Hi Earle,
I'm very happy to see you back! You've already heard from the closed circle. It's as open as they want it to be.
On the other hand, I very much appreciated your analysis of the history of the dynamic between civil and religious government, resolved by Western civilization. And your observation that "power consistently trumped the makeshift morality" of the pagan world. As you say, "the secular and pagan worlds cannot get out of the power syndrome because neither can establish either of the two fundamental stabilities -- ontological or moral." [Although, of course, they argue this point, unconvincingly.] I love "We'll find it. It's in here somewhere..."
You note that "natural law is about things with no free will, moral law is for beings with free will...". Lorraine Ford notes in her essay that most scientists deny the existence of free will, hence they see no need for moral law.
Regardless, you are to be commended for stepping into the secular lion's den. You are talking to some who are fairly high up the power structure, and they like it there, no questions asked. It's good to be alpha class! Nevertheless, as you note (p.4) recent history shows the belief in benign government to be absurd.
"Citizen-friendly tyrants are hard to find."
For the most part you face secularists who abandoned religion [if any] as children or adolescents, and therefore have nothing but a childish view of the issues, supplemented by an absurd belief in the righteous certainty of the superiority of their fractured structures. They are fully aware of the contradictions in the Bible, and see it as a sign of the weak-mindedness of believers. But the contradictions [and there are many, and they are glaring] in their secular belief system are merely "anomalies". Yet, as you note, "the secular Enlightenment did not prove very enlightening, leading to the cultural and military disasters of the 20th century, imposed all around the world by proudly secular governments." And the current childish summary: "there is no right or wrong, only fun and boring."
Equally foolish is the current focus on "equality". I discuss this in my essay, which I hope you will find interesting. I do agree with you that a change is likely. The current discombobulated state of physics is due for revolution, and I think it's gathering steam. Although I've been pushing the relevance of consciousness for five years here, the chief FQXi honcho, Max Tegmark, last year published on consciousness physics. The fact that he is way off base is not important -- only that he sees the need for an explanation.
Consciousness is the gaping hole in Darwinian secularism. The belief (emphasis on BELIEF) that conscious awareness arises from the mechanical arrangements of parts is absurd, and when this dawns on many, it will have consequences. As for the political aspects, I continue to see projections that China will become the largest Christian nation on earth, thanks largely to their experience of secular government. I've seen more references to Chardin, and even D T Suzuki in this essay contest than all previous contests combined, and I've only glanced at fewer than half the essays. It's unrealistic to expect those in the Academy to do more than scorn your words, but that merely reflects submission to political correctness--signifying nothing!
In short, be of good cheer! The house of cards that is current science is on shaky ground. And as Hodge says in his essay, re politics: The barons are organizing.
Thank you again for this essay. Don't expect many positive comments, the politically correct environment will not allow that. But my guess is that the hollowness of the secular worldview leaves many looking for more, and you have reminded us what really made this country and Western civilization great.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman