Having tackled the most obvious example of PostModern sex, we come back to an older debate between Modernists and Dualists: Natural Law, or "can we learn ethics from the birds and the bees"? The topic is ancient, and yet everlastingly relevant. Since we can all agree on the observations, the interpretation or conclusions we draw depend crucially on our metaphysics. The Modernist sees only license, the Dualist limits, and the PoMo evolution.

The ABC on Sexuality

The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) has an impossible task: holding together a church that appears evenly divided between Modernists (Broad Church) and non-Modernists (Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics). In the past, the Queen has appointed alternatively an ABC from opposite camps, but the present appointment appears to be an attempt to appease both with a Post-Modern academic, who has never been a parish priest, writes sympathetic papers for gay conferences, and yet supports the Virgin Birth.  He is the very model of a PoMo bishop's bishop: the ABC answering questions in Singapore about the theology of sex.

Q: Public religion in the plural society or world will require a common language, if not for anything else, at least to facilitate communication. Do you think there is a place for a return to a retrieval of natural law though natural law has been held in suspicion?
A: Actually, I think the answer is probably yes. One problem is that we have tended to think of the natural law tradition, particularly characteristics of the Roman Catholic Church, as a rather mechanical idea. You know, just look around and there you see natural law working. Now, proper Catholic theology has never taught anything as crude as that. But I think what I have been saying does rather assume that there is a divine purpose, that there are aspects of the natural order which we go against at our peril, that we need to work out some kind of, let's say, shared perception of the kind of place the world is and the kind of being human beings are. It won't answer every question like that, but I suspect that without such a concept we are left rather stranded. I haven't taught Christian ethics for over 25 years so I am very rusty on theories of natural law but I do notice that there's a very lively discussion of the subject still going on and it's by no means necessarily as crude a concept as people think.

The ABC plays coy with the reader, saying  "I think the answer is probably yes", but then goes on to qualify it "It won't answer every question like that, but I suspect that without such a concept we are left rather stranded." and "I am very rusty ...there's a very lively discussion.." This is not what one would call forthright replies. But note how he deflects straightforward questions by talking about the answer to the question rather than the question itself. Recall the typical politician ploy "That is a very good question,..." always introduces a non-answer, "but I have always stood for motherhood and apple pie". We are left with a vague idea of his incomplete thinking about the answer to the question. This blatant use of recursion to throw off the scent of the hounds is pure PoMo, not because it is devious, but because the ABC truly believes it.

What is making the ABC act so coy about natural law? Because natural law is prelude to the question about homosexuality.

Q: In your opinion, what is the Bible's view on homosexuality?
A: ... In the last 30 years or so, some Christians have raised the question of whether what we now see as the phenomenal of homosexuality in the world is exactly what the Bible has in view when it makes these prohibitions and these comments. And that is a debate that is by no means at an end yet. As you know, the position of the Anglican church is that corporately the Anglican church has not been persuaded let's say to change the traditional view on this and that's where our church stands. That I think is how the biblical view unfolds and I do want say in fairness to those who have raised questions in the last 30 years or so, not all of them want to overturn the authority of the Bible but are simply asking, "Have we got it right? Have we understood it right?" But it's a long, painful discussion and you won't need me to say to you at this juncture that some of us in position of leadership in the Anglican church feels the force of the debate very powerfully but also the importance of not rushing into a change that will divide us, that will increase our difficulties in ecumenical interfaith discussion.

It is clear that the ABC is catering to his conservative Singaporean audience, but it is also clear that he thinks "the Biblical view unfolds" in the past 30 years. Now mind you, we know far less about the Bible today than we did in the 1st century, and all the Church fathers were univocal in their condemnation of homosexuality. So any "unfolding" is not done with respect to the text, the Church Fathers, new archaeological discoveries, or tradition, but to something happening in the turn of the 21st Century. What validity can be assigned to 21st century developments; where did this "unfolding" attain its special status that can trump 19 centuries of tradition?

Contrast to his previous comments on natural law; does natural law "unfold"? Any authority or blessing or sanctification of the conclusions of the last 30 years can only mean an elevation of process over substance, an invocation of the Holy Spirit, a triumph of ecstasy over doctrine. The ABC, even in his careful words to a skeptical audience, cannot help displaying a PoMo epistemology.

And what does this defense of innovators mean, that "not all of them want to overturn the authority of the Bible", for if they reject even a portion of the Bible, have they not allowed everyone else to do the same, and like Rudolf Bultmann end up authenticating only a few fragments of parable? In what sense can the Bible be held authoritative, if its meaning can be radically altered from 19 centuries of tradition? As Humpty-Dumpty said so clearly,

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Clearly the ABC strives for mastery over the dictionary, having something else than common usage in mind when he says "Biblical authority".  Once again, this demonstrates the usefulness of sex as a more objective metaphysical indicator than speech, since creative definitions are perhaps the clearest signal yet of PoMo. So what is this natural law that PoMo is anxious to avoid?

Natural and Unnatural Law

J. Budziszewski has become the darling apologist philosopher of the conservative movement. He also converted from Baptist, through atheist and Anglican, to the Catholic church in 2003. His favorite philosopher appears to be Thomas Aquinas, and he defends traditional sexual ethics with natural law in Touchstone. Note how he opens his argument:

The hinge concept is design. I said that we’re not designed for hooking up, that we’re designed for our bodies and hearts to work together. We human beings really do have a design, and I mean that literally—not just a biological design, but an emotional, intellectual, and spiritual design. The human design is the meaning of the ancient expression “human nature.” Some ways of living comport with our design. Others don’t..

Now despite not being a member at Discovery Institute, or even signing the "Dissent from Darwin", Jay has managed to place himself firmly in the Intelligent Design camp. He believes in design.  Unfortunately, the ID "hard science" proponents seem to have an allergic reaction to philosophy, and the philosophers to ID.  I find the rift somewhat mysterious, though it might be explained by the inclusivity of ID folks for any anti-Darwinians be they Buddhist or agnostic, whereas the philosophers tend to be far more inclusive of anti-scientists, be they Luddites or Fundamentalists, so the two groups eye each other with deep suspicion.

Nevertheless, both Jay and DI believe that humans are designed, and therefore demonstrate purpose, a view that Darwin and Materialists reject. However,  Jay and DI take the next step in opposite directions. Jay draws conclusions about ethics, DI draws conclusions about science; Jay talks about happiness and the hedonistic paradox, DI talk about irreducible complexity and the impossibility of evolution; Jay wants people to change their behavior, DI wants people to change their beliefs; Jay argues that changed actions precede changed minds, DI argue that changed minds precede changed actions.

I want to draw attention to the intricate interplay between the material and the mind, between the heart and the brain. Jay points out that bad choices lead to rationalization of abnormal situations, bad habits, and vices that "spiral out of [rational] control". DI point out that there are material consequences to design, so that thwarting design causes measurable material damage.  If Jay is advocating an ethical Natual Law, then DI is advocating a scientific Lawful Nature. Jay sees violation of the Natural Law leading to ethical compromise and unhappiness, DI sees violation of the Lawful Nature leading to damaged organisms and shortened lifespans.

Here's how it works. Jay maps his college students into 4 categories: A) sex without commitment; B) commitment without sex; C) sex without babies; D) babies without commitment. He then goes on to argue why all four groups end up unhappy, unfulfilled and damaged. (A), (B), and (D) hardly need elaboration, but (C) was a bit tricky for him, since some couples might want babies but never have them. Are the barren just as bad off as those who sterilized themselves before the wedding? Jay argues that the barren are unfortunate but not unfulfilled because they "willed" to have babies. It's a distinction only a philosopher could love, and leads to all sorts of Gnostic nonsense about attitudes dominating over actions.

I bring this up, merely to show that philosophers know where they want the argument to end up, but often lack the tools to get there, and fall back on fine distinctions, or unseen activities of the mind in an attempt to propel the floundering logic. If they would only use the sciences, they would be breathing on both lungs. Let's see how the sciences can help Jay through this Sargasso Sea.

In a previous post, I point out that oxytocin receptors cause prairie voles to pair for life. Thus category (A) find themselves in the position of modifying their oxytocin response. Perhaps it can be done, but like opiate addiction, oxytocin can become a voracious addiction in itself, since chemical signals are clearly being generated but not properly processed. It is my strong suspicion that the neurotransmitter associated with "sex addiction", will turn out to be an oxytocin related chemical.  (There is a strong connection between material addictions (drug, behavioral, sexual) that scientists talk about and the philosophical hedonistic paradox that Jay talks about. The two groups ignore each other at their peril.)

Likewise the more complex material changes of "commitment", including serotonin and other neurotransmitters, are themselves modified by the oxytocin response. I am speaking somewhat speculatively here, so an anecdote will suffice. I heard a medical missionary to Africa report her experience of her hospital being overrun by rebels, being raped, and the next morning astonished to find the perpetrator acting solicitous toward her.  Such is the power of chemistry that chemical intimacy produces mental commitment. So it is common wisdom that marital separation generally precedes a divorce, but less well known or appreciated is the damage done to a marriage by chemical barriers such as latex and spermicidal jelly.  Such are the experiences of so many people over so many centuries that Jay hardly needs to invoke natural law in his demonstration of the unsuitability of (A) and (B).

The material changes in (C) are little harder to pin down. There is no doubt that pregnancy changes a woman's body, her prospects of breast cancer, her shape, her intelligence, etc;  it is less obvious how it affects a man. Jay suggests that it is the responsibilities of fatherhood that change him. I would suggest that there some other subtle material connections as well. For when a woman bears a child, stem cells from the baby are known to penetrate the placental barrier and take up residence in the mother. Accordingly, the husband's DNA has now become part of his wife's body, in a very material sense the two have become one. Likewise, the same serotonin responses of male commitment apply equally to the helplessness of a baby, not to mention the conflict resolution of brain chemicals involved in fathering daughters. All these experiences affect the chemical pathways, the learned responses, the addictions and sustenance of the chemicals long associated with happiness. What else could explain the un-Darwinian observation of adoption in both animals and men?

Finally we come to (D), procreation without commitment. Jay focusses on the damage to the child who is an artifact, a possession, an orphan of the process. But need I point out that many of patriarch Jacob's sons were born that way (though without the panache of glass syringes), yet turned out well despite their method of production? What about the parents, what affect does a Brave New World hatchery have on parents? Many scientists have probed the effects of biologically unrelated parents, and found that there were distinct differences with normal parents, perhaps related to the lack of shared biology. That is, our bodies know what is ours and what is foreign and will reject a transplanted kidney unless the immune system is suppressed and the kidney "matched" for multiple antigen compatibility. Likewise, our selves recognize those that are closely related to us, by pheromes and other chemical clues. Lacking those clues, fathers are found to unconsciously treat related and unrelated children differently, fathers are not fungible. Even male chimps and gorillas are known to kill their mate's babies if they are found to carry another male's genes.

Now admittedly, these are all statistical studies on people, or extrapolation from animal models, which is the best we can do since we would never permit such experiments to be done on people. So while it falls short of proof or even causation, it is still influence. Jay is telling us in philosophical terms what scientists are expressing with statistics: both sex without procreation and procreation without sex are equally bad for the human race.

If this be true, then how do human beings justify or rationalize behavior that contradicts biology and natural law? Jay talks about the uniquely human ability to live in denial; DI talks about the feedback from the action to the body. For just as a proper oxytocin injection can strengthen marriage, so an improper injection leads to sexual addiction. The addiction is just as real a material state as is a committed marriage, but one without constraints, without limiting feedback. The out-of-rational-control spiral that Jay observes may not have a philosophical explanation (since philosophy cannot be anything else but rational), but it does have a material explanation.

Thus the human life is a paranoid traversal over a minefield of bad feedback loops and self-destructive behaviors. Whereas the Dualist might have a goal on the other side and a map to safely negotiate the terrain, the PostModernist is concentrating on the journey, staring at his feet, avoiding suspicious terrain, and clearly at the mercy of the minelayer. Without a greater purpose, even the strong desire for self-preservation may not suffice to ensure a happy outcome. No amount of clever tactics can rescue a soldier lacking strategy.

Examples from Natural Law

So compelling is natural law in the public consciousness, that it provides the fodder for most defenses of tradition. Or to say it differently, it takes years of academic brainwashing to convert a child to libertine.

Frederica Matthews-Greene is an ex-hippie married to an Orthodox priest. She discusses in Touchstone how in the 60's she was taught natural law as license, but age and experience have taught her its limits.

Louis Markos over at Touchstone, reviews the book Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, by therapist John Gray who uses Natural Law to help married couples understand each other. If J. Budziszewski is addressing his work to college kids, J. Gray is addressing his to everyone older (and getting rich at it). Why is this so lucrative? Here's what Markos says,

Academics in the social sciences were particularly critical of Gray’s methods, which are, admittedly, anecdotal rather than sociological. He does not base his findings on peer-reviewed, double-blind scientific studies, but on seminars he conducted with thousands of couples from across the country. He trusts more to observation, insight, and common sense than to experimentation and statistics.

In response, millions of people around the world have embraced his findings, not on “scientific” grounds, but because they recognized themselves in his anecdotes. He offers us a norm, a center for understanding our masculinity and femininity. Academia, in contrast, has spent much of the last century taking that which is marginal and even aberrant and making it into a new norm, a new center.

For too long now, men in denial of their masculinity and women in flight from their femininity have been allowed to question, to decry, and even to tamper with one of the most important aspects of our God-given consciousness: our uniquely masculine and feminine natures. John Gray deserves our thanks and praise for helping to reverse this process by waking us up to a truth and a reality that we all know but many seem, somehow, to have forgotten.

So apparently, Modernism rejects the observations of Gray because they reject his methodology (process), and probably more significantly, reject his metaphysics. Like a law court that rejects the evidence of a blood-stained glove used in a murder, rejecting an observation is not an objective, but subjective, PoMo response. Here's Louis Markos on the Marxist influence on academic PoMo:
Nothing else can explain the unnatural attempt to make gender into a social construct, which the MSM evidently think is a popular (rather than academic) view. Here's Mark Tooley quoted in the Baltimore Sun on the acceptance of a transgendered man by the United Methodist Church:
But it is not just gender of individuals, but the institution of marriage that is under PoMo attack.

Stanley Kurtz, a conservative writer for National Review Online, draws attention to the many progressive attempts to improve on marriage, the many ways to procreate without a nuclear family. He doesn't so much defend natural law, as to illustrate the alternative, unnatural law.

Earlier this month, in "Scary Book," I wrote about Everything Conceivable, Liza Mundy’s powerful account of the ways in which assisted reproduction is transforming the family. "Mummy, Daddy, donor," an edited extract from the book, is now available online. (There’s also this new, critical, and helpful review of Everything Conceivable.) While the book is filled with more spectacular stuff than you’ll find in the extract, "Mummy, Daddy, donor" does give you a feel for the larger account.

These experiments with the family are not driven by any discovery process of natural law, but by highly unnatural motivations and not-so-secret purposes. Like the history of contraception, which was a collision between natural law and behavior, so the history of artificial conception leads us to another collision between natural law and behavior. And the resolution of these collisions with nature is invariably PoMo.

A Story

This may seem all academic, but real life has a way of bringing these collisions into focus. I close with a funny anecdote of one woman's accident report. Elizabeth Powers reviews the auto-biography of an Oberlin College journalism graduate, who went on to edit Mother Jones move to the Bay area and marry a Oscar winning filmmaker, Peggy Orenstein, entitled Waiting for Daisy: A Tale of Two Continents, Three Religions, Five Infertility Doctors, an Oscar, an Atomic Bomb, a Romantic Night, and One Woman’s Quest to Become a Mother.

So the first collision is discovering that career success can't hold a candle to natural law happiness, a.k.a. motherhood. This sets the stage for the second collision, that death is man's but life is God's, that destruction is always easier than creation, that infertility is completely in our control but not fertility.

As Orenstein’s Flux has documented, ambivalence is not uncommon among ambitious women born at the end of the Boomer generation. These women stepped easily into the professional life that awaited them, but, while they are prepared to work eighty-hour weeks as a lawyer, they will not spend thirty minutes washing dishes, because that smacks of gender oppression. They see motherhood as limiting, because they view their own homemaker mothers as limited, but they are themselves trapped by feminist expectations—the biggest of which is that parenthood should be planned. When difficulties arise, as they do in Orenstein’s case, a woman’s motivation gets distorted and, as she notes, “conception rather than parenthood” becomes the goal.

After discovering that secular religion, aka science, cannot help her, she uabashedly turns to religion, albeit "anything but Judaeo-Christian", or simply, PoMo,

By the age of forty, she has gone from high-tech to a practitioner of Chinese medicine: “There’s something about acupuncture that begs one to suspend disbelief. Cancer patients I knew, women who had read every study on an FDA-approved drug before agreeing to take it, willingly downed Chinese herbs without asking what they were or what harm they might do. It didn’t really matter; for most of us the treatments were less about efficacy than mystery, yet another source of that narcotic high of hope.” Besides, at $100 a crack, treatments that moved the vital energy through the body along meridians (thus stimulating her sluggish uterus) seemed a bargain after the high cost of prescription drugs. “Science had done me no favors; maybe pseudoscience could.”

Along the way, Orenstein observes but fails to understand why "sex without kids" is so damaging to marriage.

“There is the first time you have sex, and then there is the first time you have sex without birth control. On purpose. To make a baby. There was something both sacred and carnal, . . . an erotic thrill in breaking the taboo against unprotected sex, along with a startling intimacy.”

The experience ends with a conversion, a rejection of everything PoMo,

Waiting for Daisy opens with an account of a visit to the synagogue on Yom Kippur. It was the year Orenstein turned forty, and, for the first time in more than two decades, she went through the prescribed ritual. She prayed for forgiveness for all the torment she had put her husband through and imposed on her own body and for “the strength to forgive myself for the sins against my marriage and my own heart that I’d committed during my six-year, single-minded quest to bear a child, and the courage to close my own book, one way or another, on this anguished chapter of my life.”

Followed by a conception.
But far more than the new life she birthed, was the new life she discovered.

But her final paragraph expresses her “reverent, radiant gratitude” for the new state in which she can “wake up every day—every day—feeling transcendently blessed.”

This is how Natural Law works, this is undoubtedly the first half of Frederica's journey, this is the outcome of learning from Lawful Nature,  if one is blessed enough to avoid the mines.