LGBTQ and Secular Philosophy

Classical Christian philosophers considered homosexuality a dysmorphia because it is a deviation from nature, and up until the last few decades, psychologists recognized it as such. It is only recently that it has been embraced as a legitimate form of human living, along with transgenderism and - slowly but surely - pedophilia. This isn't because there were scientific breakthroughs; it's because psychologists began to pay homage to modern philosophy rather than to reality. Progressives - who have advocated modern philosophy lock, stock, and barrel - have jettisoned the facts of nature. They rejected Plato and Aristotle and Aquinas, the greatest western philosophers. They rejected them because their arguments naturally lead to the evidence of God and objective morality; it wasn't that western philosophy was found wanting and rejected, it was that their conclusions were found distasteful and so they were jettisoned. In fact, the rejection of classical western philosophy wasn't a well-considered shift in philosophy but a knee-jerk attempt to disentangle from the responsibilities of living under the weight of a Creator and objective reality. They did not want there to be a God; they did not want there to be such a thing as absolute Right and Wrong; they did not want things such as men and women to have definitions; and so they rejected the very foundation of the western world and sought to build something else in its place, a reality that fit their own tastes. Centuries later, we are in a culture in which feelings are more important than facts, and those who disagree - even those who politely disagree - are labeled as bigots, racists, and haters who are anti-science (though the ‘science’ which we supposedly reject isn't science at all but philosophical ideas couched in scientific terms).

Western classical philosophy, which started with observing the world and using logic to determine the nature of reality, naturally leads to the existence of God, the immateriality of the soul, and the reality of objective truth. Modern secular philosophy, as I’ve said, didn’t arise because later philosophers reevaluated Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas and discovered that their logic and conclusions didn’t hold up under scrutiny; rather, they disliked the natural conclusions of classical philosophy and sought to create something more palatable to their tastes. Modern philosophy takes the opposite route of classical philosophy: rather than examining the world and coming to conclusions based on those observations, it begins with its conclusions and seeks to justify them by reinterpreting reality. Modern philosophy begins with the assumption that classical philosophy is wrong; it’s sustained not by persuasive argument or honest logic but by ideological convictions. Modern philosophy’s obsession with naturalistic materialism – the idea that all that exists in reality is the material realm – isn’t a conclusion drawn from logic but an attempt to keep a ‘divine foot’ from getting in the door. Modern philosophy builds upon the work of the 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes – called the ‘father’ of modern philosophy – who believed that the human brain and body were built of nothing more than purposeless material components acting according to blind physical laws; a materialistic reading of Darwin’s theory of evolution only bolstered this proposition. While the main foundation of modern philosophy is an ideological rejection of the classical worldview, a second ‘foundation’ is the materialist interpretation of Darwin’s theory of evolution: accordingly, human beings are nothing more than bloated bags of molecules arranged in such and such a manner. We aren’t distinguished from dogs, jellyfish, or eagles in any way that matters. We are, ultimately, animals, and we are held to the same standards as animals (this is why, in the segment from which the video below is taken, Bill Nye argues for secularist sexual ideas using a clownfish as an argument). We are ‘atomistic individuals,’ no longer united as human beings to a human nature by which we are judged and held accountable. Human beings, as ‘rational animals,’ are free to live as they please and do as they will; because all that exists is the material world, there’s no absolute Right and Wrong, for such objective morality can come only from essential natures or a Creator. Things such as justice, love, and honesty are abstract ideas, and in a world composed only of the physical, they are just silly thoughts of atomistic brains; they, like morality, don’t really exist, and no one can be compelled to subject themselves to them. Perhaps the greatest problem facing modern philosophy is that of morality: ‘If Right and Wrong don’t exist, then how are human beings to get along?’ If human beings are free to live and do as they please, bound by no moral hedgerows, and because we know that human beings are naturally bent towards violence against one another, how, then, is harmony to be achieved? 

Modern philosophy is the undercurrent to much of the liberal thought of western philosophy, and children are being raised to swallow it without thinking. Our liberal-minded schools teach modern secular philosophy as if it’s proven fact, as if only fools or archaic luddites could ever think differently. It’s only when you get to the higher-level philosophy classes that you begin to sense the trepidation and concern among the secular philosophers: they know their philosophy is built on sand, and most of them struggle to keep modern philosophy from following its natural trajectory to a world in which the most heinous crimes are justified and accepted. It’s ironic that while modern philosophers have exulted in overthrowing the rigid atmosphere of objective morality, they nonetheless live as if objective morality were true (perhaps because, it is!), and they’re frightened of a world in which their modern philosophy is taken seriously. We will examine the conundrum facing modern philosophy’s stance on morality in a moment, but bringing this to bear on the subject at hand: ‘How does modern secular philosophy guide liberal views on human sexuality?’ The song My Sex Junk in perhaps the most cringe-worthy Bill Nye episode to air illustrates the answer:

that this video is 1.4k likes and 29k dislikes is encouraging

The singer says, ‘It’s evolution, ain’t nothing new; there’s nothing taboo about a sex stew.’ Her statement rests upon the modern philosophical idea that materialist evolution is the greatest reality, and as such human beings are nothing more than ‘rational creatures’ who are products of evolution. If this is true, then human beings are not made in the image of God and are not bound by a nature of what it means to be a man or woman; if this is true, then human beings are held to no moral standard above that of the animals; if this is true, then human sexuality is just the ‘causeway’ by which evolution proceeds, and because we are animals, there’s no right or wrong – no ‘taboo’ – way of embracing our sexuality. Classical philosophers argued that certain sexual acts or lifestyles were taboo because they violated the purpose and function of what it means to be a sexual human creature; Christians have agreed and gone further, saying that certain sexual acts and lifestyles are sinful because they violate God’s design for human living, which directly correlates with the essential nature of what it means to be a man or woman. When the idea of ‘essential natures’ and a divine created order are tossed out, what’s left but ‘atomistic’ creatures who like to have sex? And if there’s no essential nature and no divine created order, then there is also no morality constraining sexual expression: therefore there’s truly nothing wrong with a sex stew (though, it must be said, I’m sure most liberal philosophers would agree that kidnapping and raping a four-year-old girl is wrong, though they couldn’t tell you why or how). 

The singer says, ‘Drop some knowledge: sexuality is a spectrum, everyone is on it.’ With this, even a Christian would agree (though they wouldn’t use her terms). She’s saying that all human beings find their sexuality on a spectrum that ranges from the orthodox (heterosexuality) to the unorthodox (homosexuality and other perversions). Some peoples’ sexuality is unflinchingly heterosexual; others are unflinchingly homosexual. Some people – what we used to call bisexuals but who are called by all sorts of names now – are sexually drawn towards members of both sexes. The ‘sexuality spectrum’ has room for everyone’s particular preferences. That this is true is a no-brainer; the Bible even assumes it to be true. The difference between secularists and Christians is that a secularist looks at the spectrum of human sexuality as an expression of all the beautiful ways human sexuality is expressed, and if it falls on that spectrum, it is justifiable and okay (as a side note, I’ve seen these spectrums in various places, and it’s interesting that they tend to exclude necrophilia and pedophilia despite them being sexual preferences for some people). A Christian would look at the ‘sexuality spectrum’ and see all the ways sinfulness has infected us to our core. Human beings are sexual creatures, and it is thus our sexuality that is often the most twisted; we are prone to strange desires because our sinful infection runs deep. The classicist looks at the ‘sexuality spectrum’ and sees all the ways human sexuality fails to conform to the essence of what it means to be a man or woman; the Christian looks at the ‘sexuality spectrum’ and sees all the ways human sexuality fails to conform to the created order; the secularist looks at the ‘sexuality spectrum’ and claps his or her (or their?) hands in glee at all the ways humans have found to express themselves (though they stop short, for some reason, of including sexual preferences that are, at this moment, still distasteful to most people). 

The singer continues, ‘Just do what feels right.’ In the classical worldview and in Christian thought, one doesn’t simply do what feels right; one is commanded to do what is right, feelings aside. This singer’s statement reflects the overarching conviction of modern secular philosophy: because we are mere animals, because we are constrained by no objective morality, we are thus free to live and do as we please. This kind of talk is also what makes modern philosophy so tempting: because we are depraved creatures, bent in on ourselves and driven by sinful impulses, a philosophy that validates everything we feel and want and approves of our autonomy is incredibly appealing. People want to believe that they are free to do as they please; people want to believe they are not bound by a morality by which they may be judged. Modern philosophers will tell you that we are free to do as we please, but because they know precisely where this leads – who is to stop a murderer from doing what he pleases? a kidnapper from doing what he pleases? or a rapist from doing what he pleases? – they will then add disclaimers by which they try to keep morality’s foot in the door. The secular philosopher W.T. Stace writes:

‘The world, according to this new picture [of modern secular philosophy], is purposeless, senseless, meaningless. Nature is nothing but matter in motion. The motions of matter are governed, not by any purpose, but by blind forces and laws. . . . [But] if the scheme of things is purposeless and meaningless, then the life of man is purposeless and meaningless too. Everything is futile, all effort is in the end worthless. A man may, of course, still pursue disconnected ends, money, fame, art, science, and may gain pleasure from them. But his life is hollow at the center. Hence, the dissatisfied, disillusioned, restless, spirit of modern man. . . . Along with the ruin of the religious vision there went the ruin of moral principles and indeed of all values. . . . If our moral rules do not proceed from something outside us in the nature of the universe – whether we say it is God or simply the universe itself – then they must be our own inventions. Thus it came to be believed that moral rules must be merely an expression of our own likes and dislikes. But likes and dislikes are notoriously variable. What pleases one man, people or culture, displeases another. Therefore, morals are wholly relative.’

W.T. Stace captures the problem: if there’s no objective morality by which we are judged – whether that morality comes direct to us from a Creator or by the natural essences of what it means to live as a human being – then morality can only come from ourselves; and we are not in any way arbiters of what is right and wrong. Modern philosophers have sought to redefine morality and explain why it is something human beings seek to live by. A classicist or Christian would argue that morality comes top-down, from God to human beings, and that it is objective because it is rooted in essential natures and the created order; a secularist will argue that morality is horizontal – something unique to mankind and of mankind’s invention. A classicist or Christian would argue that we are beholden to morality because we are constrained to it from On High; a secularist will say that we are beholden to morality because it’s simply the best way to operate as a society. Let’s look at some of the high-points of secular morality and how they fall apart:

Morality as a Reflection of Widespread Human Values. Some modern philosophers have argued that there is such a thing as morality, but it doesn’t come from above but from within the human race as a whole. When one takes a telescopic look at humanity, it becomes apparent that certain values tend to be widespread. A classicist or a Christian would say, ‘Well, yes, and that’s exactly what you would expect to see if human beings are inherently moral and instinctively know of an objective moral code.’ This kind of reasoning doesn’t work for the secularist, of course, and they would say that the widespread values common to humanity are merely an illusion of moral objectivity – and all the while they cling to the illusion as if it were a life-raft preventing them from drowning in their own philosophy. If human morality is simply about what is common to human beings as a whole, then what happens if these widespread values shift? Does morality then change? And if it does change, it certainly can’t be promoted as moral advances or retreats, since morality, ultimately, doesn’t exist. Accordingly, the now-widespread horror of slavery can’t be considered a moral advance; it’s just a change in personal tastes. Nor can widespread acceptance of adultery and homosexuality be considered a moral regression; it just reflects a change in attitudes. The secular idea that the murder of unborn children is justified isn’t a moral advance or regression; it’s just a matter of personal taste (though if you oppose abortion, you’re often treated by secularists as if you’re lacking in morality, but that’s beside the point). One must ask: ‘What if people come to sincerely believe that it is good to kill unwanted infants, or unwanted toddlers or teenagers, or unwanted old or sick people? What if people come to sincerely believe that it is good to kill Jews, Christians, Muslims, blacks, or whoever?’ According to the secularists, this wouldn’t be a moral advance or a moral regression; it would just be a change in attitudes, and you wouldn’t be able to condemn it from any objective ground. Human beings, after all, aren’t made in God’s image; they have no intrinsic worth not shared by a mushroom, a beetle, or – if we’re honest – a piece of poop. We’re all just bags of gooey matter. In the last century, Nazis, communists, and jihadists have sought to remake society in their image; the classicist who believes in essential natures and the created order can oppose such activity as irrational and wicked behavior, but all the secularist can say is, ‘Boy, I hope they don’t succeed!’

Morality as a ‘Social Contract.’ Secularists claim that morality is nothing more than whatever rules people agree to follow for their ‘mutual advantage’ or for the ‘greatest happiness’; this has been called moral utilitarianism. Because everyone benefits from not being killed in their homes while they sleep, a rule against murder is acceptable. But because lots of people want to have sex without the constraints of marriage, fornication is okay; because lots of people want to have sex with people other than their spouses, adultery is okay; because lots of people want to have sex with members of the same sex, homosexuality is okay; because lots of people want to have sex without being burdened by children, abortion is okay. While this is touted as morality, it’s really nothing more than a ‘non-aggression pact between self-interested bundles of impulse and willfulness.’ Murderers, kidnappers, and racists aren’t condemned by society because they did anything wrong but simply because they violated the current social contract; if you get your kicks by kidnapping, murdering, and raping little boys, the social contract tells you that you’ll be hunted down if you follow through on your desires, so it’s smart to go along with the social contract so you don’t have to suffer for ‘doing what feels right.’ Of course, if widespread human values change, and kidnapping and murder and rape become acceptable, you’ll be able to rock your socks off and walk head-held-high through society without being burdened by anything as pesky as Right and Wrong. Secularists thus consider human morality an assertion of the prevailing and ever-shifting sensibilities of the majority of human beings (or at least of those with the loudest voices). Morality has no ultimate basis in objective fact or reason; it’s founded on sentiment and existing custom. 

We close with a quote from the classicist philosopher Edward Feser: 

‘Contemporary Western civilization, or at least its liberal-progressive ‘mainstream,’ cannot fail to seem a stinking cesspool of wickedness and irrationality. There was a time when even many liberals would have agreed with this judgment. Had you told a William Gladstone or even a John F. Kennedy that the liberalism of the future would be defined by abortion on demand and ‘same-sex marriage,’ and that its avant-garde would be contemplating infanticide, bestiality, and necrophilia, they would have thought you mad. Certainly if you could have convinced them that this is the sort of thing to which their principles were leading, they would have been moved to do a serious rethink. But we are well past the time when slippery-slope arguments might be used to try to shock a liberal or a secularist out of his folly. You can no longer attempt the reductio ad absurdum with him, for he will now simply embrace with enthusiasm any absurdity that follows from his premises and thank you for suggesting it to him. He is well through the looking glass, his mind and his moral sensibility so thoroughly corrupted that to him it is obvious that black is white, up is down, sodomy is marriage, and scraping a fetus from its mother’s womb is compassion. After a centuries-long climb up to the light that began with the ancient Greeks and culminated in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, modern man began a descent that has ended with the contemporary secularist lost once again in the bowels of Plato’s cave, as blind as the pathetic denizens described in the Republic and as certain of his own rightness and of the madness and evil of those who would try to free him from his delusions.’