If we are trapped in a closed
system, the supposed system of naturalism, even with all its possible
universes, multiple or infinite, then the end result of existence is abysmal.
All the hopes and dreams of future, for our children and their children, the
future of all precious life, as well as the future of love and of hope, of joy
and of peace, all the hopes for the objects of our love are ultimately trumped
by death. All the great things in my heart, if I am without a real future, will
die with me. Even if I make a mark on this world, this world too shall
pass. Death awaits it all.
Collapse is inevitable. Darkness will envelop life and love. The lights will go
out. Maybe not today, but on a day, and if that is the case, what does it
matter what day that will be?
I know that this assessment is
not the obvious conclusion to which everyone will come when reflecting upon and
possibly accepting a naturalistic worldview. The naturalists often have great
faith, perhaps greater than some Christians, in an ultimate hope that one day,
somehow, humans will unlock ultimate happiness and find a utopia that will be
without end. You and I will not be there, of course, but at least we, if we get
on board with the process, helped get our progeny there. The possibilities of
science become their great narrative by which the faithfully optimistic
naturalists live. I am further aware that my conclusion is not simply
pessimistic, but comes from my worldview, which is vehemently opposed to the
world of naturalism (for reasons, among many, I will explain presently). While
many a naturalist has gone the way of nihilism, this is not the move many have
decided to make, especially today.
Naturalism is being packaged with
an optimism—as perverse, in my opinion, as it might be—which rivals the hope of
the Judeo-Christian worldview that is steeped in Resurrection. Instead of the
renewal of all things, as in the case of Resurrection, all things that come to
be are merely stepping-stones to that ultimate hope. This is the naturalist
myth of progress centered in human accomplishment. Contrary to my opinion, many
naturalists are quite satisfied with the end result that naturalistic existence
brings. It is as radical as the idea of the “Son of Man” ruling as our ultimate
King. It is a Star Treck-esque reality, in which we find the keys to the universe
(or universes) and finally tap into the potential of stars, and galaxies, and
beyond.
It is not as airtight a hope as
the Christian hope, since the great possibilities that the naturalists are
hoping for cannot be certain. This hope can only be possible if humanity gets
on board, only if we leave behind our outmoded and myopic visions of reality that
leave us stuck in the past, religious “nuts” being the worst offenders of
keeping us in that nasty past. We need to move on. Otherwise, we might, in our
radicalism, blow each other to bits. Even though their optimism is clouded by a
possible failure, this, they would say, is at least an honest reflection upon
reality, unlike the guaranteed victory, not of the human race, but of the
Creator and King of the human race, which the Christian assumes. And, as some
would suggest, even if our reality fails, life somewhere, somehow will win.
However, let’s be honest about
it. If naturalism is the proper worldview, contrary to popular thought spurred
on by recent scientific discovery, it can never be proven to be the case. We
are forever left with a nagging doubt. Perhaps we are not the pinnacle of our
own reality. But, if we are in a closed system, by definition, we will never be
able to prove its closed-ness, because we will never be able to get beyond it to
prove nothing is on the outside. There is always the possibility of more, which
plagues our souls, fooling us into reflecting on what it might be like to
have our hopes continue into eternity, which, for the naturalist, is only a
cruel thought brought by the survival instinct. Naturalism’s greatest hope for
happiness is to ignore the possibility of something more.
The cruelest reality of
naturalism, if it happens to be the case, would be the naturalistic, evolutionary development
of the soul. Call it what you will, but we all have a soul. It is that part of ourselves that cares
for the self and others. It is that part of us that says, “These things
matter.” For the naturalist, this might be the inevitable development of the
mechanism that higher life forms need to care for survival, nothing more than
survival instinct in its most complex state (so far). But, this care to survive
goes beyond mere proliferation of the species. It is care for more than
survival. If we were geared to really wish nothing more than procreation of the
species, eugenics would make perfect sense, but, as is, it repulses most
people, even the naturalist. Instead, our soul—that supposed naturalistic
instinct—desires justice for the oppressed. It wants happiness for those people
who are otherwise (by the very definitions of naturalism) a drain on our
survival (the mentally and physically handicapped for example).
The soul is nothing more than a
torture device for those convinced of the reality of naturalism. It is something
that must be suppressed and denied. Why would the great author of life,
evolution, ever care to give us such a careless gift, such a gift that is more
than superfluous in a closed system? All the treasure of the soul, which the
soul cares about, even beyond itself, the soul knows, if it is convinced of a
closed system, will perish. They have no lasting value; no matter how much the soul
wishes they did. The soul is, therefore, nothing more than a device of torture.
A much better and less superfluous gift would be a mind geared towards sheer
logic, a logic that moves towards survival, a calculating system that cares
little for feeling. This could get the job done, probably all the better.
The naturalist would suggests
that feelings, that part of us that emotes when reflecting on the things we
love, are simply clever devises triggered by chemical responses in the brain
that make us “feel” we care. We are simply machines responding to stimuli. It
is trickery, at worst, meaningless, at best. But, the idea that our mind is
tricking us is a contradiction of naturalism itself. That we are only fooled
into thinking we have a soul, a part of us that loves and cares and goes beyond
self, cannot be true. For the naysayer says things like, “Our mind fools us,”
setting the mind apart from the being, which, in a strange, and perhaps too
Greek sense, affirms the soul, but it affirms the soul nonetheless.
In the end, I truly believe, that
we all affirm the soul in our deepest being, this is why so many naturalist
feel so hopeless, and turn to despair. As dangerous as religion is in the mind
of the naturalist, so too, in the mind of the Christian, is the soul left
feeling hopeless. Because of the worldview that they have given over to, they
know they feel they matter. They know that they feel that the things they care
about matter, but in the end, all those things have no hope in the face of
death. In a naturalistic world, the soul is our ultimate reminder that death wins,
that for us, the lights will go out, not just from our eyes, but upon all that
we ultimately care about: Upon our children, our parents, our brothers and
sisters, our friends and our world, upon love and joy and peace and hope itself.
All is lost.
In the Christian world, the soul
can also be a source of torture. It is the ultimate reminder that I cannot be
my own man, that I am dependent, that I cannot always have my way. Just as the
body, which reacts painfully in the presence of a fire that is too close, the
soul is full of pain, as it drifts further from the source of life, God, and
towards the consuming fires of sin. In the end, we must answer the question for
ourselves: “Why do I have a soul?”
