Who Do You Work For, Good or Evil? And How to Tell....Part 2

Part II: Have you been educated? Or brainwashed?....

I know it's been a few weeks since I wrote Part I of this essay. But I want to take some time with this one, and time is a scarce commodity in my life these days.

Be that as it may, let's review here for a moment. I ended Part I by saying that the first thing to ask yourself in order to know if you're working for good or evil is whether or not you're telling the truth.

Sounds simple enough. But of course, it isn't. Over the past 40 years, the very idea of truth has been systematically attacked by our educational institutions. Students are no longer educated. They are indoctrinated.

To be educated is to be taught how to think. This means how to challenge, to question, to test, to prove and to disprove.

To be indoctrinated is to be taught what to think. This, of course, obviates the necessity of doing any of the above things.

As an initial matter, students are being brainwashed into believing that there is no such thing as truth. They are fed examples of how great thinkers, theologians and philosophers have been factually wrong on any number of issues. And these examples are used to shore up the idea not only that there is no such thing as truth, but that to believe in truth is to be "narrow-minded," "provincial," "judgmental" and (oh condemnation worse than all others) "intolerant."

So, in order to be tolerant, one must accept the proposition that Person A's "truth" is no different than Person B's "truth" - neither better nor worse. Just different. (There are all kinds of inconsistencies even within the faithful believers of this movement, but more on that at another time.)

The consequences of these teaching methods cannot be overstated. When young people are indoctrinated into believing that there is no such thing as truth, they are left completely vulnerable to every passing fancy, every dangerous falsehood, every specious argument. And they are utterly unable to defend themselves, argue against it, or attack it on its merits. No matter what they say, they are met with a "well, that's your opinion."

Having taught law at the graduate level, I was under the impression that this was limited to students who received degrees in the so-called "social sciences." (I say 'so-called,' because the methodologies I am referring to are the most unscientific possible.) I found out recently that I was terribly wrong.

I now teach an Introduction to Law class to undergraduates in engineering. Last year, during the first day of class, I asked my students whether some laws were more "valid" than others. And if so, on what basis one could make that determination? All of the students believed that some laws are valid, and some are not. But when pressed to say why, they could not. Or would not. The reason, I discovered, is because to do so would invalidate the ONLY tenet that they have been brainwashed to believe - and that is that there no such thing as "truth."

Everything in their world view was relativistic, a "matter of opinion." So, for example, if slavery was "wrong," it was because a majority of people thought so. "And if a majority of people come to think it's right, then is it?" I asked.

"And anyway," I continued, "who decided that what the majority wants is the right thing? Why shouldn't I make you all do what I want? By force, if necessary?"

Oh, they all disagreed with that, of course. Because force means violence, and pain, and death. And we can all agree that those are 'bad' things.

"Says who?" I countered. "I don't agree with that. And you've already told me there is no such thing as truth. That everything is relative and a matter of opinion. So it's only your opinion that inflicting violence and pain on others is a 'bad' thing."

I held up a black folder. I asked them, "Is this black?" One student said, "It's your opinion that it's black." Another said, "I feel that it's black, but I can't be sure. No one can ever be sure of anything."

I tried one last time. "Ok," I said. "Let's say you go to the emergency room with an enlarged appendix that needs to be surgically removed before it explodes. Do you want a surgeon who says, 'No one can really know if this is your appendix. Maybe it's your heart. Or your spleen. Or maybe I feel I can cure your appendix by taking out your brain.'"?

They just looked at me. Their positions could be debunked logically. But it didn't matter to them. These students were completely unable or unwilling to question or let go of an empty philosophy. They clung to it the way abused children continue to cling desperately to violent parents. And these, mind you, are science students.

This demonstrates the difference between education and indoctrination. An person who has been educated to believe a particular theory - as well as being taught a scientific method for testing and challenging that theory - will have no difficulty letting go of it once it has been disproven.

A person who has been indoctrinated, on the other hand, will be emotionally attached to whatever he or she has been brainwashed to believe. He or she will only let go of that belief with the greatest difficulty - if at all.

So you see, answering the question, "Who do you work for, Good or Evil?" is a bit tougher than you think.

I'm kind of on a roll here. So I think I will continue with Part III next time. In which we will assume (at least for the sake of argument, and ever finishing this essay) that there is such a thing as truth. And then move on.