22AR27-09

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )

pdf = www.bit.ly/3vzoSFb

AR 27:9 - Why 'Gen Z can only turn inward for answers'

In this issue:

ABORTION - might Critical Theory help defend the unborn?

SCIENCE - worldview analysis and the application of faith

SOCIAL MEDIA - the high cost of Gen Z's identity fixation

Apologia Report 27:9 (1,562)
March 2, 2022

ABORTION
R. Scott Smith of Biola University <www.bit.ly/3tompuz> finds that, based on Critical Theory's own internal logic, "abortion should be construed as immoral.... By determining the value of their unborn and by their own conceptualizations, women arbitrarily exercise power over and oppress their unborn."

   That's the conclusion of his recent article, "Critical Theory and Abortion as an Act of Oppression" (Christian Research Journal, 44:4 - 2021, pp16-21). Smith begins: "I will sketch several major theoretical positions of CT, argue why abortion is immoral according to the logic of CT, and address some objections to my argument. ... 

   "CT developed in the Frankfurt School of the Institute for Social Research in Germany in the 1930s. Key figures included Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, [and] Herbert Marcuse."

   Using the logic of CT, "the act of abortion involves a peculiar form of liberation from oppression - the killing of a third party that is not her oppressor. Ironically, to be freed from her oppression, it seems the woman becomes the oppressor of the unborn child within her. Following the logic of CT, it seems society should, even *must*, come to the aid of the unborn and free them from oppression. Moreover, as [Ibram X.] Kendi <www.bit.ly/3oU8awl> argues, we should respect the dignity and equality of all humans due to our 'common humanity.' Indeed, according to CT's materialism, surely the unborn also are humans biologically and therefore deserve to be protected."

   Smith follows with a discussion of what he anticipates as the "primary objection" to his reasoning: "According to CT, we are to be free from any domination in order to become our 'true' selves. ...

   "Still another objection made by Peter Singer <petersinger.info> and others is that while the unborn are humans, they are not persons. ... [H]umans have to have certain functional qualities, including having a self-concept. ... 

   "On the contrary, having a self-concept is not sufficient for moral protection." Further discussion follows.

   The Journal's "synopsis" of Smith's argument explains that "for CT, there is no equality on the basis of self-concepts. According to CT, there are no essences." Smith continues, "since there are no essences, including within Singer's view, the claim that we are valuable because we have self-concepts is nothing but an interpretation given from a particular standpoint. ...

   "Further, it seems there is no reason why society *should* bestow dignity and rights upon those whose self-conceptions either do not align with those of the broader public or run afoul of CT's tenets. ...

   "[I]t seems the mother's concept of her true self trumps any self-concepts and dignity the unborn would develop." <www.equip.org/christian-research-journal>

 ---

SCIENCE

In his book Believing Is Seeing (featured <www.bit.ly/3LHyvHv> in AR 27.7), Michael Guillen explains the unexpectedly common, though often undiscussed, role of faith within science. (He goes into greater detail separately with mathematics, physics and astronomy.) If your mind works well analytically, you may find this book especially alluring. 

   For example, we've learned a lot in the area of quantum physics. However, there's still so much that we don't understand that we can't make it align well with general relativity, Einstein's widely accepted theory of the physical laws which govern the universe (18). "There's considerable evidence that quantum physics is trustworthy. It's why we scientists have faith in it." Nevertheless, "quantum physics is also not logical, but also not nonsense" (25). 

   In this way, Guillen frequently compares science to the New Testament emphasizing that both must be taken seriously. Guillen's consistent support for the viability of the fine-tuning argument and the existence of God throughout the book fits this approach nicely and further enhances the value of the overall package. 

   My personal interests (RP) are split between the arts and sciences with a greater affinity for the latter. However, I struggled to remain conversant with the vocabulary the deeper I got into the reading. 

   The first part of Guillen's book describes his journey to faith in Christ. It takes the reader through his education and rapid rise to media science-guy vocation (including a triple-major PhD and three Emmy awards while working with ABC).

   The book's second part examines how faith is involved in the areas of reason, mathematics, physics, astronomy and religion. The third part applies the above to worldview analysis and contains enough creative thinking to interest many of our readers. Once you've digested that you've been prepped for its application.

   An appendix presents an impressively efficient worldview evaluation tool that Guillen created. It enables one to categorize competing truth claims. The primary nomenclature for this is intellectual quotient (IQ) and spiritual intelligence (SQ) factoring. To determine which of 12 worldview archetypes best fit any given contender involves enlightened or misguided SQ and/or IQ baselines within either heliocentric or geocentric constraints. 

   To arrive at a conclusion one is guided through the determination of how the following five criteria apply: absolute claim adherence, weight given to evidence, role of logic in reasoning, emphasis given to revelation, and the contribution of the self. This is all accomplished using four simple (trust me) interrogatory settings with each of the 12 archetypes as applied to your truth-claim candidate. You see? (I may well have botched this condensation. We'll see, eventually.)

   Making this even more interesting, Guillen adds: "A typical person doesn't have any one worldview in its pure form but an alloy of two or more of the archetypes."

   Believing Is Seeing convinced me that Guillen is on to something significant. In my somewhat rushed first pass, I just didn't have the background to confidently move all the substance about the playing field *yet*. Overall value? I encourage you to see for yourself. <www.tinyurl.com/AR-on-Guillen>

 ---

SOCIAL MEDIA

Once again, "The digital renaissance has drastically changed our environment and the way we think about reality." Welcome to Gen Z, Explained: The Art of Living in a Digital Age <www.bit.ly/3sTS5aS> by Roberta Katz, Sarah Ogilvie, Jane Shaw, and Linda Woodhead. Reviewer and First Things junior fellow Elizabeth Bachmann explains that "university professors Katz, Ogilvie, Shaw, and Woodhead (hereafter KOS&W) try to understand the digital medium by studying the first generation - mine - never to know life without the internet. ...

   "In brief, KOS&W characterize Gen Z - those born since 1995 - as the most inclusive, diverse, respectful, sensitive, collaborative, and empathetic of generations. Suffering from the moral and environmental sins of their fathers...." Bachmann is tempted to wonder whether "these four women simply fear being left behind."

   The research behind this study includes "120 self-selecting interviews with college students from Stanford University, Foothill Community College in Northeastern California, and Lancaster University in the U.K." Bachmann finds that it "primarily relies on these interviews" which truly constitutes "a limited sample size." 

   Nevertheless, "KOS&W do certainly pinpoint the trend that influences every aspect of Gen Z life" - namely, identity fixation. Plentiful (and appropriate) discussion follows. 

   Bachmann helpfully notes that: "Gen Zers spend nine hours a day on screens, and 4.5 of those on social media. ... The problem emerges when people from different groups attempt to interact, only to realize they don't share basic common assumptions like what a woman, nation, or God is."

   Early observation: "Even KOS&W vaguely recognize this problem," and they call it "conflicting values" (to which Bachmann adds: "'Conflicting realities' might prove a more accurate epithet"). 

   Next, a telling example: "Black Lives Matter - a decentralized organization with official and unofficial Facebook pages, meet-ups, and blogs throughout America and the world - is splintering internally on how to express that message, and even defining what that message truly is. ... Who is Black Lives Matter? ...

   "KOS&W avoid addressing this problem, but cultural critic Neil Postman's writing on media illuminates how the digital age forms Gen Z's apathy and identity fixation." Were he alive today, Postman "might have concluded that social media has an unforeseen ideological bias of its own: the lateralization of both reason and authority."

   More valuable stats: "Gen Zers typically take no more than 1.7 seconds to look at a piece of content before scrolling. The average Gen Zer spends only 15 minutes per day reading. More than half instead elect to consume news and information through social media, and of those, 63 percent prefer video to print because it's easier to process. ... As social media threatens to succeed print as the primary transmitter of information and ideas, it brings with it a new ideological bias: Down with linear syllogistic thought and up with instant gratification, emotionalism, and statistical thinking. And Gen Z is its star student. ...

   "Without reason, all opinions become equal, and social media's structure further enforces egalitarianism." Culprit: "the empty message that formed them: You make your own truth." As interviewee Benoit tells KOS&W: "Truth and facts ... no longer carry the meaning they used to." Instead, the key question becomes "does that person belong to my group?"

   Another heartbreaking realization: "Gen Z can only turn inward for answers. ... In a survey, KOS&W found that 39 percent of Gen Zers in the U.S. rely on their own judgment and 34 percent rely on their feelings and intuitions; only 19 percent turn to religion and 5 percent turn to history and tradition for guidance."

   A final observation offered by one interviewee is that "after spending a typical evening of swiping left and right," at some point she realizes, "Oh God, I have become who I hate."

   Bachmann's concluding advice: By limiting our own (and own children's) screen time, "hopefully we can curb the bad while maintaining the good of the digital revolution." First Things, Feb 3 '22, <www.bit.ly/3I295lV>

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )