You are right about the schizophrenia of the left in regards to human nature. An evangelical Christian and an atheist socio-biologist would roughly agree on the fact of human nature while differering widely on its source.



Most hip and enlightened liberal/leftists hold views that are inconsistent with the man-is-just-another-evolved-animal worldview that is also typically part of their worldview: man is basically good, man can be perfected, the differences between men and women are only societal retraints, and so on.

Where is it written that man is basically anything?

If he is unipotential, in either direction, it indeed makes no sense to reform him.

Mr. Judd;



Isn't there a false dichotomy in there? Isn't this the equivalent of saying that if people had a natural ability for language, there'd be no need to teach grammar?

AOG:

If I understand shat child development psychologists tell us, children copy the grammatical (and pronounciation) habits of their oral role models. The result is that with good examples, they speak perfectly grammatically without ever having studied grammar.

I have to protest. There is a difference between believing that people are deeply, congenitally twisted and that they are objectively evil. A baby is not evil, he is just bent that way. That's what original sin is - a bent, not its ultimate effects. (The effects, known as sins, are by contrast objectively evil.)

The baby is obviously not evil at all times, but has within it from birth the element of evil which needs only the slightest provocation to be acted upon.

Henry;



And the same does not apply to moral rules? Children derive no benefit from formal instruction? Mr. Judd obviously doesn't believe that
.

First of all, let me say that I totally agree with Mr. Prager. I've always been a proponent of the theory that people only act in their own benefit no matter how obtuse. Even in giving charity, people do so because the feeling that they may have somehow helped another human being gives them pleasure and comfort. That's the good side. The bad side is obvious - people will steal, lie and kill when it benefits them as well. I think this is one of the few constants of human nature.



T-Dub

First of all, let me say that I totally agree with Mr. Prager. I've always been a proponent of the theory that people only act in their own benefit no matter how obtuse. Even in giving charity, people do so because the feeling that they may have somehow helped another human being gives them pleasure and comfort. That's the good side. The bad side is obvious - people will steal, lie and kill when it benefits them as well. I think this is one of the few constants of human nature.



T-Dub

Prager pleased me so much last night that I emailed the article to friends. Sometimes a phenomenon bothers you and you can't quite put your finger on why it happens. Why liberals want more government control over society is one such. This article was like an epiphany to me

Conservatives like to point out that the writers of the Constitution took into account human nature and thus limited government power lest some scoundrel got in control. Socialists and Communists went the other way, assuming human nature could be changed and perfected and wound up with the Politburo and Stalin's Gulags.

If people are all basically good, they can never be expected to abuse any of those feel-good laws liberals get passed when they are in power. Thus it becomes ok to kill the babies and baby the killers. No unintended consequences because we are all basically good.

I knew something had changed in the public discourse about politics since the 60s, but I had trouble with its nature. Prager has helped me immensely.

There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men.

-Edmund Burke

Christina Hof Sommer put it more simply in a quote I have used many times:



*civilization is invaded every year by millions of tiny barbarians called children*

The only goal we are born with is to reproduce,

and even that one is rather easily suppressed

by many people.



Other than that, we learn various options. It

is not at all clear why some people are more

selfish than others, but clearly there are big

differences.



Anyhow, even if you accept that we are all

evil, it does not follow that religion and deities

improve matters. Just a couple days ago,

Orrin managed to put himself in the position

of endorsing the death penalty for both

believing and disbelieving in witchcraft, on

religious grounds.



I gotta admit, that doesn't leave much room

for an idea of progress.

?

I generally agree with Prager. His is one of the few radio talk shows that are worth listening to. I see him as a moderate, like myself. He is careful to discern the dangers that exist at either extreme of a spectrum.



His enunciation of the dangers of a too favorable view of human nature is correct, and as this is the end of the spectrum that we find ourselves nearest to today, it is worth heeding his warning. But the other end of the spectrum, of having too negative a view of human nature, is also dangerous.



By believing that people are basically bad, as some are here saying, it is easy to fall into the trap of medievalism. This, to me, is where original sin theory leads. Keep the majority of people ignorant, put them to hard labor, which will uplift their soul, and rule them with the iron hands of king and bishop. Noone speaks of progress, but we all just wait for the end of times.



One extreme leads to a society that goes nowhere, because there is no accelerator. The other leads society off a cliff, because there is no brake.

Augustine, Gothic cathedrals, Palestrina

AOG:

I don't think that knowing "English Grammar" helped me speak any more correctly, but it did help me win a lot of arguments on "correctness."



I suggest that moral rules are in quite a different category than grammar. The former need to be repeated and inculcated by example and prescription with reinforcement by sanction. For the latter, example appears to be quite sufficient for ordinary purposes.