Skip to main content

The Problem with "Progress"

Wherever you go, there you are Progress is a favourite shibboleth of the left. As "liberal" becomes a non starter in the United States, some are already dropping that word for the term "progressive." As if this was about somehow about words rather than ideas! The success of that project is dependent on who uses the word. If it is those who think that the Democrats are failing because they are not left enough, no word will give them the aura of respectability they seek. What is this idea that they think it will help them and why does it apply to them and not to others? Where does it come from and where is it going? That's the trouble. No one knows. Vaguely it means things get more complex and somehow better. How do we know it's better? *shrug* It's progressing, isn't it? Here's what C.S. Lewis had to say about progress:
As a force for emergent evolution, if anyone insists on using the word God to mean "whatever the universe happens to be going to do next," of course we cannot prevent him. But nobody would in fact use it unless he had a secret belief that what is coming next would be an improvement. Such a belief, besides being unwarranted, presents peculiar difficulties to an emergent evolutionist. If things can improve, this means that there is some absolute standard of good above and outside the cosmic process to which that standard can approximate. There is no sense in talking of "becoming better" if better means simply "what we are becoming" - it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining your destination as "the place your have reached."
Taken from "Evil and God," an essay from the book, God in the Dock, which is a much, much better book than Robert Wright's Nonzero.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi