Only when reason is applied to indisputable premises can it proceed confidently wherever it is led. The conserve in Conservatism means, for me at least, conserving and applying those Principles handed down to us by God; those Principles that give us our shared values.

Part II

The Discipline of Philosophy

I concluded Part 1 of my response to Dr Kerwick by drawing a distinction between premises and assumptions.

In short, reason applied to assumptions gives rise to a morality built on quicksand. The same applies to law and government. If the underlying assumptions simply reflect feelings, whether rooted in tradition (or as I have called it "irrational tradition"), or blind homage to the power of reason ("activity which follows rules in accordance with right reason," as Schweitzer described it), they simply amount to a reasoned justification of those feelings or rules (rules themselves based on feelings).

Only when reason is applied to indisputable premises can it proceed confidently wherever it is led.

So is there such a thing as a conservative philosophy, or indeed any philosophy, that has established such premises, and if there is, has it applied reason to those premises in a logical way?

We could argue over a common definition of philosophy, but a workable definition could be the "pursuit of wisdom, truth, and knowledge." In short, why are we here, and how should we behave while we are here?

Although philosophy has expanded its orbit to embrace just about everything (Philosophy of Language, of Physics, of Mind, of Action, of Feminism, even of Sport), its essential task is unchanged – a discipline dedicated to the search for wisdom, truth, or knowledge.

Regrettably, though, this dissection of philosophy into compartments has distracted from its aim, and thus so limited its ambit of inquiry that it really has no hope of succeeding in its purpose. It excludes from its esteemed councils the very sources that may provide the wisdom, truth, and knowledge it claims to be seeking. Hence, Albert Schweitzer is not regarded as a "philosopher" – from what I can ascertain, because he is considered an Existentialist (but so was his younger cousin, Sartre!).

But it also means that those who seek wisdom, truth, and knowledge in places like the Scriptures are allocated a separate discipline – Philosophy of Religion.

This compartmentalization of the search for wisdom, truth and knowledge has transformed philosophy into a specialized discipline – too complicated for those of us who would like to gain some inkling into what on earth we are doing on this vermin-infested piece of rock hurtling through space at high speed.

The Search for “wisdom, truth, and knowledge”

So, ironically, the only book that claims to provide the insight "philosophers" claim to be seeking cannot be properly considered a "source" in the search for that insight. That book specifically says this: "To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity."

That book, of course, is Proverbs. And it is part of the greater volume called the Scriptures, or the Holy Bible.

But looking in that book to try and make some sense of our mostly miserable existence on this planet clearly does not qualify for the distinction of the pursuit of wisdom, truth, and knowledge. That’s a separate subject!!!

Or, as Bentham dismissively asserted about those who seek some meaning to life in the Scriptures, "more suited to the narrowness of their intellect."

Since when, and by whom, did the search for some meaning of life become filleted in this manner? The answer? – by those with a vested interest in doing so.

But when it comes to my own life, the life of my children, and their children, I feel no constraint to confine myself to such silly and artificial distinctions in enquiring about, and preparing for, our afterlife, and how we behave in this life.

I have read Plato, Kant, Nietzsche, Bentham, Locke and umpteen other pontificators, but none is worth anything. They don’t even begin to provide some sort of road map to immortality, never mind some simple explanation of what constitutes morality. They don’t even begin to explain how I should behave, and how I should teach my children to behave. In that respect, they are worthless – simply an expression and justification for someone's "unarticulated feelings," whether expressed as tradition, or rules, or reason.

Premises and Reason

So let me throw caution and credibility to the wind and have a look at the book that actually claims to offer what philosophers claim to be seeking – the Scriptures.

But I cannot embark on this process by claiming that this book is the word of God, or even that it is inspired by God. That would defeat the object. The book itself should be able to convince me of its claim of a God, its claim to be inspired by a God, or even more boldly, to be the actual word of God.

But even if it cannot substantiate such lofty claims of its origins, can it at least provide more than the "great minds" of philosophy have offered?

So let me turn to Chapter 1 as if I were reading Kant, or the idiot Bentham – with skepticism.

Since we are not here comparing Scripture to evolution, etc., allow me to go straight to the verses about our good selves – human beings.

Now, before I launch into this exercise (and I shall try to keep it brief – it is the subject of my next book – The Law: Salvation, the State, and the Kingdom of God), let us just remind ourselves what we are looking for. We are seeking some explanation of why we are here on earth, what determines the way human beings behave, and what we can extrapolate from those facts to determine how we should behave while we possess this thing called life. In short, we are looking for those elusive things called “wisdom, truth and knowledge.”

So we go to Genesis 1:26–28. In case there are still people in this world who have never read these verses, let me set them out.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Reason

The first thing to note here is that God is said to speak to the male and female He has just created. That differs from all the other things He created in the preceding description of the creation. Is there some symbolism in that? Many people, of course, talk to their plants, their cars, their clothes, even to themselves, but they don’t do so in the expectation that there will be some rational response.

Speaking to others, and instructing them to do something, implies an ability to reason on the part of those we are addressing.

So this form of words distinguishes the creatures referred to in the preceding creation from the references to the creation of man. Man has an ability to reason.

But is that an assumption, or a premise? Well, there are clearly people in this world who seem severely challenged in the reasoning department, but I think few would dispute that it is a fact that human beings have the ability to reason – whether they choose to exercise that ability is a separate issue.

So far, so good! The Scriptures confirm what we all regard as a fact – human beings have an ability to reason, to think.

Pleasure

But what does God say to these creatures He has just created? He tells them first to, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth."

Now that can only mean one thing!!

But in order to motivate human beings to get on with it, there must be something in it for them. And we all know what that is – the pleasure of the process.

So I read the symbolism here to mean that God's words to the creatures He had just created instill in them a natural (or genetic, if you like) appetite for the pleasure of reproduction, which has the added benefit of ensuring the perpetuation of the species. But it carries with it an attendant danger – that the power to reason with which they have been endowed could be misapplied to the maximization of the pleasure of the process without regard to any other considerations; considerations like why they are alive in the first place. I shall return to this danger, and the remedy, momentarily.

But does this stack up with what we know about human behavior? Well . . .

In addition to the purely carnal aspects to pleasure, "replenish the earth" has other symbolism, but I shall not complicate this response with such considerations. Most people can work out for themselves the activities from which they derive pleasure.

But rational people could not dispute that human beings derive pleasure from indulging in certain activities. So we could say with some confidence that this symbolism of pleasure to perpetuate the species is a premise not an assumption.

Conquer

For the sake of brevity, I shall limit the next parts of Genesis 1:26–28 to generalizations.

In order to "subdue" the earth, and "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth," human beings had to be endowed with a pretty powerful urge to conquer. But these verses do not specifically exclude conquering and subduing our fellow man. We simply have the instinct to conquer and subdue – and that itself ensures the perpetuation of the species, or at least the strongest of the species.

Now that too has a down side. Human beings could all too easily succumb to the urge to conquer in an indiscriminate way, and apply their power to reason to accomplish that objective. They could perceive the beasts of the field as no different to their fellow humans. Oh dear, could that really happen?

Alas, it has become the rule, not the exception. So we could say that the symbolism evoked by these passages fits well with the facts – it’s how human beings behave. It’s not an assumption, it’s a premise, and the premise is born out by reality.

Genesis 1:26–28 and Philosophers

The human condition evoked by the symbolism in these passages has not escaped the notice of philosophers; except they claim the discovery for themselves.

Bentham claimed that human beings are governed by pleasure and pain (although, as I explain in my books, he came late to this ideology of pleasure), and Nietzsche thought that he made some unique discovery when he came up with his "will to power," or conquer (or was he mocking?).

But once they had claimed to "discover" the obvious, they were impotent when it came to "fertilizing" their "discoveries." It simply did not occur to them that the human characteristics of lust for pleasure and power were not the characteristics from which any purpose of life could be discerned, or from which any set of principles of morality could be extrapolated, but the human characteristics which required a counterforce to prevent them getting out of control. It did not occur to them that perhaps morality is not to be discovered in indulging our survival instincts, or our "developed herd-mentality," but in controlling them (granted, Kant recognized the problem, only he couldn't offer a solution, so he went along for the ride).

So they set about doing precisely the opposite. They sought to "prove" that the very codes (or instincts) installed (or developed) in man were installed for no other purpose than to be served, and served for the simple reason that they are there.

In short, they assumed that since a car consumed gasoline, its only purpose could be to consume gasoline. They simply argued over how much, and whether there were any occasions when it would be justified to consume less than the maximum.

Purpose of Life

It is quite remarkable that otherwise intelligent men could believe that some kind of regulated indulgence in primitive instincts could produce anything resembling morality, let alone some purpose to human existence which could operate to determine morality in the first place. But that is what they did, and that is the legacy we have inherited and embraced. Today we call this insanity the "right to liberty" and the "right to the pursuit of happiness." Collectively, we could call it the "right to freely indulge our primitive amoebic instincts" – regulated by government, of course, responding to the "unarticulated feelings" of "developed herd-mentality."

Yet there, in those 3 verses of the very first chapter of the Scriptures, we find clearly and unambiguously the only discernable purpose of life – the perpetuation of the human species – "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth."

But those verses do not explain why human beings were created; only what they should do once they had been created. So perhaps we could say that they are existentialist – in a way. All they tell us is that God wanted an image of Himself on earth – not why! But that itself has enormous significance (although I shall not deal with it here).

Obligations

Now this is where that thing called reason comes into play.

Human beings clearly have an instinct for pleasure which ensures that they have the motivation to indulge in the act necessary to carry out the purpose of perpetuating the species, and an instinct to subdue and conquer their environment in order to provide security for future generations, thus enhancing the chances of successfully accomplishing the objective, but they also have the power of reason to determine how they should conduct themselves while doing so.

Genesis 1:26 says, "And God said, Let us make man in our image." It is plural, and plural means a joint enterprise, and a joint enterprise gives rise to obligations – not by human law, but by simple human interaction. In fact, it is a physical and measurable physical law – for every action there is a reaction. Interaction creates reaction. The trick is balancing that reaction so as not to create chaos. And that is done by recognizing and honoring obligations that attach to any joint enterprise.

And according to Scripture, immediately after creation, that joint enterprise was delegated to the male and the female. They were provided with their mission – perpetuate the image created. Now, whether we believe we are created in the image of God or not, that is a premise. Unless we perpetuate human life it will cease.

I have dealt at length with the obligations that arise from such an enterprise in my series of articles here on Intellectual Conservative titled "The Ten Principles of Freedom," so I shall not elaborate further.

I should simply emphasize the distinction between the type of obligation which would arise from an indulgence of our primitive instincts (an obligation to self to maximize the indulgence), and the type of obligations that arise from a joint enterprise with an objective distinct from the instincts that prompt it, especially a joint enterprise that creates human life – human life in the image (genetic) of those who create it.

And a child’s genetic image of its parents is a fact – a premise, not an assumption.

Knowledge of Good and Evil

So the first chapter of Genesis has set the scene. It has provided a set of indisputable premises about human nature, and it has given us the only indisputable and discernable purpose of life.

In three simple verses it has already surpassed the greatest philosophical minds, irrespective of whether we believe that God had any hand in this process or not. Remember, we are looking at the Scriptures without any preconceptions about its origins – only that it is a book with writing.

The next thing is to see what human beings do with these attributes, and where that leads them in their search for wisdom, truth and knowledge.

To do that, Genesis introduces us to the Garden of Eden – and the symbolism of the condition of man comes in gigantic waves.

Genesis 2:9: "And out of the ground [note the similarity of the symbolism of Genesis 2:7 -- "God formed man out of the dust of the ground . . ."] made the Lord God grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

Now we see that God put the man into the garden twice – first, immediately after he had planted the garden (Genesis 2:8), but before He made the trees to grow, then again after the trees had grown (Genesis 2:15), when God put him into the garden to "dress it and to keep it."

That fits perfectly with Genesis 1:26–28. First God creates man (male and female), then, after they are created, He blesses them and gives them instructions on what they should do with the life they have been given.

The symbolism speaks volumes – there is a process going on here. The garden is symbolic of man. The garden is planted when man is put into it, but it has no trees (those pleasant to the sight and good to eat). For all intents and purposes, it is barren – the seeds are under the ground, latent.

But then God makes the trees grow out of the ground, and the river going out of Eden waters the trees (garden), and only then does God put man into the garden again, a garden that now has all the trees.

The first "putting in the garden" symbolizes man’s primitive state, the second his developed state – after man had received his instructions.

And this is where it all gets fascinating – philosophically speaking.

Of all the trees in the garden, only the tree of knowledge of good and evil is out of bounds. Even the tree of life is available for man to eat from.

Now let me pause for a second at this juncture. The symbolism creates an image of man evolving; first, in a fertile, but apparently barren garden, then in a garden full of trees. Yet, one of those trees carries a risk by way of the prohibition against eating of its fruit.

It is thus not surprising that Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, the great Jewish philosopher, could say this about man:

And very beautifully after [God] had called the whole race "man," did he distinguish between the sexes, saying, that "they were created male and female;" although all the individuals of the race had not yet assumed their distinctive form; since the extreme species are contained in the genus, and are beheld, as in a mirror, by those who are able to discern acutely.

That is a remarkable observation for a man who lived two thousand years ago. From these few verses in Genesis, Philo deduced that man was evolving, and that the evolution and identity of the species was "contained in the genus." Nearly two thousand years before Darwin made his observations, and before scientists discovered the human genome, Philo had deduced these facts from reading the Scriptures.

Philo was not arguing, of course, that God did not create man, but rather, according to the Scriptures, that He may have chosen to do so over a period of time, and in stages. But again, I am examining this from the perspective of a philosophical enquiry, so for now, let's leave God out of it.

The point is that from these very few verses of the Scriptures we get symbolism that is confirmed thousands of years late by science. We have premises.

So let me continue with our exploration.

When my oldest son was much younger he raised an interesting question about the tree of knowledge of good and evil – Why, he asked, would God want to punish people for knowing the difference between good and evil; isn’t it a good thing to know the difference?

At the time, I was floored. Why would a God not want us to know the difference between good and evil; right and wrong?

I shall examine the symbolism of that in Part 3, as well as the unique argument it provides for the existence of God, and the need for the Ten Commandments.

I shall conclude with an attempt to identify from this analysis a philosophy of conservatism, or Conservatism; one that will hopefully transcend ideological interests – Classical, Neo, Social, or Fiscal.

* * *

Part III

Let me now consider the symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the serpent. I shall then examine the role of the Ten Commandments, and attempt to wrap up with a philosophical definition of conservatism.

Knowledge of Good and Evil

As I explained in Part 2, I read the symbolism of the Garden of Eden to relate to the nature of man himself. The trees that man is permitted to eat from are his instincts, given him in Genesis 1:26–28. But he must not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If he does, he shall "surely die" (or, more accurately, "dying thou shalt die").

That reading is confirmed by Genesis 2:25 – "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

In short, they responded to their instincts without judging their actions, much as animals do. They did not seek pleasure for the sake of pleasure, nor did they pursue vanity – hence the reference to them not being "ashamed."

We then come to Chapter 3. Something happens to human beings which causes them to reflect on their actions, and even characterize them as being right or wrong, or good and evil.

Genesis symbolizes this by Eve being tempted to eat the fruit of the Tree. It also gives us a clue as to what prompted the transformation.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
– Genesis 3:6.

The clues lie in the words "pleasant" and "to be desired."

They succumbed to pleasure. They realized that the indulgence in pleasure purely for the sake of indulging in pleasure, could be "exhilarating." But at the same time, it appears to have activated reflection on their actions. Conscience came into play. Their eyes "were opened, and they knew that they were naked." (Genesis 3:7)

We then have the symbolism of God walking in the Garden, and "they hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the Garden." (Genesis 3:8)

God, it seems to me, symbolizes their activated conscience, and the hiding amongst the trees symbolizes their attempt to avoid their conscience by taking refuge in their primitive instincts; seeking to avoid their conscience by justifying their actions as being simply "human nature."

But God, or their activated conscience, is not that easily deterred – they are plagued until they have to confront God, or their conscience, and provide some justification for their actions. And when they do reflect on it, or answer to God, Adam admits that as a result of his actions, he was "afraid" and sought to hide himself.

And what of the Serpent?

The Serpent is misplaced reason. Reason starts to contemplate this business of pleasure. Perhaps the indulgence in pleasure is what it’s all about. Perhaps the indulgence in pleasure can "make one wise."

The idiot Jeremy Bentham certainly came to that conclusion; and the pursuit of happiness is pretty much synonymous, to this day, with the pursuit of pleasure. Human beings seem to think that the indulgence in pleasure is a God given right. So they can justify (just as Adam and Eve did) ignoring their conscience by hiding in the trees of their primitive instincts.

Philo says this about the serpent that tempted Eve. "And the serpent is said to have spoken in a human voice, because pleasure employs innumerable champions and defenders who take care to advocate its interests, and who dare to assert that the power over everything, both small and great, does of right belong to it without any exception whatever."

And Philo adds that "those who have previously become the slaves of pleasure immediately receive the wages of this miserable and incurable passion."

And that is what happened to Adam and Eve, and is indeed our human heritage.

Having eaten of the Tree, "in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life." (Genesis 3:17)

Having activated their ability to distinguish between their actions, and classify them as good or bad, they will always agonize over their actions.

The Tree as "proof" of God

When Adam and Eve did eat of the Tree, they did not die as God had said they would. Instead they were evicted from the Garden (that is, they were no longer in a tranquil state, oblivious of any distinction between their actions). They would henceforth eat of the Tree forever. Yet, when they are evicted from the Garden, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, from which they were condemned to eat for the rest of their lives, remains in the Garden, together with the Tree of Life.

So what is the symbolism of all of this?

In order to answer that, let me try to paint a picture of the first humans trying to come to terms with this new awareness – judging their own actions, and classifying some as right (good), and others as bad (evil).

Since time immemorial, it was a time honored tradition to conquer an opposing tribe if it encroached on your territory; or even to expand your territory (the instinct to conquer). The conqueror would "reason" about the most effective strategy to catch them off guard (like when they were sleeping), club the men and young boys to death, and drag the women and young girls off to become slaves. They would indulge some of their primitive instincts for pleasure with a little raping. They would ransack the opposing tribe's property.

But in this particularly successful tribe, there appears a seemingly sensitive type; a type not seen before. He starts questioning whether they should be doing this sort of thing. What the rest of the tribe regard as wonderful success (the crushed skulls of the men and boys in the opposing tribe, and the women and girls all thoroughly raped, and enslaved), he struggles to understand why he finds it all quite offensive.

He wonders whether it is wrong. But how can such an unmitigated success be wrong? The opposing tribe, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists, so there is no fear of retribution. And his tribe is so much better off. What could be the problem?

It begins to dawn on him that perhaps it is not their opposing tribe, or indeed any other of the species, who may judge their actions. That means that their actions may not even be brought into judgment in their own lifetimes. If what appears to be perfectly normal behavior can be considered wrong, but there is no one or thing on earth to bring them into judgment, either the actions are not wrong, or someone or something, not of this world, will bring such actions into judgment when they die. There can be no other explanation!!

So I can almost hear this rather sensitive person appealing to the chief and fellow tribesmen. He has to persuade them that what they regard as an unmitigated success, and a time-honored tradition, is wrong. But he can't bring to the table fear of retribution; he can't bring to the table some kind of weakening or loss to the tribe; he can't bring to the table a breach of their traditions and time-honored customs; he can't even bring to the table lack of courage. So to what can he appeal?

He appeals to a higher power that will bring judgment to their actions when they die. And that means an afterlife, and it means someone, or something, in that afterlife who will execute the judgment.

Yet, this is not some devious scheme to undermine the tribe's security and prosperity, it is the only conclusion he can draw from the revulsion he feels at their actions. His reason tells him that actions regarded as not only normal and traditional, but courageous, can only be wrong if they are to be judged in another life by someone having the authority to do so; and perhaps that same someone, or something, is warning of the consequences that will be visited upon the actions by instilling in him a revulsion at the actions.

But he is alone, except that the chief himself has been harboring similar misgivings. He makes his pitch – to utter derision from the tribe – he is a coward; he is undermining the tribe; he is a traitor, perhaps he secretly supported the other tribe.

Could such a pitch ever have been made? History is rife with them, and they continue to this day. Civilization is built on just such pitches.

And a particularly poignant one from recent history occurred in 1550, in the town of Valladolid, Spain. A certain Las Casas made just such a pitch to King Charles V by way of his closest advisors – the Council of Fourteen. But alas, for Las Casas, he won the debate, but the "will to power" won the day. The King lifted his ban on further Spanish Conquests in the Americas. Las Casas, however, was not met with the derision I suspect the first of the species met with when he, or she, first questioned actions previously regarded as honorable, traditional, and courageous, and condemned them as evil.

Now, the fact that we are clearly able to judge our actions, and categorize them as good or evil, right or wrong, does not prove a God, a soul, or an afterlife. But it provides a powerful argument in favor of such a conclusion. And even if it turns out that there is no such thing as a God, it explains why human beings would, quite reasonably, come to believe in one. The flip-side of that is that non-belief cannot be based on reason – only an irrational belief in a fragmentary science. So, perhaps it is the non-believers who have Bentham's narrow intellect!

I elaborate further on these arguments in the book, so I shall not dwell on them here. I also contrast the Scriptural symbolism that gives rise to an argument for the existence of God with, for example, Kant's arguments based on his "moral law," and the contingency argument (Copeland v. Russell).

But the point I am making here is that the Scriptures themselves, with the symbolism they evoke, even in a few short chapters, preempt all these later philosophical arguments.

Instincts, to Principles, to Laws

The most fascinating thing about this transformation from an instinct responsive creature to a reflective creature is how different members of the human species dealt with it.

Almost universally did they look beyond themselves and their fellow creatures to a higher power, and an afterlife.

Some found that power in ancestral spirits, others in the stars, and yet others in fabulous mythical figures. Some vested lesser creatures with supernatural powers.

But one group took a different approach. They sought to recreate their notions of a supernaturally designated right and wrong into a system of laws based on fundamental governing principles. They didn’t construct mighty edifices to align with the stars; they didn’t create images of their imagined gods; they didn’t transform everyday creatures into god-like images.

They seemed to take the view that if there is a right and wrong, a good and evil, then let’s work out what actions fall into each category and set them out into a system of laws. But those laws needed to be based on some fundamental principles to which they could revert in cases of uncertainty, or dispute.

So, whereas the builders of the pyramids (according to many) sought to align these mighty structures with the stars, the Jews sought to align their laws, align what is right and wrong, with God’s laws.

But their project was more ambitious than that even. From the start, they expected that this system of laws based on fundamental principles would, eventually, be the model for all mankind.

Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him.
– Genesis 18:18.

They envisaged, no less, that God’s kingdom would be recreated on earth.

The Ten Commandments

The build-up to the statement of principles is itself revealing. It portrays those few people who question accepted behavior, and challenge accepted traditions, as chosen by God Himself to accomplish His task. Moses is chief among them.

The symbolism (remember, we are still reading the Scriptures from a skeptic’s perspective) of the events leading up to the Ten Commandments is breathtaking. It is no wonder that Nietzsche could have said this: "In the Jewish 'Old Testament,' the book of divine justice, there are human beings, things, and speeches in so grand a style that Greek and Indian literature have nothing to compare with it. With terror and reverence one stands before these tremendous remnants of what man once was."

So we see Moses questioning God’s decision to select him to go to the Pharaoh and demand that God’s people be freed. He advances excuses like his ineloquence and slowness of speech. Not unreasonably, Moses asks, "who am I, that I should go . . . ?" And again, "But, behold, they will not believe me."

But God, or perhaps symbolically, Moses’ conscience, perseveres, and convinces him that he has to do it. Yet, even at the last minute he has second thoughts: "Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me?"

Then we have the constant refrain to Pharaoh – "Let my people go."

And as we all know, Pharaoh eventually relented, and the children of Israel were freed, and readied to receive God’s law in the wilderness.

The symbolism of the revelation of that law is dramatic. "And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly." (Exodus 19:18)

And to emphasize the overreaching importance of the Law, God is said to have Himself written His Law on two tables of stone. Nowhere else in the Scriptures does God Himself physically write anything! So even if we accept that the Scriptures are God’s word, written through the hand of those he chose, still, on only one occasion does God deem it of such overriding importance that He Himself, in His own hand, should physically write something – His Law.

As such the Law is accorded a prominence and preeminence above everything else.

These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tables of stone . . .
– Deuteronomy 5:22.

Philo explains the significance of this: "For it was suitable to [God’s] own nature to promulgate in His own Person the heads and PRINCIPLES of all particular laws, but to send forth the particular and special laws by the most perfect of the prophets . . . to be the interpreter of His holy oracles." [my emphasis]

I shall revert to this distinction shortly.

Once these Ten Principles are enunciated, we then have a series of prophets (including Moses himself – Deut 18:18) announcing God's plan to deliver His Law to all the peoples of the world, and how He plans to do it.

Isaiah Chapter 42 is probably the most emphatic. God would send His servant to "bring forth judgment to the Gentiles."

He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall await his law.
– Isaiah 42:4.

With the Law, all the people of the world would be blessed with the ability to judge their actions. "Judgment" in these passages clearly means the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, because the mission is to bring "light to the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes . . .." (Isaiah 42:6) But even it means "judgment" in the legal sense (and it may mean both), the mission is the same – the Gentiles having a set of Principles, God’s Law, to which they can refer to determine the character of their actions, and by reference to which they will ultimately be judged.

So just as God considered the delivery of the Principles which reflected His Law sufficiently important for He Himself to descend down to earth to personally write them on stone, so He considered it of such paramount importance to ensure they were delivered to the rest of the world that He sent His own Son to carry out that mission (please bear in mind that I am not addressing Christ’s mission of salvation here, only the question of the Law).

And Christ is emphatic about the role He plays in respect of the Law.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
– Matthew 5:17 – 18.

Thus Christ restates His mission as prophesied in Isaiah.

And Christ affirms the preeminence of the Principles contained in the Ten Commandments. He provides a sort of updated "interpretation" as evidenced by his references to, "Ye have heard it said of old time . . .," and then saying, "But I say unto you . . ."

The most stark example of this is when Christ asserts that Moses had provided an interpretation of the Seventh Commandment which actually contravened the Law (the Law as it was from the beginning), and that in doing so he had permitted an indulgence in man's original and primitive instinct for pleasure. "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall  put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." (Matthew 19:8 & 9)

I shall not here address the Principles of the Ten Commandments themselves. I have done so at length in Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights, and in the series of articles "The Ten Principles of Freedom."

Establishing the Kingdom of God’s Law

So, as we get to the end of this brief journey through the Scriptures, we find something quite remarkable. We find that it has explained our origin and nature more perfectly than any philosopher ever has. We find that it has provided us with the counterforce to prevent our primitive instincts for the indulgence of pleasure and power from running amuck; it has given us the Principles upon which to make laws to deal with that danger, and to govern ourselves in a civilized manner.

Those Principles also define and determine all human obligations from which, in turn, emerges everything we recognize as morality, while also providing a blueprint for the preservation of our individual and collective freedom (The Ten Principles of Freedom articles).

The Scriptures began by providing an argument in favor of the existence of God. It then tells us how God intended to establish His Law on earth, and that He, and His son and servant, Jesus Christ, will not falter until that is achieved.

And what the Scriptures said God would do, He has done.

All that, for me, is sufficient to persuade me that what is written in the Scriptures reveals, at the very least, the will of a power beyond the earthly. It satisfies me that there is a God, and that the Scriptures reveal His will and His Law.

The final confirmation of that comes in the remarkable endurance of the Ten Commandments, despite the repeated, devious, and even ignorant attempts to sideline them, and even eradicate them.

From the Nicene Creed, that makes no mention of the only thing God thought worthy of Himself writing in stone, and worthy of the sacrifice of His only Son to ensure that His Law would be delivered to the rest of humanity, to interpretations of Paul’s letters (especially Romans) to mean that God’s Law had somehow assumed a secondary position in His plan, to "enlightened" philosophers ridiculing the Law as nothing more than a refrain to be nice to others, the Ten Commandments have endured, and even strengthened.

And as if to drive home the point for those inclined to think that the Ten Commandments had somehow become less relevant, or even irrelevant, the New Testament ends by dispelling such delusions: "Blessed are they that do His Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates to the city." (Revelations 22:14)

Even today’s mighty Charters of Rights, Constitutions, laws, courts, and Parliaments, claiming to advance and better protect the condition and liberty of human beings, are nothing more than pale reflections of the Ten Commandments; even in such barren ground do we see the shoots of God’s Law spring forth.

I have no doubt that having said that His Law will be established on this earth, it will be established on this earth – and that process continues with each passing day – even though many refuse to recognize it. What we call western civilization is only the infant of the Kingdom of God’s Law that will be established on earth.

Conservatism – a Definition?

So finally I come back to the issue of a definition of Conservatism.

Conservatism means to conserve.

But the question is, conserve what?

Can it really be that we want to conserve some "irrational tradition?"

Can it really be that we want to conserve for the sake of conserving, even if we end up conserving ignorance and stupidity, or even injustice?

Can it really be that we want to conserve a "religion of reason" that has no firm foundations? An "enlightened reason" that cannot even move beyond the elementary when considering the magnitude of what has been gifted us in the Ten Commandments?

I think not!

The conserve in Conservatism means, for me at least, conserving and applying those Principles handed down to us by God; those Principles that give us our shared values. It means conserving those Laws that arm us against the continuous onslaught of our primitive instincts; those carnal instincts that call out for indulgence; the Principles that are our only defense against vanity! And perhaps, just perhaps, the Principles that will restore our "right to the tree of life," if we observe them.

And since God Himself has ordained that these Principles, His Laws, will be conserved, at least I feel that I am on the right side.

Now that’s something worth conserving – that’s Conservatism!