Looking For Hope In A Hopeless World, Part 2 (of 3)

 

Evolution, of course, is also nothing new as far as existential views are concerned. Many Greek philosophers believed that evolution explained how reality came to its current state. Since no significant evidence supporting macro-evolution (vertical, progressive changes in a species over time) has been accounted for in historical records or by eyewitnesses it remains a theory. Or to coin it in religious terminology, it is a matter of faith. Let us consider for a brief moment the silent “god” of the agnostic. If this entity is not personal then he/she/it should not be endowed with the mantle of deity. There is a law of cause and effect: an effect cannot be greater than its cause. If we are caused, then somehow being relational, social beings came not from this god. Therefore any entity that has interacted with humanity or the universe in any way demonstrates intelligence, intention, and expression. To expect that such an entity would express him/her/itself again is understating the matter. Being social creatures, we know quite well that interaction with others is a defining point of our personhood. If this entity did not cause humanity, or anything else no matter its power it is unrelated to our existence and therefore even positing its presence is meaningless because as a “thing” it will never care what we are doing. Caring requires self-awareness, intelligence and emotion: capabilities a thing does not possess.

What does naturalism offer to humanity? What kind of existential picture does naturalism and its partner atheism paint for us? Disregarding “gods,” subject or bound to natural forces, gods that are intrinsically part of the universe, or nebulous things simply “out there,” humanity is uniquely alone. Having a conscience, as well as an emotional and intellectual capacity that far outstrips the animal kingdom, we find ourselves in a unique position despite atheism’s champions decrying this observable truth. Worse than being alone, however, is the reality of self-awareness. For the naturalist you’re alone and you know it. Now for someone whose lifestyle delves into the pursuit of the illegal or hedonistic this may provide a temporary relief since death absolves one of all consequence in the naturalist frame of existence. We come into being for the sole purpose (if we risk using that term) of propagating the species and then upon death disintegrate into our constituent elements. Classical Buddhism teaches something to this effect, that the desire to banish craving is one’s pursuit so that upon death you can achieve Nirvana. Nirvana-without-substrate, is the pursuit of banishing all wordly craving so that in death you reach nothingness, freed from the cycle of reincarnation. Classical Buddhism does not speak about the potential of an immortal soul, and finds a sterilized, secularized inheritor in modern atheism. But that is visiting a grave injustice on Classic Buddhism if further clarity isn’t added. The Buddhist practices the Noble Eightfold Path, which accentuates a highly disciplined morality; whereas modern atheists have no unified belief system outside of a rejection of supernaturalism. Yes, there is the Humanist movement with their Humanist manifesto, first released in 1933, but one need not be (and often aren’t) aligned with the Humanist movement to profess atheism.

 

In the end, naturalism is a worldview toxic to the human mind. Man is a material being, void of anything spiritual. Life, collectively over the ages or indivudally assessed, holds no objective meaning because existence itself is a self-perpetuated, meaningless reactionary machine, blind and void of intent. The only meaning one can provide is individually (and artifically) contrived in lieu of life presenting purpose through intelligent design. But in the end when one dies, either at birth or at 100, our subjective and ephemeral purpose goes with us. In plainer terms, naturalism forces its adherents to invent purpose in spite of their worldview dictating that purpose isn’t real. We are cosmological accidents heading toward no greater goal other than to continue existing so future generations can repeat the process. Society and its attendant rules do not descend from objective moral truth. They are invented, mutable guidelines fashioned as loose parameters for the norm to conduct themselves in matters of judicial or social conduct. And when a person dies, cessation of consciousness, and of existence in every form, occurs. You are, for all intents and purposes, annhiliated. The random collision of atoms in your brain that comprised your personality have ceased to function and you are gone.

 

Having gotten a glimpse of what naturalism offers, let’s turn once more to option #2: supernaturalism. I categorized polytheism, pantheism and dualism (equal and opposing deities) under religious naturalism because of their fundamential inability to adequately be considered a First Cause. Under the theory of supernaturalism, the superintendence of creation would be helmed by a supremely intelligenct, creative being, or the uncaused causation of our space/time/matter universe. Monotheism, that is, the traditional belief held by Jews, Christians and Muslims that there is a single deity that exists, falls into this category. The creator is not part of the creation, but rather its cause. He created the universe for a purpose, and peopled earth with humanity for a reason. Existence is not explained by accident as it were, but intention.

 

Having said that, the First Cause requires qualities that go beyond intelligence and power if the worldview of supernaturalism is to possess any coherence. A worldview’s litmus test is how well it can define day to day reality, not just for the individual, but as a meta-narrative. In other words, a worldview grounded in reality must not only define our individual convictions, but must serve to explain the world around us in a consistent, relatable manner. Absolving oneself of a worldview that seeks to understand reality outside ourselves is tantamount to destroying our ability to effectively speak to anything outside of us. Any point of reference or connection to others is lost, and the social nature that connects humanity is grossly damaged if not gone completely. Community in any sense is lost; now there is only an incidental collection of individuals. Why is this? I mentioned before that the First Cause, our intelligent designer, must be an emotional, social being like us. The acquisition of the moral order from a designer indcates not only the logic behind our design (how we are meant to function as people) but the relational demands placed upon us by our maker since morality only works in the context of community. A universal moral order provided by a creator grants humanity a foundational core, the lens through which we can understand and effectually interact with one another meaingfully, while also providing boundaries or limits to what is not permissable if an amicable and safe community is to be maintained.