In Their Own Words XVI: Depraved New World

The next two posts will not be like the other posts in this series. Many of the previous posts in this series were based on quotes from non-believers that wished to undermine a belief in God or deny Him only to affirm God’s existence by accident. This post does not move forward from that premise. This post involves two men that have already precluded God from their thinking or at least a proper understanding of Him in the case of Aldous Huxley. The absence of God as a moral compass or basis of moral bearing is therefore reflected in their morally impaired quotes. The level of shamelessness in some of these quotes would be laughable if it were not for the severe repercussions their mindsets have inflicted on humanity. Instead of being funny or ironic, their statements are sad and ethically impoverished. We see in our modern society the fruit of their thinking. That fruit is decaying the undergirding of society.

First is a quote from Aldous Huxley of Brave New World fame. Huxley was initially a humanist but at some point is his life he became interested in spiritual subjects such as parapsychology and philosophical mysticism. This seems to have culminated in at least a temporary adherence to Universalism. Universalism being a belief that all religions or belief systems essentially point to the same god and essentially…all people are saved (to what I am not sure). Despite his interest in spirituality and Universalism, Huxley contradictorily insisted on being referred to as an agnostic. In relation to non-belief or a nihilist approach to the concept of God, Huxley said…

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption ... For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation.  The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality.  We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.” Aldous Huxley-“Confession of Professed Atheist” 1966

Here we see Aldous Huxley's true motives (heart condition) by admitting that he does not align mentally to morality. He wishes to allow for sexual immorality in life without guilt. He wishes to be unfettered by a belief in God. In his comment it comes across as the comment, “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning…”  

Therefore, if the world or existence had meaning it would have a purpose. A purpose would require a design and a designer. Huxley knew it would force him towards a belief in God…which it eventually did in the form of Universalism. Sadly it was a false god. The fact is that it isn't that Huxley didn't want things to have no meaning...he wanted them to have his sinful meaning. He would rather worship the Creation (himself) rather than the Creator.

Aldous Huxley’s sexual comment is nearly identical to some comments Bertrand Russell had made. Bertrand Russell was a liberal philosopher and writer. In his book Marriages and Morals Russell actually makes many immoral statements. Russell offered his opinion that sex between a man and woman who are not married to each other is not immoral if they truly love one another. He pushed what he called "trial marriages". They were formalized relationships where young people could legitimately have sexual intercourse without being expected to remain married or to have children. He also advocated easy divorce or what we now call “no-fault” divorces. 

I hold, of course, as every humane person must, that divorce should be granted on more grounds than are admitted in the English law, but I do not recognize in easy divorce a solution of the troubles of marriage. Where a marriage is childless, divorce may be often the right solution, even when both parties are doing their best to behave decently; but where there are children the stability of marriage is to my mind a matter of considerable importance... I think that, where a marriage is fruitful and both parties to it are reasonable and decent, the expectation ought to be that it will be lifelong, but not that it will exclude other sex relations. Bertrand Russell-Marriages and Morals, Chapter 10: Marriage (1929)

So now we have established at least tentatively that both of these men that history idolizes were morally flawed at a base or foundational level. Based upon a biblical worldview they were morally reprobate and given over to their sin in their faulty thinking.

I can now hear he deafening silence from he readership (*crickets chirping*) and two words, "So what?"

Having established this baseline I will elaborate in the next post on why this has become so detrimental to anyone that attends the public school systems and accredited colleges. My thought processes begin here. Sometimes judgment itself is flawed thinking. When we inflict diseased thinking on a society or a nation, the entirety of society becomes diseased mentally and morally...therefore judgment settles upon an entire people. By using writing as DNA or a medium of replication, it is as if Huxley and Russell have made philosophical/intellectual clones of themselves through their words. Their words birthed ideas and those ideas have reproduced and mutated. The intellectual offspring are now so corrupted and deformed, there is virtually no moral rectitude left. If we think this is not possible we need only look at the diseased thinking of the Israelites of the Old Testament that were corrupted by pagan influence en masse. We see clearly even the fall of God's chosen people because of corrupting mutations.

Romans 1:28~ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

[Concluded in Next Post]