Bookmark and Share
My Photo


    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.


« Was St. Paul the "inventor of Christianity"? | Main | Not feeling so great this evening »

Thursday, September 03, 2009



The lesson that we should have learned from the 20th century is that socialism, sans Tao, is self-defeating. It will stifle technological advancement. The Soviet Union had ships and tanks and nuclear weapons and fighter planes but the inside of the empire was hollowed out. Most of their significant technology was stolen because real creativity becomes scarce in such an egalitarian society.

The supposed purpose of technology, the welfare of men, economic and physical, thus has the same end under socialism. Poverty and ill health become the norm rather than the exception.

Eventually, it self-destructs. That is the long term result of Kreeft's second possibility, when the Tao is lost.

He speaks of regaining the Tao as the first option, suggesting that it is virtually impossible. Actually, the only way that it is possible, in my opinion, is if God intervenes directly.

Just like the universe presents us with cycles within cycles right down to the last atom, human history thus far is the story of human cycles of gaining and losing the Tao, in the micro and the macro. But it is always related to God's intervention. That is what our faith is all about when we look at the big picture of Adam right down to Jesus and then from Jesus to 2009. God's one greatest intervention, the definitive intervention around which all the rest are related, was to enter our world as one of us. That is the center point of human history, yet through that history we have seen many smaller interventions as well, within the smaller cycles of human infidelity to God.

So, unless God wills that we cycle on into our own self-destruction, he can intervene and return what we have already lost. The most painless way is direct conversion of hearts, usually following some catalyst event. The pain involved is based on the nature of that event. It could be some natural disaster, and that, I think, is the most likely scenario.

The best, least painful scenario is if enough people catch a glimpse of where the path leads that we are currently on, and the Holy Spirit is working within them at the same time, and we are right there with the message of the Gospel, then conversion of hearts takes place on a large enough scale that the social momentum can reverse course. That we would call revival or renewal. And, of course, we could ask God for that.

Otherwise, Kreeft is right, and the future is bleak, at least in the short-term, the short-term being well past most of our life-times. In that case we should buckle up, because it will get worse before it gets better.


So is Kreeft condemning any and all technology and saying that we're supposed to be cavemen? If not, then what is he saying? Please clarify.


Excuse me. I shouldn't have been so extreme as to say "cavemen". I was simply asking what exactly he was condemning and what he was condoning.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight


Ignatius Press

Catholic World Report


Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad