philosophy

by

Worldview: Naturalism

Introduction

Last month’s blog provided a general overview of James Sire’s works. One of the works highlighted in that overview is the one for which Sire is probably most remembered by Christians who follow his writings, The Universe Next Door. The subtitle of that book by Sire is A Basic Worldview Catalog. Sire delineates what he designates as nine worldviews, exploring how each worldview answers what he calls eight prime questions. As stated in last month’s blog, Sire’s The Universe Next Door went through six revisions, 2020 being the latest and last revision. He had originally delineated seven prime questions, and then added the eighth in the 2020 updated version of his book. The eight prime questions that each worldview seeks to answer are: 1) What is the prime reality or really real? 2) What is the nature of external reality (that is the world around us)? 3) What is a human being? 4) What happens to a person after death? 5) Why is it possible to know anything at all? 6) How do we know what is right and wrong? 7) What is the meaning of human history? 8) What personal life-orienting personal commitments are consistent with this worldview? There are many worldviews that challenge the worldview of what Sire calls Theism, and thereby Christianity, but one major worldview battle that Christians face emerges from the philosophy of Naturalism. That will be the focus of this month’s blog discussion.

Although those who have been given the epithet the New Atheists, (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens,) claim that their position is based on science, naturalism, nonetheless is a worldview. The battle between naturalism and Christianity is not between religion and science, but between two conflicting worldviews. To get a solid understanding of this worldview conflict, a good work to read and study is John Lennox’s God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God. Lennox presents a thorough study of how these worldviews are indeed in conflict, and how the conflict between them historically came about. I hope to explore Lennox’s work sometime in the future on this blog.

The World View: Naturalism

What is the Prime Reality or Really Real?

Any worldview will seek to answer the question regarding the nature of existence. In naturalism, the nature of the cosmos is considered to be primary. Since there is no creator God, the natural realm becomes eternal, but not necessarily in its present form. Sire quotes Carl Sagan’s claim regarding the cosmos: The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Although naturalists can agree and disagree as to the form of matter having always been the same, where they agree is that there is no spiritual or transcendent force that gave rise to the cosmos, nor did anything spiritual or transcendent emerge from matter or the cosmos. Sire states regarding this worldview: In short matter is all there is. Ours is a natural cosmos.

What is the nature of external reality?

The cosmos exists as a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system. There was a time when naturalists or materialists held that the world was similar to that held by deists, the view of the world a machine, analogous to what is called a clockwork mechanism. However, modern scientists rightfully see the universe as more complex than a simple machine. Nonetheless, from their perspective, the cosmos is a closed system. What this entails is the view that the cosmos is not open to any kind of alteration or reordering from the outside by a transcendent creator (because no such Being exists), or by self-transcendent or autonomous beings. Sire points out that the naturalist worldview aligns with the Humanist Manifesto II (1973) that straightforwardly denies the existence of a creator and the miraculous. Naturalism is a pervasive worldview. The question emerges: In a naturalistic closed system, can one logically believe in free will and the ethics of right and wrong/morality and immorality?

What Is a Human Being?

From a consistent naturalistic worldview, human beings are viewed as complex machines. Human personality is the the epiphenomenon of chemical and physical properties of which we lack full understanding. The experience of consciousness and mind tends to challenge this idea, even from the perspective of some naturalists. However, to be consistent, the majority of naturalists see the mind as a function of machine. The human being is seen as a machine. Hence, according to naturalism, the self and soul are jettisoned, at least from a the perspective that such a notion describes the essence of being human. As human beings, we are part of the cosmos, which contains one reality: matter. Such reductionism can be over-simplified. Naturalists, such as Ernest Nagel point out the complexity of being human. . . . a mature naturalism attempts to assess man’s nature in light of his actions and achievements, his aspirations and capacities, his limitations and tragic failures, and his splendid works of ingenuity and imagination (Sire quoting Ernest Nagel). This brings up the thorny question again of free will and determinism. While some naturalists are strict determinists, others see a place for what they consider limited or restricted freedom.

What Happens to a Person at Death?

For the naturalist, death means the extinguishing of individuality and personality. Since human beings are made of nothing but matter, this position is the logical conclusion of naturalism’s view of the human being. Again, the Humanist Manifesto II states straightforwardly that the personality is a biological entity that functions in a social and cultural context. According to the Manifesto, there is no evidence that the personality survives death. The natural body is the sum of what human beings are.

Why Is It Possible to Know Anything at All?

This question gets at what philosophy designates as epistemology. How do we come to know things? What degree of certainty can we possess regarding our knowledge of things? The naturalists point to autonomous human reason granting our ability to know and understand to a limited degree the universe in which we are situated. This autonomous human reason they equate with the methods of science. It is this understanding of the mind and its operation that leads naturalists to pit science against religion. Those who hold to a theistic and Judeo- Christian worldview are labeled as anti-science. From the standpoint of naturalism, reason developed over a long period of time via the mechanism of natural evolution. The human being’s ability to reason is simply an innate ability that came about for humans via the mechanism of natural selection. Human knowledge then is the product of natural human reason and its perceived ability to grasp the truth of being in the world. The question that emerges is can we really know the world accurately? Many naturalists today would claim that language allows us to live successfully or unsuccessfully in the world. Hence, they turn to pragmatism as a philosophical approach to living. However, they hold that it is highly dubitable that we can know truth as truth about the world. More modern and poststructural positions see science in a different light from those who lived during the Enlightenment. However, consistent naturalists ground human reason in human nature – a product of nature – itself.

How Do We Know What Is Right and Wrong

A thorough worldview will take a stand on ethics, morality versus immorality. From the standpoint of naturalism, however, ethics did not play a major role in its historical development. Metaphysical notions gave rise as a logical extension of the a priori notions naturalists held regarding the external world. For quite sometime, naturalists held, for the most part, to ethics of their surrounding culture. The Humanist Manifesto II contain ethical norms similar to traditional morality with exceptions. However, the longer the existence of God is jettisoned as a legitimate belief, the wider the disagreements will become between a theistic and naturalist worldview. We are seeing that play out in the militancy by which the New Atheists attack Christianity. For the naturalist, ethics is autonomist and situational. Life has meaning, according to naturalism, because human beings themselves create such meaning. Hence, we are witnessing a split between what naturalists, especially those designated as the New Atheists, call science and the humanities. Postmodernism has brought its effect on science. However, many of the postmodern persuasion question whether science can offer human beings any accuracy regarding the world. The question that ethics gives rise to is: how do human beings derive an ought from what is?

What Is the Meaning of History?

From the standpoint of naturalism, if there is no Creator nor any transcendent meaning to existence, then history is simply linear with no overarching purpose. Human history is swallowed up by natural history. Human beings are merely along for the ride wherever natural history takes them. Since the goal of evolution was not focused on the emergence of human beings, there is nothing special and meaningful about human existence. Human beings appear on the naturalistic scene, and as self-aware creatures can make meaning of their existence, but the history they make has no inherent worth, nor is there an overarching goal to history. History will last as long as human beings last. When they go, then history will go.

What Personal Life-Orienting Core Commitments Are Consistent with Naturalism?

Naturalism itself implies no particular core commitment. Like ethics, commitments are chosen unwittingly, autonomously, and situationally. The naturalist claims that each individual is free to choose his or her core commitment. This raises the knotty question once again regarding the possibility of human freedom in a naturalistic system. Naturalism in practice is worked out in various forms of humanism. Humanism as a whole holds that human beings have dignity and value simply because they exist. One form of humanism is called secular humanism. This form of humanism is framed within a naturalist worldview. Such humanists would fall comfortably in responses to questions 1 through 6 above.

The second form of humanism is Marxism. Marxism and naturalism share certain assumptions, but Marx’s materialism was historical and dialectical, placing an emphasis on the economic factors of life as the primary determinants of history. Hence, history for Marx has meaning, and that meaning is found in class struggle. The goal of history is the new socialist individual, who will be less individualistic, working for the good of others. Marx likewise rejects any moral values as a basis for human motivation. Human beings create themselves through their work, and their work should be for the good of others. The sticky question that emerges with any worldview similar to Marx’s is can human beings really become good if they have the right environment? And then, what is the right environment? Marxism, like any form of naturalism, does not provide people with meaning and purpose. They are simply caught up in the dialectic of history that somehow will lead to Shangri-La.

Conclusion

The raging battle between worldviews of naturalism and theism is not a battle between religion and science, as individuals like the New Atheists would have everyone believe. Instead, the war is between two worldviews. Naturalism, as a worldview, posits no creator, no meaning in history, and that what people attain in this life perishes with them when they die. As a form of humanism, it provides no purpose and meaning for human beings. The church, however, has a challenge before it that has been with it since the Advent of Christ. What are we witnessing, as Christians to the world, what we and life in Christ are to be about? The history of the church has witnessed horrible persecutions of one another, the ugliness of religious wars, and petty divisiveness that has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the faith. If we are to be the light and beacon on a hill that the church is called to be, then we must understand our calling in Christ, living out our worldview, which is diametrically opposed to the worldview of naturalism.

[References

Lennox, J. (2009). God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Oxford, UK: Lion Hudson plc.

Sire, J. (1976). The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. (Originally published in 1976, Sire’s The Universe Next Door underwent six editions over the years, each building on the previous edition (1976, 1988, 1997, 2004, 2009, 2020).]

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./December 14th, 2025

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT/Worldview

by

“Pursuit” of “Happiness”

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . . (Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776).

Introduction

As Carl Trueman (1) has pointed out, we live in an age in which feelings have become the test of truth. If one feels a certain way, then that is his or her truth, not be denied by anyone else. This is especially true in terms of the identity question – as to whom or what one chooses to identify. With this exaltation of feelings and emotions, the word happiness, in terms of its meaning, has lost its true significance as used by the framers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. In much the same way, the word pursuit has been emptied of its more powerful meaning. In the words of the Declaration of Independence stated above, several things stand out about which I want to comment in the blog article. First, regardless of what this postmodern age pretends to claim, there is such a thing as truth, and more importantly, self-evident truths. Second, the question emerges: What did the original framers mean by the words pursuit and happiness? Third, we cannot speak of self-evident truths apart from there being a Creator.

The Emptying of Words of Their Full Content

Russ Harris (2), in his work, The Happiness Trap, addresses the empty pursuit of what we tend to think happiness is today. We frame happiness as an emotion of feeling good. Many people have replaced what the framers meant by happiness and have exalted as a right to feel good constantly. When they do not feel good about their lives, then something is declared to be wrong, whether it be with other people and how they respond to them, or with society or culture as a whole. Harris considers this an empty chase of something that it is at best a fleeing emotion. In his Acceptance and Commitment Approach (ACT) to therapy, he relates true happiness to the building of one’s life on a set of values that one holds. Without a set of values that guides one’s life, happiness is simply an empty pursuit with no ground for its meaning. Although I agree with Harris that building a meaningful happy life should be grounded in the values we hold, values themselves must too be ultimately grounded in that which is real.

The Framer’s Take on Pursuit and Happiness

In his article from the Epoch Times, Jeff Minick (3) addresses the fact that people can define happiness as some sort of financial prosperity, possessing things, and holding some kind of status in society. Although these can be real pursuits, many find that in obtaining them, what they in fact possess is intangible and slips through their fingers like water, never stable or fully satisfying. Minick then turns to what the framers of the Constitution meant by the words happiness and pursuit. Drawing on James Rogers’ work, The Meaning of “The Pursuit of Happiness,” Minick declares that the original framers meant something more tangible that accrues in the pursuit of happiness. Rather than mere prosperity, happiness to the framers meant well-being in general. Such well being would emerge only in a virtuous life. True well-being in life could not be obtained apart from virtue.

Likewise we tend to think differently from the framers regarding the meaning of the word pursuit. Minick points out that typically we think of the word as an endless chasing after something, an object or a person. We also think of it in terms of pursuing or chasing after our dreams, whether our dreams have any grounding in reality or not. Go after your dream is a modern mantra, not related to one’s skills, abilities, or means to obtain said dreams. Again, Minick drawing on Rogers’ work points out that Rogers credited Arthur Schlesinger Sr. authoring a book chapter on what the word pursuit meant in the time of the framers. We might come closer to the meaning of pursuit when we say things like, he is pursuing medicine, or she is pursuing lawyering. Hence, pursuit can mean occupation or some kind of practice. Some kind of vocation is highlighted here. Pursuit then means the building of one’s life along a vocation, based on practice, skills, knowledge, and wisdom of the means to pursue one’s desired ends. We are talking about a meaningful life.

Pursuit of Happiness Is Grounded in the Transcendent

Minick quoting Rogers, the happiness of people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality. The framers pointed to the Creator as the foundation for our rights and liberty. As a Christian, I believe that unless our goals, aspirations, and pursuits are grounded in the Biblical truth concerning God and Jesus Christ whom He sent (John 17:3), then they will fall short of the true happiness we were designed to have. God has given us the means to the ends to a truly happy life. We are commanded by Him to pursue wisdom. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). Biblical wisdom is the pathway for our building a purposeful and meaningful life. There is no meaning or goodness apart from God (Psalm 16:2). We can debate whether all the framers were Biblically-based Christians or not. But what they wrote and meant by the pursuit of happiness, as Minick points out, stands on the solid ground of piety, religion, and morality. Apart from this ground, there is no building a solid virtuous life of meaning.

[References: (1) Trueman, C. (2022). Strange New Worlds. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishers. (2) Harris, R. (2022). The Happiness Trap. Boulder, CO: Shambhala Publishing. (3) Minick, J.(2024). What Does the “Pursuit of Happiness” Mean? [In Epoch Times, June 24th, 2024, Online Edition].

John V. Jones, Jr, Ph.D./July 14th, 2024

ANALYSIS/CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

by

The Enemy of Liberty

For they do not speak peace/But they devise deceitful words against those who are quiet in the land (Psalm 35:20).

Introduction

We are in the midst of ideological warfare that could have far-reaching effects for a republican form of government. Note how the mainstream media has become a mouthpiece for the left and its progressive ideology. Pay close attention to those businesses which progressive ideologues have sought to ruin because they dared adhere to their Christian beliefs. The attacks on 1st and 2nd amendment rights never cease. Progressivism is an ideology that holds that a centralized powerful State will bring about a utopia on earth through bureaucratic regulation that threatens what we have typically experienced as liberty. Couched in rhetoric touting democracy, progressivism is a collectivist ideology that views individual liberty as the problem, a problem to be cured by an all-powerful State. Hence comes the movements of Critical Theory, Social Justice, and egalitarianism.

The Rhetoric of Progressivism

The Orwellian speak from the progressive left under the guise of such words as democracy, equality, and peaceful coexistence, is nothing more than rhetoric that they use to push their ideology. First an absolute democracy not checked by a republican form of government becomes rule by the majority. Note the move to eradicate the electoral college and the desire to shift all legal matters away from the states and localized decision making to the centralized government. This was specifically played out in Biden’s move to dictate to the state of Texas its decision on how it should guard and protect its own border. Second, equality of opportunity is not the aim of the egalitarianism of the progressive left. Egalitarianism shares nothing in common with equality of opportunity. Equality of results is the goal of progressive ideology. Individuals by the power of the State will be made equal, whether it be in pay, hiring practices, or educational outcomes. The aim of progressive ideology is to empower the centralized State to force equality of results. Meritocracy is targeted as racist and the result of class privilege. Given this stance, we see the onslaught of Critical Theory and Social Justice ideologies, particularly seizing the academy in all departments. Thus, peaceful coexistence is the last thing that progressives truly desire. Although much of the ideology undergirding progressivism emerges from postmodernism and its claim that all is a relative and a social construct, the true driving force of progressivism is the mantra, everything is political. Given that presupposition progressives will drive home their ideology via political power. Again, we can see this reality in the attacks on free speech and the weaponizing of the legal system to punish businesses that do not adhere to progressive ideology.

Ideological Warfare

Joseph T. Salerno, in his pamphlet, The Progressive Road to Socialism, hammers home that given the ideological presuppositions of progressivism, there can be no peaceful coexistence with the political goals of progressives. The conclusion of everything is political is that political power makes right. Salerno points to the work of Murray Rothbard as a blueprint for how those of us who stand against progressive ideologies should wage ideological warfare. First, we have to recognize that throughout the 20th century, progressives, the academy, and corporatism (corporate cronies tied to big government and the academy) have teamed up to apologize for progressive political aims. The payoff for both the academy and corporations has been subsidies from the State at the taxpayers’ expense. Such politicizing of all avenues of life is not something with which those who stand against progressive policies should seek to coexist, especially if coexistence as defined by progressives means that those who are critical of leftist policies are deemed racist and privileged, basically a move to silence any critical dialogue of progressive policies. Again, note the attacks on free speech. Second, given the political power wielded by progressives, Salerno points out that Rothbard counsels that those on the right must wage a warfare based on ideology that shatters the disguised rhetoric of progressivism, showing that progressive policies will lead to the destruction of a republican form of government, the economic prosperity it brought about, and the end of any sense of meaning of liberty. Salerno, quotes Rothbard: We are engaged in the deepest sense . . . in a “religious war” and not just a cultural one, religious because left-liberalism/social democracy is a passionately held worldview . . . held on faith: the view that the inevitable goal of history is a perfect world, an egalitarian socialist world. . .It is a religious worldview toward which there must be no quarter; it must be oppose and combated with every fiber of our being (p. 18). Salerno, as a libertarian, throws down the gauntlet. He states, There is no middle ground. You are either a progressive or a reactionary. You either join, or acquiesce in, the forced march into socialism or you join the reaction (p.19). Salerno points out that those on the right must recapture the meaning of reactionary, not letting it be labeled as a derogatory notion. This is the game the left plays. Again, note any critique these days of leftist policies is met with the opprobriums racist and privileged.

Conclusion

For the second time in three months I have opened this monthly blog article with an epigraph taken from Psalm 35:20. The question for those of us who are born-again Christians is how we go about the ideological warfare that Rothbard calls for when we are also commanded by Scripture to love and pray for our enemies. First, as a Christian, I hold that we should do as Scripture calls for, love and pray for our enemies. Note however, that in such a commandment, there is no denial that our enemies are just that, an enemy. The progressives do not speak peace (everything is political). Instead they devise deceitful words against those who are quiet in the land. As one who is opposed to an all-powerful and centralized State, I simply want to be left alone by the State, to live quietly in the land. However, there comes a time when it no longer suffices to remain quiet, but to engage the ideological warfare that has engulfed us. As believers in Christ, we must engage that warfare in a way that doesn’t turn us into the likeness our enemy.

Reference: Salerno, J. T. (2023). The Progressive Road to Socialism. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.

[Joseph T. Salerno received his doctorate in economics from Rutgers University. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Mises Institute where he is also academic vice president and professor emeritus.]

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./ April 14th, 2024

ANALYSIS/Politics