Dr. Alfred Kinsey, "Scientism" and those stupid Puritans!

I recently caught a brief documentary piece on the famous (and infamous) sex researcher Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his research. For whatever reason, some find his research shocking and controversial, even to this day. I'm not really one of them.

This is not to say that I have problems with some of his methodology. With regard to certain data (ex. his information on childhood sexuality), there is some reason to be concerned, but only because of the size of the sampling - contrary to some wild accusations, Dr.Kinsey did not "pay" to have children sexually molested to see what would happen, etc. The information in those cases is simply unreliable because it came from few sources (a lot of it from one source actually - a man who could charitably be described as a sexual deviant, and who kept meticulous journals of his sexual experiences with man, woman, child, beast, and "other".) It can also be rightly pointed out that the man got far too close to his work, up to and including he and his wife participating directly in some of the "observational films" he created for study.

But I'd submit that his own indiscretions in data collecting (particularly his personal involvement) really do more to taint his conclusions than the quality of the data itself.

And that's always been the problem with the "Kinsey Reports", and so much of the field of "sexology" which Dr.Kinsey helped pioneer - the conclusions. It's also a part of the problem you find now days in the physical sciences in general, the whole plague of what many call "Scientism." At it's heart, Scientism is a failure to recognize that physical science is but one form of "science," and typically has been regarded as the lowest form.
Why? Because for it to work properly, it must operate in a subsidiary way under
the guidance of philosophical and theological sciences in order to come to "provisionally correct" conclusions. And that is all the physical sciences can
claim to offer, being the lowest form of science - provisional conclusions, because physical sciences are slaves to observational data, which being limited by our circumscription, is always growing, and hence, changing. An example of this would be the provisional conclusion, that our Lord used a mechanism of adaptation in the creation of the first man, and that this is a part of His providence in our own age as well.

Sadly, most "modern scientists" (and invariably such a phrase will only be applied
to physical scientists) are sorrowfully lacking in any kind of adequate philosophical and religious training, as are are the bulk of so called "educated persons" in these days.

So what are men ruled by when lack in the powers of the will and intellect? Passions. Base, passion. Period. While those energies of the soul
are not of themselves evil (they are human, and created by our good God just
like the rest of us), when they rule us, there is a grave disorder. It is a spiritual case of "putting the cart in front of the horse." And this is why some of the worst hell spawn garbage comes out of the mouths of (so called) "educated persons." Think of what we have lost! Historically, to be "educated" meant to be of refined character and manners, and as such best able to understand the more "noble sciences" and hence, lesser sciences. This is why at the heart of any claim to be an "educated man" in times past, was a solid liberal arts education and religious formation (seminary schools, good catechesis, etc.)

Now, it seems to mean being a glorified mechanic, just that one deals with really complicated and high liability 'stuff' And it shows, when you read some of the unsubstantiated, shockingly ignorant, and woefully contradictory nonsense that is passed off as "good science."

This holds true for the work of Dr.Kinsey, and what has been made of it by both himself and his admirers. And to a degree, it's true of most of the critics of "sexology", the self styled "family values" types. That people in general are sexually freakier than one might imagine (or that they're not the only one) would come as absolutely no surprise to any parish Priest who has been hearing confessions for only a couple of months. Knowing Priests, and friends of Priests, I've been told (without even remotely endangering the seal of confession, of course) of case examples of things they've actually encountered with penitents...well, let's just say it's astoundingly weird stuff, even for a perv like me.

About the only thing slighly valid in the "sexological consensus" conclusion, is the acknowledgement that you're not the only messed up person out there. That can be consolling I suppose; at least one is not abandoned to think they're the only one who struggles. But as I said before, this wasn't exactly a secret either...

At least not a secret from what I'd call "High Church" Christian society (namely, the civilizations of the Christians of the East and the West, both before and after the "big schisms" that have split them into different communions). I suspect that there is a lot in the current zeitgeist that we can thank Protestantism for, with it's tendency (particularly in Calvinism) toward judaic messianism; the confused idea that government can bring utopia, that the kingdom of God cannot only be made to appear in this world, but that it can be confounded with it. Only Calvinistic America could create the prohibitionist justice system. While many associate "prohibitionism" solely with the ban on alcohol, in actuality it covered a whole slew of "vices", ranging from prostitution, through to recreational drugs, right on to gambling. That's right folks - before these killjoys came along, all of those things were basically legal in the good ole' U.S. of A., somewhere somehow. If there were laws with regard to these vices, they more often than not pertained to "zoning issues."

Interestingly enough, that "lawless" situation was a carry over from Christian Europe. Classical Christian civilization in it's myriad of variants, is surprisingly "loose" up until the "Reformation." Even St.Augustine argued (arguing against the puritanical impulse of some Christians in his own day) that it would be contrary to the public good to attempt to criminalize prostitution! He even argued, I think quite correctly, that prostitution is in fact the "lesser evil" when it comes to giving space to sins against purity (avoids "unnatural sins", adultery with another's spouse, or the ravishing of decent women, etc.)

More than "legislating morally", what the puritanical zeitgeist has done is create a false image of normality. Good common folk, like the kind who don't read theological/religious blogs, still on some level believe governments only act as lawmakers when the matter is somewhat important. So, if a government has laws on basically anything "fun but quite likely morally corrosive," it can create the impression that, like outright murder, only a select type of transgressor would be guilty of those things. This of course had to lead to a lot of confliction in people, as more and more the artifcats of sin had to be pushed completely underground.

So, when some cat comes around with observational data that "the majority of people" are in some way pretty friggin' kinky, it wasn't a long jump to say that because it is normative, it is "natural", and as such, "good." Unsurprisingly, authority in general (especially governmental, but also as an often justified spill over, religious too) was hurt in this "realization." It's not a coincidence that 1960's political radicalism and revolutionary ideologies went along "hand-in-hand" with the "sexual liberation" movement. And just perhaps, not all that coincidental that Dr.Kinsey's work had just preceeded both...

The above combined with man's endless appetite for anything which will justify his sins, resulted not simply in a conclusion but an assertion - that there is no original sin, that our current state is not "contra-natural" and a result from the misuse of the energy of the will, etc. Of course, none of that follows from recognizing that most people to some degree and for some duration, behave very very badly. If anything, such observations of "human sexuality" can serve as strong evidence of everything the Church has had to say about original sin and the tragedy which lies at the dawn of mankind. It would also show that the path indeed is quite narrow, and that the Icon of the "Divine Ascent" is right on the money. So watching the mass of mankind behaving poorly when they think no one is watching offers us no revelation as to how we should choose to behave, what we should hold as our standard. Indeed, one could say it's a problem faced by modern psychology as well - absolutely no reasonable standard of what constitutes "normal."

Of course, the wisest of men will tell you that these two are our examples of normality. And in a subsidiary, perhaps less clear way, these folks as well.