Am I supposed to go first?
Okay. I'll take a stab at it.
I'll begin with a conclusion: One cannot reason with an "ideologist," a/k/a ideologue.
Eric Voegelin, the great German–American philosopher of history and of Spirit gave a perceptive, penetrating description of the underlying problem leading to this conclusion in his marvelous essay, "On Debate and Existence" (1967) — in which he also put his finger on the cause of the problem:
In our capacity as political scientists, historians, or philosophers we all have had occasion at one time or another to engage in debate with ideologists — whether communists or intellectuals of a persuasion closer to home. And we all have discovered on such occasions that no agreement, or even an honest disagreement, could be reached, because the exchange of argument was disturbed by a profound difference of attitude with regard to all fundamental questions of human existence — with regard to the nature of man, to his place in the world, to his place in society and history, to his relation to God. Rational argument could not prevail because the partner to the discussion did not accept as binding for himself the matrix of reality in which all specific questions concerning our existence as human beings are ultimately rooted; he has overlaid the reality of existence with another mode of existence that Robert Musil has called the Second Reality. The argument could not achieve results, it had to falter and peter out, as it became increasingly clear that not argument was pitched against argument, but that behind the appearance of a rational debate there lurked the difference of two modes of existence, of existence in truth and existence in untruth. The universe of rational discourse collapses, we may say, when the common ground of existence in reality has disappeared. [Emphasis added]From this point, I just want to fly off and try to see the Darwinist "second reality" in the Big Picture, in its full ideological proportions.
First, some "givens":
(1) Charles Darwin's Evolution Theory is a fine example of Nineteenth-Century science: At bottom, it is constructed on the basis of Newtonian mechanics.
(2) As such, it "reduces" all natural phenomena to material and efficient causes only. The paradigm here is "matter in its motions": Brute inorganic matter is posited as the cause of all things, including the rise of Life, of Mind, of human societies.
But nobody seems interested in asking this question: If the motions of matter are not in some way "lawful," then how can they produce anything other than accidents? Or are we to think that Life and Mind are "accidents?" Maybe even "accidents" in need of "correcting?"
But if we are to regard the motions of matter as "lawful," the next question just naturally comes: Who is the lawgiver, the Truthgiver, who authenticates the laws?
(3) Any and all consideration of Final Cause operating in Nature is streng verboten. Don't even go there.
It's clear to me that species evolve. But it's also clear to me that species do not evolve into other, novel species. There is nothing in the "book of Nature" that can tell me otherwise. (I.e.; on the basis of evidence and experience).
But here's a tantalizing question: Since ToE tacitly assumes that "progress" in "fitness" is necessary for species survival, does it not also allow for the possibility of the devolution of a species, unto its own extinction?
Put another way, an individual of a species must be "fit" to breed, thus to pass on a "fit" inheritance to his descendants. Thus do species "survive."
But what if a member of the species is unfit to breed in the first place? In many human cases nowadays largely owing (I imagine) to contempt for Nature's way of doing things?
It seems clear to me that Nature is deadly serious about sex as essentially purposed to procreation, not recreation....
Not breeding deplenishes Nature's potentialities in the (non-existent) next generation....
Looks like devolution to me.
Also it looks strangely "machine-like" to me. It's as if a certain part of the "intelligentsia" have parted company with the human realm altogether, finding machine-like models of thought more congenial to, and consistent with, their worldview, methods, and purposes.
LOLOL! Though such folk routinely deny Final Cause in principle, they implicitly rely on one or more of them just to get through the day. Anytime we're working towards a goal, a final cause is already manifest to guide our proceedings.
At this point, I'm just scratching my head, wondering where such deniers of First Reality come from; why they reject essential truths about the very structure of Reality in which they necessarily exist; why they seem to reject the human condition in principle....
Very troubling. Much gloom here. It seems to me that we, as Americans, are a divided society right now — divided along the lines sketched out in the above. But what it all finally comes down to is this:
Are we as a people to live in truth, or in untruth?
May God be with us! May He continue to bless the American people!
Thank you ever so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!
We certainly have had our share of "Second Reality" correspondents over the years. The replies we get are often completely irrelevant to the issues on the table. Debating someone who lives in a second reality is futile.
I strongly agree with your three "givens!"