Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass
by Kathy Brown on June 17th, 2009 | 1 comment
Before turning to how those with a Biblical worldview may veer far from their presuppositions, a little more on the subject of incongruous secular thinking. This may be a good time to recommend a book by a British psychiatrist who treats the poor in a slum hospital and a prison. His name is Theodore Dalrymple, and his book is: Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass. The insights gleened from his observations fit right into the subject at hand; that is, a secular humanist worldview is chock full of ideas that lead to devastating consequences. In order that those are not fully felt, there have to be detours taken off the Secular Humanist path.
Whether the author realizes it or not, he is addressing the deep (rather than surface) causes of, and cures for, poverty. It would be a shame to ruin the adventure of the read, so a comparable assessment will suffice.
Government schools and social institutions insist that unequal distribution of wealth is the root of crime and deviant behavior. Somehow, if only money could reach those "disadvantaged", the ills of our country would disappear. Thus, bad schools can be fixed by (unending) funding. Taxes are levied on those that produce in order to supply those who do not. The socialist experiment, which has never worked, is carried on in the hopes that failures of the past really rested on the inability to get financial equality.
This is very odd, actually. It flies in the face of the Secular Humanist's foundational beliefs. (Foundational Presupposition Chart). For those who want nothing to do with God as a cure for failing education, crime, illegitimacy and other undesirable outcomes, it must be noted that this negation is replaced with something. When God is not recognized, the default position is that man is at the center of problem solving. And from there we have host of sprouts that grow ideas we may not expect:
- Everyone decides for themselves what is right or wrong. There is nothing "outside" man to indicate what is good for society.
- Evolution explains not only the origins of people, but also their (non)purpose. The incremental advances toward eliminating those who "drag down" everyone is reasonable and justifiable.
- Tolerance is no longer disagreeing agreeably, but "tolerance" becomes accepting all ideas.
How do these three ideas play out in the public sphere? Not very consistently.
- If there is no right and wrong, how is it possible to call someone else's lifestyle or activity "bad"? Of course, innately everyone knows there is right and wrong. Even those who don't want God as the referee, need one. So the government takes that role.
- If the best for humans is that those who impede progress for everyone should be eliminated, then government should not care to rescue anyone. Those who are on the bottom of life should be left there. The producers should be assisted, not the sick or unproductive. However, there is an inner sense of respect for human beings in everyone, given by God, and it can be seen in remarkable ways. Even in a government who resists the worldview that spawns goodness.
- Tolerating all behaviors and lifestyles should lead to a government that is not "judgmental". There should be no concern for those who are drug addicted, poor or engaging in activities they have chosen. This too, runs counter to all we are as humans. Although there may not be acknowledgment of the Giver of moral law, it exists. And government puts its own spin on it.
Which worldview does make the underclass? Enjoy the book!
Next entry: What's a Mouse Doing in the Cookie Jar?
Previous entry: What's Logic Got To Do With It?
1 Comment Add your comment
Kathryn July 1st, 2009
I'm getting that book!
back to Blog Archive