Naturalism: A Big Reason for the Anger & Hostility

(I am going to attempt to regurgitate the conference material from J.P. Moreland last weekend, to the best of my ability. Of course, it will be in my own words. I may miss a thing or two, but will try to get the main ideas that were presented, across.)

Ecclesiastes 1

The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

What does man gain by all the toil
at which he toils under the sun?

A generation goes, and a generation comes,
but the earth remains forever.

The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
and hastens to the place where it rises.

The wind blows to the south
and goes around to the north;
around and around goes the wind,
and on its circuits the wind returns.

All streams run to the sea,
but the sea is not full;
to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.

All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.

There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
among those who come after.

I the Preacher have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven. It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.

What is crooked cannot be made straight,
and what is lacking cannot be counted.

I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.” And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.
For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

WHY THE HOSTILITY
There has always been a hostility towards Christianity, particularly evangelical Christianity. In fact, I can recall my own hostility towards it in the not-so-distant past. But, a rather new trend is to consider evangelical Christianity immoral. If you worship Jesus as Lord and Savior and as the only way, you are not only considered ignorant, but also immoral and bigoted. That's relatively new. Lots of anger directed at evangelicals. Why? I mean, I can understand the ignorant claims, since they aren't new. But coupling it with immorality seems really weird....people who worship Jesus as the way, truth and life are immoral people? How has this new hostility come about and why? After all, there are good statistics out there that show that dedicated Christians are more apt to give to charities than their non-believing counterparts. Our work in the third world is unmatched in terms of providing basic needs. Even our ultimate example, Jesus Christ, taught us to be servants to all. So why are we singled out now as essentially immoral?

There are particular arguments raised, but I'd like to try to get behind the noise and see what the real reasons could be. I think the text above nails it better than anything else I have ever read. It isn't exhaustive but does give us some incredible insight into a big reason behind the hostility. And that reason being our current prevalent worldview and the logical implications of what holding that worldview will have on our outlook on life. The worldview is naturalism. I have brought this up in a few previous notes, but will define naturalism once more. It is the prevalent idea that nothing exists except the physical world and the only things you can know are through the scientific descriptions of that world. Things such as morals, religion, politics, philosophy...the entire humanities departments of all universities...are not engaged in real knowledge. The only knowledge attainable is that which can be reduced down to physics and chemistry. There is no supernatural, no God, no spirits. Just the physical world as observed through the five senses.

Now, it can be effectively argued that this worldview isn't defend-able nor a good one to hold, rationally. I am not going to get into that in this note because Solomon decides to take a different approach. He's talking from the standpoint of someone who has lived out all these views to their ultimate conclusion and is speaking as one with experiential knowledge, rather than just theoretical knowledge. And the conclusion is that there seems to be bad side effects on one's outlook on life by logically and fundamentally embracing naturalism as the only reasonable and available view of reality.

King Solomon illustrates that conclusion in chapter 1. First, he proclaims that 'under the sun', all is vanity. The word for vanity, in Hebrew, has two meanings. The first meaning is fleeting....quickly passing. The second is meaninglessness. The literal Hebrew word provides a visual of breathing on a spoon....fogs up and then quickly disappears. Under a view excluding everything except the physical world we see, our lives are, in the scheme of cosmic time, infinitesimal, fleeting and meaningless. What does a man or woman gain from his or her toil? It's implied: nothing.

Going down this text a bit further, we find something that does seem to last....the earth. Winds blow, rivers flow, suns rise and set, long before we are born and long after we die. One reason why environmentalism is a new religion and earth/nature the new goddess has alot to do with what Solomon has said here. Without God and only a view of the physical world as all reality, what lasts? Even though we don't, the earth does. So, our tendency is to diminish our own value and raise the value of the earth/nature.

"FIND A HAPPY PLACE....FIND A HAPPY PLACE....FIND A HAPPY PLACE...."
So, what sort of outlook does this view outlined by Solomon give him? Dissatisfaction and despair. Look at verses eight and nine. All things are full of weariness...eyes are not satisfied...ears are not satisfied. It reminds me of Turkish Delight in Chronicles of Narnia. The kids were given Turkish Delight, but the more they ate, the more they craved and became addicted. Likewise, by looking at reality as only natural, all the things seen, heard, done, result in dissatisfaction and then despair. Everything has been done, said...nothing new. And that causes us anxiety and depression, on a deep level.

Solomon brings up two conclusions: 1) whatever is crooked cannot be made straight. 2) what is lacking cannot be counted.

Consider a couple of quotes from atheistic scientists in this regard:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. -- Richard Dawkins

Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth.... Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, [ethics] is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, `Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves.... Nevertheless,... such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction,... and any deeper meaning is illusory.... -- Michael Ruse

If there is no straight stick, you can't really even call a crooked stick, 'crooked' and have it mean anything. Under a view that has no room except the physical universe, then there are no real moral values. We can't live as if they don't exist, but under naturalism, there just seems to be no place to put these undeniable things...so we explain them away as either relative or clever biological conventions. In either case, they are really just describing us, rather than making statements about real states of affairs, like 'torturing babies for pleasure is wrong'. We may feel that's an objective, universal, absolute moral value, but with naturalism, there's no room for it.

But that leads to knowledge, which is conclusion 2. You can't count what isn't really there. We can't deny morals, but we have no room to allow their existence under a naturalistic framework, which creates a weird mysticism....living against what we know because of what we don't know or understand. We fill in the gaps and try to make the best of it when the best of it isn't very good because, you can't count what is lacking...you can't explain what is unexplainable if your view of reality is only the physical universe. We know enough to agitate our curiosity and we are ignorant enough to make life miserable.

So, where can we turn, if we insist on holding to naturalism, in light of this conclusion? Solomon first states we could pursue an education to try to give life meaning and purpose. Go to college, get a PhD and fill in the void with lots of scholarship. But Solomon doesn't give us a very hopeful or promising return if we decide to pursue education under a naturalistic point of view. Solomon says it creates sorrow. Not very promising. So, without God and only considering the physical world as all of reality, an education is a waste of time, because all it will conclude with is sorrow and meaninglessness. The more you know, the more depressed you get.

What's next? Pleasure. This is Hollywood. Wealth, notoriety, sex, drugs, rehab, satisfaction with having a name in lights. But Solomon concludes in chapter 2 that this leads to meaninglessness. In fact, the sad part about Hollywood (and even music industry) is that they ultimately realize that their jobs are worthless. That creates an overwhelming sense of guilt and then there's the enormous energy spent on all kinds of charities and causes....trying to make an empty life worthwhile after all. In the end, its all nervous activity, not to make the world a better place, per se, but to quell the anxiety and depression of a life that isn't really making alot of sense, even with all the wealth, notoriety, pleasure, etc.

Solomon goes on to get into money, work, etc., but you get the picture. By only focusing on life 'under the sun', everything is vanity and is a striving after the wind....striving after nothing. That makes people angry, depressed and hostile. Even Christians can get this way, but it isn't systemic and ultimate, like it is by holding to naturalism.

A SOURCE OF CONTENTION
So, then here comes a Christian wanting to talk about Jesus and eternal life, etc. For the naturalist, they don't want to hear it. It's the last thing in the world they want to hear. It invokes anger and hostility because it goes against the basic view of naturalism, which has led to nothing but despair, meaninglessness and that pisses them off. Why else would The Simpsons or Arrested Development portray Christians as pollyannish, insipid and naive people? Because we're generally happy with our view of reality and our faith in Christ, and we didn't have to strive at great lengths like they did...and it pisses them off. This is important to understanding Solomon's conclusion in everyday life. That anger reflects the despair of a bankrupt worldview, the pain and disappointment it causes, in light of someone smiling, happy, content....because, of all things, a God-Man who was born of a virgin, died on a cross, rose again and offers salvation for doing nothing more than admitting to weakness and placing all hope in His hands? They may claim these things violate rational thought, but that's not really the reason behind the anger, to be honest. In fact, giving good reasons doesn't seem to help much. You remember before Jesus how you used to feel about Christians? I know I can and I hope I can paint that picture clear enough.

In fact, the naturalistic worldview these days has a perverted sense of stoic virtue of having tried over and over, with pain and failure, as a proudly worn badge of honor. To come along and talk about Jesus pulling you out of darkness and meaninglessness, all the sudden, violates those stoic sensibilities. But since there is no real charge to stick on those who act consistently with the teaching of Jesus Christ, charges have to be invented. Among some; we are against science, rational thought, freedom and liberty, even a meaningful and moral life, to mention a few. In fact, let me give a few examples.

"When people say to me, 'You hate America,' I don't hate America. I love America. I am just embarrassed that it has been taken over by people like evangelicals, by people who do not believe in science and rationality. It is the 21st century. And I will tell you, my friend. The future does not belong to the evangelicals. The future does not belong to religion." -- Bill Maher

Today factual information is readily available so there is no valid excuse for believing in the myths and deceits so common two thousand years ago. There is no empirical evidence for supernatural beings or places. The evidence that the existence of all human life ends when the body dies is overwhelming.. This is the only life that humans will ever have and for the purveyors of religion to say otherwise is to engage in blatant deceit for their own benefit. -- Kieth Cornish

The only reason its not taken literally today is because science has advanced to a point where no sane human being can claim to believe in it literally without being ashamed of themselves and laughed at publicly by anyone who knows even an elementally level of natural science. Further more if they could get away with it, these same people would ban science, and impose ignorance on the population because it is only in a vacuum of knowledge that religion can exist, multiply, and flourish like a virus, because that is exactly what faith is, the worst case of bioterrorism in human history, a man made virus responsible for the ruining of more lives than any other known to man. -- blogger

Either Solomon was wiser than these guys or these guys are self-misguided. We can expect more hostility, more bullying. Yet, a defensive reaction to such behavior will not work. In fact, they'll smell blood. Confidence...a quiet and obvious confidence in our beliefs is required and provides the best response to this hostility. You can't have that confidence unless you have very good reasons behind your knowledge of God, in general, and Christ, in particular. This isn't 'smart guy' knowledge but more like stripping away alot of the window dressing we're taught most of our life (public schools teach naturalism as a staple) and realizing that outside of Scripture, God has given us enormous evidence of His existence and our responsibility to respond to such evidence. I'll regurgitate three basic (and very obvious) things that not only provide a far more adequate alternative to naturalism, but a confidence in this evidence that will help ease you more if (more like when) you get blindsided by this hostility.

Why Preaching Jesus in a Public School Can't Really Be Considered Improper for Secularists

If Franklin Graham came to PS 32 in NYC, in the middle of world history course for 8th graders and preached that Jesus died, rose again for their sins, it would be controversial, to say the least. In fact, it would be all over the news as well as blogs and several FB links. The outcry would be on the grounds of 'separation of church and state'. Pressed further, that argument would be an appeal to interpretation of the rules of the road, in this case, as they apply to speech in a publicly funded setting. But the outrage wouldn't be over the breaking of a rule. The outcry would be visceral and from the perspective that preaching Jesus in a public school, aside the prescription against mixing church and state, would be objectively wrong. Some might say that you can't force your opinions on to others, especially religious ones. Others might claim that Jesus being the only way to salvation is bigoted or that even suggesting something is wrong with us would be insulting.

In essence, Graham's preaching to a world history class in a public school would be considered a moral violation, in addition to being perceived just as rule breaking. Not only that, it would be considered normative and objective and universal moral violation. As the argument might go, preaching Jesus to kids in public school would be a real state of affairs that should never be permitted (normative). The same argument more than likely would conclude Graham's speech, or others like him, from preaching to kids in a public school should never be permissible, regardless of other opinions (objective) and that it would apply anywhere, at anytime, to anyone (universal).

Those with the outcry would come from a strict secular perspective where religion and state should not mix. Some might even be avid church goers, so it wouldn't necessarily split down the categories of religious and non-religious. The underlying and fundamental reason backing the secular idea would be that religion in general and Jesus in particular are not knowledge claims but only express cultural idioms and traditions. This isn't in the context of a school's curriculum but more behind the moral objections to bringing this sort of speech into a school to begin with. In this view, science gives knowledge. Mathematics gives knowledge. Any claims Graham has about Jesus are personal, individualized and isn't knowledge, per se. Along side science and mathematics, can there be knowledge claims about religious claims? Is knowledge purely gained from the five senses? Well, that's another topic (but a good one). I bring it up because it is related to this topic. What sort of moral arguments against Graham's speech are out there? Here's a summary of some that are popularly held.

Moral relativism believes that morals are relative to the individual or society and cannot be objective, normative or universal. Anyone who believes that Christianity is 'true for you but not for me' is subscribing to this thinking. There are several types in this category. There are those that just feel its wrong (emotivism), or that it simply expresses the desires of society (prescriptivism or imperativalism). However, if separation of church and state, in general, and someone like Graham preaching Jesus in a public school, in particular, is REALLY wrong, no matter who does it, where they do it, then there is an exception to the moral relativist, in this regard. But if there is this one exception, are there others? If pressed, it would seem that if morals are relative, then even a moral claim about moral relativism would have to also be relative. So, if the moral relativist is right, she's wrong and if she's wrong, she's still wrong, by her own rulebook. So out goes that theory. It certainly can't be used against Graham's alter call in world history class. Under moral relativism, neither Graham or those against him would have a moral argument that would apply to anyone outside of themselves or their group. There's simply no way to adjudicate between either side of that argument under moral relativism. What ends up with moral relativism is a inclination towards simple prescriptivism or imperativalism. In short, that's what you see on The View and other day time talk shows. Overpowering, rather than justification, is the game plan under those settings. If there happen to be more Graham supporters, then Graham wins. If there are more secularists, they win. Nothing more can be added. So much for that.

But then there are those that would not side with moral relativism and say what Graham did is really wrong. These folks would fall into two types: 1) ethical non-naturalists, like crazy evangelical and catholics (tongue in cheek, obviously) and 2) ethical naturalists. Ethical naturalists hold to objective moral values, so they would condemn Graham but it would be based on evolutionary biology. In other words, they would hold it as wrong because most people would hold to that value as a societal convention created for survival purposes. Most in this category are considered utilitarianists or those that believe the rules are based on maximizing outcomes, as outcomes are perceived by a species or society. You could have relativists that are utilitarians but there are also ethical naturalists that are as well. But the grounding feature of the latter folks would be evolutionary biology, more than likely. Graham, in this view, would be wrong because it goes against the tribe's rules and the tribe's rules are there for the survival of the tribe. In this case, the tribe would be America and the tribes rules would be having religion overlap in publicly funded settings.

So, do these views have any merit and how would they fare against Graham's speech? Ethical naturalism devolves, rather than evolves, into subjectivism...meaning, things aren't really right or wrong. The reason why is that they confuse an 'ought' with an 'is'. What does this mean? It means that saying something is really wrong, but then backing it up with it being attributable to biological or societal instinct is only describing behavior, rather than justifying anything or condemning anything. Describing the color of tree bark is entirely different from saying that tree bark should never be brown. Silly analogy, but you get the drift. You can't successfully go from the first description to the second prescription, without it ultimately being relative, subjective or privatized. Notwithstanding the persuasiveness of the argument, the naturalist would say that condemning Graham is how our society has chosen to protect and promulgate itself. But that isn't an argument against Graham's speech. It's just a perceived description of those that are against Graham. First, it could be an entirely different set of tribal rules are more effective at survival than those, in which case one would have to suspend judgment if cogent arguments were raised. Second, even if those were the best rules for survival, it wouldn't tell us anything regarding its rightness or wrongness. It would just be describing animal behavior. So, that's out.

What's left to argue against Graham's alter calls in a public school? Power. In the end, the only framework secularism can devise any moral propositions is through power. Whoever is in charge rules and whoever isn't doesn't. The only reason Graham's speech is detestable is because Graham isn't in charge. Secularism is in charge, so Graham is wrong. However, that also means that if Graham is in charge, then secularist arguments are all wet. In the end, secularist ethics devolve into king of the hill realities. I would contend the only reason why secularism's power struggle hasn't already devolved into bloodshed and tyranny is because of an old, fading Christian consensus. As that continues to fade, as it is today, there will only be the non-theistic cognitive and non-cognitive alternatives to morality and as we have seen, they can't hold any water and are really just power struggles disguised as arguments.

So, what would the Christian possibly argue against the Graham alter call? You might be surprised. Although the Hebrews in the Old Testament were a theocracy, initially (they became a monarchy before the kingdoms split), the New Testament recognizes a secular state, as was the reality in the 1st century as it increasingly has become today, and commands respect for those authorities. Romans 13 is a case in point. You can also go to Jesus' teachings about paying taxes to get the same principle. Why should the believer in Christ observe and respect secular authorities, even if they are anti-Christian? Two reasons are given in Scripture: 1) All human beings are given a moral barometer that reveals the character of God, whether they believe in God or not. This demands respect. 2) Love. Pure and simple, we are to love others and serve others. We are to show Jesus and be the salt and light He proclaimed we should be. The New Testament teaches under a setting of secular rule, not a theocracy, as some would try to incorrectly portray Scripture. So, Franklin Graham would probably not give an alter call in PS 32 world history class, out of obedience to these overarching biblical ethics. Would that mean Graham would simply not talk about Jesus? No. He would simply find a venue that would not create contention and contempt, so that he could show Jesus Christ, rather than another political power struggle. That's the Scriptural and real view of the situation at hand. We should be lovers, not fighters, because Jesus is our example. He didn't raise an army. He didn't protest the consulate. He told the truth, excepted the consequences of doing so, but never disrespected others. Quite the contrary, His entire ministry and His work on the cross is one of a servant.

So, only the evangelical, ironically, would have an argument. You may not agree with it, but the real issue at hand isn't whether you agree or disagree, but whether or not there are good reasons out there. Ironically, secularists' arguments all fail, morally speaking. Folks with an outcry against it may simply be emoting their feelings for or against, in what ultimately is only a power drama, rather than an argument about real right and wrong....or they are confusing a state of affairs with a moral argument and are skirting the issue altogether while claiming to be providing an answer to it. Only the believer's adherence to a moral sense that is inherent in all people, reflecting the character of God, rather than biology, sociology or relativist musings, is the only argument that stands. Again, you may not agree with it and there are arguments that can be taken. I will say that it can be sufficiently defended, but the point in this article is to put the cards on the table, given a specific situation and see how secularism fares. And it is a non-starter, despite itself.