As one psychologist who works for the government has put it, “Modern science refuses to accept value limitations in the quest for more knowledge.” Indeed it does.
	But if the first assumption provides us with a secular universe, the second does something equally important. It turns time into history, and linear history at that. In other words, whereas most other religions of this planet follow a naturalistic view of time, understanding it to be nothing more than the cycle of seasons, the biblical view persisted in the belief that time is that period on earth, known as man's “lot,” between the poles of creation and the final day of judgment and reconciliation. Obviously, it was the Hebrews who gave us this concept. In fact, the word Hebrew itself means “wanderer.” (note by ab: it derived from the ancient Egyptian word referring to Habiru/Hapiru class of laborers, a different term from the House of Israel, the House of David, and the House of Judah, which refer to completely different people at different times.) And coupled with the prophetic writings and the eschatological periods of later Jewish Scripture, we discover that the Hebrews never completely lost sight of the ultimate goal of the coming “day of the Lord.” Thus, they could never be completely at home with their Canaanite neighbors, who readily worshiped the earth gods and the ever-recurring seasons of time. Consequently, as Christianity came onto the scene, with its enormous emphasis on the imminent end of the world and the establishment of the Kingdom of God, this linear view of time and history received a major endorsement. For almost two thousand years Christianity has pursued this view, looking upon itself as the people of God who must lead the world in the interim period between the event of Christ and the day of judgment. And whenever the Church has tended to lose sight of this task, reformers and critics have risen to put the Church back on the path.
	As a result of this particular assumption, Western man has inherited a view of reality which perfectly suits the needs of science and technology. It turns the past into the facts and the future into the unknown. It makes for a world wherein the principle of change is paramount, building upon the past or rejecting it, as the case may be, for the purpose of extending the present into the future. In those areas of thew world, however, where certain customs and traditions reflect the closed cycle of nature, where time almost literally “stands still,” science and technology are replaced with ritual, because there is no such thing as change. There is only that which is, that which is mystery, and that which is not.
	Coupled with this notion of Western man, however, is the firm belief that man himself is not truly a part of this universe. Unlike the primitive peoples of the world, Western man prides himself in his mastery of nature, he becomes the world's chief manipulator, never content until he has tampered with everything, measured everything, and ultimately mastered everything. Indeed, so important is this belief to Western man that he even measures time itself, turning it into a quantity that can be measured economically (time is money), thus quantifying his very life into various stages and segments. Consequently, his view of linear time has become absolutely essential to almost everything that matters to him, for example, education, work, science. He is completely conditioned by linear time, in spite of the fact that it is an invention of his own civilization. Unfortunately, most Westerners never learn how to escape linear time. For without it Western civilization would die and ultimately return to the laws of nature by which time is on an organic and biological scale.
	And yet, if secularism and linear history have proved to be so essential to Western man, it must not be overlooked that the third belief we have referred to plays an even more important role in his thinking. Concern with the future, or “last days” as the theologians word it, has made Western civilization, and especially the United States, the most eschatological-minded culture on earth. In the Bible, if time meant linear history, then the end or fulfillment of that history must possess great meaning and power. It was the dominant teaching of the so-called prophetic years and meant everything to the faithful Jews who were waiting for the promised day, when God would establish His people forever. But if it was so meaningful to the Jews, it became even more important to the early Christians. In fact, Jesus's  entire ministry and preaching were eschatological, pointing to the imminent dawn of the Kingdom of God. And as biblical theologians have known for quiet some time now, it was Jesus's eschatology which fundamentally characterized His entire ministry.
	Unfortunately, the established Church has never completely understood this phenomenon and thus has tended to turn the radical sayings and teachings of Jesus into rules and laws for behavior, as though Jesus the eschatologist was only a minor subject of interest. Even the early Church had trouble with Jesus's eschatology and therefore sought to play down the futuristic elements, by emphasizing the so-called timeless meaning of His wisdom. And when the Church had finally become established as the dominant religion of Western civilization, only a few sects and heretical groups continued to preach the radical views of Jesus about the immediate dawn of God's Kingdom. This fact alone explains why it was not until the late nineteenth century that biblical scholars rediscovered the true nature of Jesus's ministry and teachings. It was too difficult to “get at” the historical Jesus through the pages of the New Testament. Nevertheless, it remains true that the various sects, especially the Anabaptists and certain Calvinist groups, remained true to the eschatological emphasis. In their simple reading of Holy Scriptures, they couldn't escape the large number of sayings and teachings which referred to the imminent day of judgment. Consequently, their lives were tremendously affected by this attitude towards the immediate future.