philosophy

by

Frank Chodorov – The Individualist

Introduction

I am posting a blog article that I wrote several years ago (January 2009 to be exact) from a different blog site that I had set up at the time. That site no longer exists. Over the years, I have stated more than once that my political leanings align with libertarianism. I rarely discuss politics on this site, and I never support a political candidate on this webpage. The reason for that stance is not to come across as neutral or apolitical. I am not neutral, and I for sure embrace a political philosophy. That philosophy is neither progressive nor neoconservative. Given the rise of saber rattling neoconservatism and the hazardous emergence of the warmth of collectivism, I wanted to restate my libertarian principles here. In the midst of cleaning out my files, I came across this article I had written in 2009. I see no reason not to restate it here. One of my favorite libertarian (Classical Liberal) writers is Frank Chodorov. His thought underpins this article

Chodorov the Individualist

Frank Chodorov explicated the idea of individualism as passionately and rationally as anyone I have read to date. And I believe that the individualist spirit that contributed to what was once the freest country in the world is waning, and has been for sometime. At 60-years old, I come to this conclusion late in life. And I wish I could have learned the lessons about living much earlier in life. All the data, experiences, people, and facts existed for me to learn solid lessons about life. But like so many others, I passed them by, paid them no mind, and even in a period of my life, demeaned what they stood for. Well, I hope the old adage, it’s never too late to learn, is in fact an accurate assessment. I know difficult times are ahead for me because I didn’t learn the lessons early in life that I should have, lessons I want to explore in this essay. I am going to have to change a lot of old patterns, much wrong thinking, and sloppy ways of living. and I hope that those of you who happen upon this webpage and are reading this blog are willing to journey with me, bearing with me as I seek to carve out ideas where much greater minds than mine have already tread. If I use as a compass the thoughts and ideas of von Hayek, von Mises, Rothbard, or Chodorov, hopefully that will keep me from going too awry.

As Chodorov so insightfully claimed, the road to collectivism is an easy path for most to follow, and today its siren song loudly wails. I established this website [humanaction.us at the time; today my thoughts have not changed but rather deepened regarding Classical Liberal principles] to espouse principles of individualism, a much maligned notion in today’s postmodern thinking [note the conflation of individualism with what is thrown around as rugged individualism]. I wish I could claim that I have always lived in line with the values I wish to propagate through Analysis of Power [the subtitle of the webpage I published at the time], however, I have not. Only in recent years have I come across the writings of F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and more recently, Frank Chocorov. I have dedicated my website and E-Journal to Chodorov [today, what undergirds what I delineate on this page are my Christian spiritual beliefs]. His writings resonated with me in a way that is both inspiring and challenging. I am far from the destination that Chodorov designates as the individual. Yet I hope to reach that destination and live there. Both the URL and the title of my E-Journal reflect my beliefs in Austrian economics and individualism.

Frank Chodorov was the consummate individualist. In this inaugural issue, I want to highlight some of the themes that Chodorov developed more fully in his writings. So I inaugurate Analysis of Power with an apropos essay that outlines what is to be an individualist. Several themes stand out in Chodorov’s writings. I survey them below; any misstatements of Chodorov’s ideas are solely due to my ignorance.

The Right to Live

With everything under the sun today pronounced by the public-at-large as a right, I hate throwing around the concept of rights. But properly understood, it is a powerful, and more importantly, a truthful concept. There is nothing more basic to the individual than the right to live. For whatever reason, apparently the spirit to live has been poured into each one us. (Today I would more strongly point to the Imago Dei as that reason, and the only reason). If there are those among us who do not want to live, then we conclude rather quickly that something is drastically wrong with them. But the right to live is nothing more than an abstraction if we just stop at the phrase, the right to live. What does such a right actually entail? First of all, it is important to recognize that the right pertains to each individual. It is axiomatic, a given. It is not a right that belongs to me but not to you. It is not a right that belongs to some but not to others. It is not a right that belongs to the collective but not to specific individuals. Such a statement on a collectivist level would be meaningless. As an abstraction, however, a dangerous extension is inherent in the notion of the right to live. The right is not carte blanche. So we need to understand what is inherent in the right to live.

Liberty from Government

We talk about many forms of freedom today. You hear politicians wax eloquently about freedom, oppression, injustice, and social justice. However, when we listen closely to what they mean, we get a clearer understanding of what they are trying to sell. We hear such phrases as freedom from poverty, freedom from illness, or freedom from economic injustice. The sales pitch from demagogues who spew forth these phrases is that government is in place to provide all of us with these espoused freedoms (particularly if we vote for those spewing forth these platitudes). However, I have come to believe that such freedoms have little to do with what our Founders meant by liberty, a term that I prefer to freedom because the latter has been tainted by collectivist rhetoric. (I would add both neoconservative and progressive rhetoric). Our Founders, with all their flaws, and because they understood human flaws, established a Republic in which liberty was understood to mean, not freedom of government to make our lives for us, but but freedom from government, power, the State, (to guard against) that at its whim it would intrude upon our lives. It provides a framework within which people can pursue and carve out their lives as they see fit, so long as what they see fit to do does not prevent others from pursuing and carving out their lives.

The place of government in people’s lives is an issue that distinguishes individualists from collectivists. From an individualist perspective government is to provide a minimal rule of law that enforces contracts, protects private property among its citizens, and, on the level of the State, defends the borders from invasion. A corollary to collectivism, radical egalitarianism, has gripped the mind of the United States, and now many people look to government to educate them, provide them with health care, and to redistribute income in the name of social justice. We hear promises of politicians to make our lives better, to bring about a better society, to usher in better times, and to make us all equal. How many times have we heard the rhetoric and then come to understand that, for the most part, we have to be the ones who make our lives better? (This is not a denial of our social embeddedness and our need of working in conjunction with others.) I believe an important question regarding all these promises hinges on the notion of hubris: How can one person or one group of people actually know what is better for everyone else? For the individualist, not only is such knowledge impossible, but also it takes a sizable hubris-filled ego for someone to believe that he or she possesses such knowledge. If people believe such things about themselves and the knowledge they possess, then why shouldn’t they want power?

As a radical (I might drop this adjective today because of its conflation among people with so-called rugged individualism.) individualist, I believe that government not only lacks the ability to make people’s lives better, but also, even it could by some stretch of the imagination fulfill such a mandate, it lacks both the Constitutionality and moral authority to do so. Once someone provides a life for someone else, the provider has taken from the providee all sense of dignity that constitutes a free human being – unless the provider is an all-powerful being.

Limited Government

Liberty from government logically dictates what the Founders meant by the idea of limited government. Individualism is opposed to collectivism in all its forms. The only legitimate collective activities are those in which individuals freely choose to involve themselves. For an individualist, government in any form is coercion. Hence, an individualist tends to view government with suspicion and believes it should be severely restrained in all its activities, carrying out its minimal roles of protecting life and private proper, enforcing contracts, and protecting against fraud, all minimal activities that contribute to people’s ability to carry on commerce and trade. Beyond these activities, government begins to encroach on individual liberty. From the Classical Liberal perspective, government is granted limited power to protect citizens and to establish a framework whereby they carry out the pursuit of carving out a life for themselves. Government provides no guarantee that individuals will find such pursuits successful. It cannot guarantee that individuals will not encounter hardships and fail at their endeavors. It cannot guarantee that people can have the kind of lives they desire. Government, at its whim, cannot provide a life for an individual. To carry out such guarantees, government would have to use the very rewards of people’s labor it is called upon to protect. The Welfare State (and I would add the Warfare State) represents a prime example of such coercion, where property is taken (confiscated) to provide secure retirement, medical benefits, education, and a host of other so-called rights. Government – power – the State – possesses nothing by which to make such guarantees. Government, to make such guarantees, must take (confiscate) from those who produce. Consequently, such guarantees are fraudulent from the start.

Laissez-Faire Economics

Liberty from government and severely restricted or restrained government obviously dictates that government remove itself and stay out of everyday human affairs, particularly the free exchange of ideas, goods, and service. If an individual is to reap from his efforts and secure some type of living, then he should not turn to government to direct his steps in the endeavors he chooses to pursue. If he does, he forfeits the fruit of his labor to the power that so directs him. People choose their affairs, act in accordance with their desires, and do business and commerce with one another to obtain their desired ends. Their business plans, their business decisions, and what they acquire through their efforts are not submitted to the State for approval. The only say that the State has over such efforts regards fraudulent activities and the protection of property accrued through mutually beneficial commerce. Those who carve out their existence in this life do not owe government for such a privilege. Nor do they owe the collective in the name of some fabrication called the common good. Entrepreneurs by their very activities of producing, providing services, creating jobs, contributing to people’s standard of living impact the community for the good. That they carry out such activities for profit motive does not detract from the fact their work impacts society for the good. And they owe no one an apology for their profit motive.

In today’s climate taxes are viewed as the price that businesses must pay for their success and wealth. Never mind that such wealth and profit create jobs and a higher standard of living for people. Never mind that entrepreneurial capitalism has created a standard of living heretofore unknown throughout history for an enormous population of people. Those who complain about high taxes are labeled selfish, not caring about society, and not wanting to contribute their fair share to the community. The collectivist mentality (I would also label this the Statist mentality) is seen at its fullest in empowering the State to intrude upon business activities in the name of the common good.

The individualist says to the State, hands off. The State is to keep its parasitic hands off what people have produced for their own welfare. The State is to stay out of the way of entrepreneurs who best can decide to carry out their affairs, even when those decisions may not work out the way entrepreneurs desire. And when and if those decisions do turn sour, the one who is an entrepreneur to his core does not cry and whine to government for a bailout. When times are lean, tough, and difficult, the individualist shouts as loud as when times or bountiful and fat – Laissez Faire!

Personal Liberty and Responsibility

If I may choose a phrase from the existentialist’s handbook, an individualist defends personal liberty and responsibility. As free individuals, we can choose to carve out our lives as we see fit. There is a fine distinction, however, inherent in the right to carve out a life versus the right to a life I think I should have. The distinction turns upon the difference between opportunity and results. No other person can guarantee me that I will achieve in life what I want to achieve. In a free society, a rule of law allows me the right to give it a shot. But it does not promise me that the results I want will be forthcoming.

We live today in a culture populated by people bathed in a sense of entitlement and work life by playing the victim card. We blame everyone and everything for our plight, for not having the kind of life that we want. This mindset in turn sets us up for silver-tongued orators who guarantee us that they have the promise hand-in-hand. We vote for presidents like we are searching for a messiah. We expect to hear and see all the sweet and honey-filled promised morsels we hope to find in life. If we don’t have all the money we want, then we blame those who do have the amount of money we would like to have. Somehow or another they took it from us. It is inconvenient to get sick, but it is unfair to have to pay for getting well. And so we hear and are drawn like Odysseus to the sweet siren call of nationalized health care. People want an education, but it is unfair to have to pay for it. Nirvana in learning is straight ahead in subsidized education. A nice comfortable retirement is a dream, but it is unfair to have worked all one’s life and not have it, whether one had the foresight and fortitude to save for it or not. So now we will increase that magnanimous blessing called Social Security. What a deal! (Of course, our omniscient and omnipotent orators who know what we need and have the power to bring it all about for us are not retiring on Social Security. Do I smell demagoguery here?)

Private Property

If we have the right to live and the liberty and responsibility to make choices and try to bring about the life we want for ourselves, then we must have an avenue to accrue something from what we produce. Whether this accrual be pay, goods, property, or all three, what we have accrued is ours because we have worked for it. (Actually all three are private property – privately owned through personal effort.) Such accrual is the product of our labor; thereby, it is our private property. If I have the right to live, then I work, and my production is the means by which I carve out my living, preparing a life for myself. Although I do not believe that I have a right to a job (a confusion of today’s entitlement mindset), or the right to a particular results (a confusion of today’s radical egalitarianism), I work for what I earn or produce. And I can accrue the production of my labor and create property for myself. The very basis of my freedom – my right to live – is my private property. If it is confiscated from me, then the thief has robbed me, not only of my private property, but also of my right to live. The Founders of this country understood property in these terms, and were particularly leery of the government becoming a thief. Hence, they warned the populist about the power (dangers) of taxation. Since 1913, the government holds first rights to our property, carried out by a procedure called the income tax. From the viewpoint of an individualist, the income tax, as well as all taxes, is seen as confiscation. Income tax is legalized thievery, power – the State – stepping in to claim a part of one’s labor for its purposes. And one had best tow the line and fork it over. There are many forms today by which private property is constantly under assault by the State: eminent domain, inheritance taxes, professional licenses, property licenses such as car tags and inspection stickers. All these devices are legalized ways by which the State has step-by-step encroached upon citizens’ private property. To the degree that we lose control of our private property, we begin to lose the grip on our individual liberty.

Noninterventionist

Isolationism in foreign affairs is a term that carries negative connotations today. However, I proudly accept the label. Other libertarians prefer the term noninterventionist, but to me they mean virtually the same thing as long as one understands that these terms refer to government activities. Isolationism does not mean that individuals cannot freely choose to carry on commerce and do business around the globe, or Mars if they find someone there and can get the goods to and from them. Such activities emerge from inalienable rights that go into the pursuit of living. Isolationist or noninterventionist strategies refer, instead, to becoming entangled in the political controversies and conflicts of other nations. In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned us of such meddlesome activities. Yet in the 20th Century and into this one, America has found itself engaged in conflict after conflict around the globe, spending billions of taxpayer dollars in the process (as well as the countless loss of life). Our military is ensconced all over the globe from the Middle East to Germany. Our military is positioned as a standing army for some countries, such as South Korea. It is one thing to make friends and develop respect for other countries and cultures on the basis of mutual exchange and commerce; it is another thing altogether for a government to become the policemen of the world. If our allies relish the kind of liberty we possess, then somewhere along the line, they need to stand up and be prepared to defend themselves from those who would take such liberties from them. A Biblical Proverb speaks poignantly to misguided interventionism:

Like one who takes a dog by the ears,/Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him. (1)

We need to rethink our understanding of national defense and not emotionally load galavanting around the globe with notions of patriotism. The true patriot does not allow the State to willy-nilly define defense or our national interests in a way that places brave men and women in harm’s way based on political expediency, nation building, and government power-broker deals that tend to always produce more international problems than they ever solve. We have witnessed these events over and over again in the billions of dollars we spend defending countries that refuse to defend themselves, and the more billions of dollars of so-called foreign aid that have disappeared into no-telling whose pockets – power begetting power.

Entrepreneurial Spirit: Personal Wisdom

If people are to carve out a life for themselves, then it behooves them to develop the kind of skills they need to get the job done. The problem with collectivism and the types of reformers it produces is that such crusaders become too meddlesome in other people’s affairs. I am drawn to the idea that the best way to any general reform is for one to embrace self-development (2). What skills do you need to establish the kind of life that you want? If you desire to achieve a certain lifestyle, then what do you need to develop in yourself so as to achieve what you desire? More to the point, what values do you hold? Are you living in alignment with those values? If not, what do you need to change? Do you truly value what you say you do?

Entrepreneurs are people who pursue a fulfilling life by putting their ideas to work. They know what they want in life, they know what they value about living, and they know what they need to obtain from life what they desire. They are honest with themselves about what skills they possess and which ones they do not possess. When it comes to what they lack, they find ways to fill in the gaps and develop their needed skill set so they can produce and benefit from their labor. They don’t play at being successful. They work at it with everything they have in them. If they do not do these things, then they are not successful, and they probably are not meant to be entrepreneurs.

Being an entrepreneur is something to which I aspire. However, I am not sure I have what it takes to become the kind of person I have described here. Many of us want to play the entrepreneurship game, but we do not want to do what it takes to succeed the way entrepreneurs succeed. We want the results that come to good entrepreneurs. But we do not want the process or effort that goes into making a good entrepreneur and producing the kind of results we desire. The process is hard, difficult, fraught with setbacks, disappointments, and sometimes failures so that one has to pick up and begin again. And above all, it takes vision that many people may not have and risks that others do not want to take. To aspire to entrepreneurship means asking difficult questions as to whether or not one has what it takes to be an entrepreneur.

Today achievement is something that is belittled, demeaned, and viewed as an idea that is elitist. Radical egalitarianism has won the day. Entrepreneurs are punished for their successes by the tax code and the attitude the culture at large has toward them. They achieve because they are exploitive cries the collectivist. They achieve and continue to achieve because they are privileged rages the egalitarian.

Only when individuals come to understand that they are responsible for their lives and must develop the skills they need to live, will they truly become individuals. Otherwise, we fall into the mediocre thinking that dreams and pursuits are not worthwhile. Or worse, we walk with our hands out, our palms up, our dignity emaciated to receive a life that someone else promises us. One may not be an entrepreneur, but that doesn’t mean that one cannot be an individual and claim his or her place in life. We may work for entrepreneurs, benefit from them in a myriad of ways, and find our place in life in a way that suits who we are, what skills we possess, and what desires we have. In the end, we have one thing to do: live (3). We need to choose how best to live for ourselves. To do otherwise is to forfeit who we are and what we are all about as individuals.

Conclusion

On a personal note, I penned this blog article in January of 2009. For years I struggled as I turned my back on my faith as a Christian. Close to the time I wrote this article, God had begun working on me to get me back on track with my faith and what it truly means to have faith in the atoning work of Christ and to have a personal relationship with God through Christ. Although I would change very little about this article if I were to write it now, I want to highlight a couple o f things, one pertaining to the concept of individualism, and second pertaining to my faith in Christ.

As I alluded to in the article, the notion of individualism has been much maligned, more so today than when I wrote this article in 2009. So I want to say a quick word about what individualism is not. First, the notion of individualism as put forth by those such as Chodorov, libertarians in general, and Classical Liberals, in no form or fashion claims that an individual is totally independent of others, not socially embedded or connected, or does not rely on the social fabric and interconnection with others. There is no such reality as pulling oneself up by one’s boot straps by which one is totally isolated from and independent from others. Embracing the philosophy of individualism does not mean that one does not ask for help from others when such help is needed. Nor does it mean that one does not offer help where help is needed. Individualism means that one is responsible for ones own choices and actions as well as for ones self-development. Self-development is never done in total isolation. Whatever rugged individualism happens to mean by those who throw around such caricatures, it has nothing to do with the Classical Liberal understanding of the sanctity of ones individual life. Such caricatures are nothing more than gaslighting and conflation, creating a false dichotomy seeking to provide an argument against nothing that the concept of individualism ever claimed in the first place. Those who have spewed forth such claims have been taken to task by individualists themselves.

Regarding my faith in Christ, if I were to write this article today, I would focus more on the providence of God in our lives and the spiritual gifts with which He blesses us. Psalm 139 speaks to how God intimately knows us and that He has made us who we are. A large part of discovering our skills involves coming to know how He made us and resting in that understanding. Additionally, life is played out by increasing our wisdom, as well as the pursuit of wisdom through diligence, which many of the Psalms address pointedly. In seeking to become diligent, we must also rest in the truth of God’s providence (Psalm 46:10). We must, by God’s grace, be honest about who we are as we gain in wisdom of how He made and gifted us. Since the time I authored this article in 2009 until now, I’ve come to realize that I do not, in fact, have what it takes to be an entrepreneur. That is not who God made me to be. When we realize such truths about ourselves, we can either kick at the goads against them, or by God’s grace embrace them, seeking to live as God would have us live. I am truly thankful for the gifted individuals by and through whom God has blessed the world. If you possess the skills of an entrepreneur, then I hope you follow your calling out with every ounce of energy you possess. Above all, I hope and pray that you will be called by God to believe in Christ as your Savior.

References

(1) “Proverbs 26:17.” In the Holy Bible NASB, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

(2) Chodorov, F. (1980). “The Articulate Individualist.” In C. H. Hamilton (ed.), Fugitive Essays, (pp. 317-322). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press. (Originally published in Analysis, August 1946).

(3) Chodorov, F. (1980). “Henry David Thoreau.” In C. H. Hamilton (ed.), Fugitive Essays, (pp. 309-316). (Originally published in Analysis, November 1945 & February 1949).

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D/ February 14. 2026

ANALYSIS/Analysis of Power

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