Although C. S. Lewis died in 1963, the arguments in his The Abolition of Man, published in 1943, still apply to us today. One of the greatest Christian apologists of the 20th century, Lewis argues in Abolition that a recognition of objective truth, and a desire to live according to it, are both necessary for a pursuit of true morality, true freedom, and true education.
The subtitle of the book is Reflections on Education with Special Reference to the Teaching of English in the Upper Forms of School. Lewis’s comments focus on the plight of education in an age of scientistic relativism, in which students learn to value the project of subjecting nature to the human will through science, while also subtly rejecting the objective values of nature itself and the objective truths of natural law. Nothing, it is implied, is outside the realm of human manipulation. There is nothing in the world whose value is not subject to human perspectives, and no truths in the universe which are beyond being reshaped and re-formed through human will.
Lewis decries such scientistic relativism. With an appendix quoting documents from diverse civilizations ancient to modern, all praising such objective goods as love of children, spouse, and kin; honoring parents and elders; speaking the truth; keeping promises; etc., he asserts persuasively in Abolition that the modern West is the first society in human history to reject what he calls the Tao. This concept of Tao he describes as “the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.” In his description of attitudes that are either true or false to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things human beings are, Lewis is intimating the connection of truth to morality. The rejection of truth entails also the rejection of true morality. And Lewis recognizes that the decoupling of education from truth and true morality is fated to bring the most dire of consequences. He writes: “The practical result of education [amid today’s rejection of the doctrine of objective value] is the destruction of the society which accepts it.”
Lewis goes on to argue that this denial of the existence and necessity of truth—whether deliberate or not—cannot but result in an increasing loss of freedom. Toward the end of the book, Lewis concludes that “a dogmatic belief in objective value [i.e., objective truth] is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.”
Now, eighty years after the publication of The Abolition of Man, we can say with a high degree of certainty that Lewis’ diagnosis was correct. Our Western societies have become ever more determined in their rejection of truth and of true freedom. The most fundamental freedom, namely freedom of religion, has perhaps suffered the most. Because the notion of objective truth has fallen into disrepute, the contemporary conception of religious freedom bears little similarity to what religious freedom actually is. And all of this has gone hand in hand with the increasing decadence of our educational institutions.
Religious freedom today
In the largely post-religious culture of Europe and North America, fewer and fewer people care about religion. Many have forgotten what religion is. Naturally, with the increasing incomprehension of religion, a new, profoundly wrong, and destructive understanding of religious freedom has arisen. Religious freedom has come to be conflated with freedom of choice. After all, we are tolerant. We claim to celebrate diversity. ‘Choice’ is the idol of our age. Everyone has the right to choose everything, including his or her religion. In a diverse and pluralistic society, upholding choice—the right of everyone freely to choose what he believes—is seen as the only way to guarantee religious freedom for all. But that is a deeply distorted understanding of religious freedom.
Because religion is necessarily about the pursuit of truth, freedom of religion—rightly understood—is about the freedom to seek the truth, not about ‘freedom of choice.’ In fact, as Pope John Paul the Great argued in his majestic encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, all freedom is rooted in truth. Embracing the relativistic glorification of ‘choice’ as the grounds of religious freedom is as much as to argue against all freedom. We must decidedly reject relativism, and explicitly ground religious freedom in the right to pursue authoritative, objective truth.
With Lewis, I would like to make a number of points on the connection between truth and morality. Truth is also about morality, and is vital to Lewis’ doctrine of objective value. It is always about what is good and what is evil; it is about what is right and true, and what is wrong and untrue; it is about what is to be valued, and what is not to be valued. Therefore, freedom of religion—the freedom to pursue the truth—roots freedom not only in truth, but also in moral obligation:
Freedom does not mean the right to do, say, or believe whatever we choose, but only the right to do, say, and believe what is truly good. To put it another way, the heart of freedom—especially religious freedom—is not unlimited choice, but the very opposite of choice. The heart of freedom—especially religious freedom—is obligation: being duty-bound to do and seek what is good and what is true without being free to pursue what is not good and not true. Ultimately, true freedom is limited freedom. True education must also necessarily be about the pursuit of truth. And it must also necessarily be about freedom—the freedom to pursue the truth.
But all of that must happen within the bounds of the good, the bounds established by morality. After all, education is about formation in wisdom and virtue, to paraphrase Russell Kirk and so many other conservative thinkers. It is, as the Christian scholar James K. A. Smith puts it, “a way of shaping what we love, not just what we think.” This is an integral part of Lewis’ entire argument in The Abolition of Man, in which he decries how an education in the denial of truth—in the denial of the objective value of things—produces “Men without Chests,” people without hearts, who are rendered incapable of virtue and wisdom because, without truth, all sentiment, all honor, all devotion, and all love have become purposeless.
Education, like religion, is about the pursuit of truth within the bounds of the good. Therefore, in the academic context, academic freedom is religious freedom, and religious freedom is academic freedom; the exercise of academic freedom is the exercise of religious freedom, and vice versa. Thus, we will not be able to resurrect true academic freedom—freedom to pursue the true, the good, and the beautiful—without also resurrecting a true understanding of religious freedom. In an age that no longer recognizes truth—in an age in which it is considered ‘bigoted’ even to assert the existence of objective, authoritative truths that transcend our so-called ‘right’ to choose what is true for ourselves, this could be the work of generations, with no guarantee of success. Nevertheless, it is an essential task. The truth—and therefore everything—depends upon it.
This essay is based on a speech the author delivered in the Netherlands in August 2023. All opinions and perspectives herein are attributable to the author alone.
"freedom" - Google News
January 05, 2024 at 06:03PM
https://ift.tt/lWGy5XQ
The Abolition of Liberty? Religious Freedom and Education Amid Today's Intellectual Confusion - The European Conservative
"freedom" - Google News
https://ift.tt/aYAgUd7
https://ift.tt/5jz1LNX
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "The Abolition of Liberty? Religious Freedom and Education Amid Today's Intellectual Confusion - The European Conservative"
Post a Comment