The Moral and Philosophical Fruits of Naturalist Religion
September 8th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
Indeed, the rise of naturalism has meant moral catastrophe for modern society. The most damaging ideologies of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were all rooted in Darwinism.
One of Darwin’s earliest champions, Thomas Huxley, gave a lecture in 1893 in which he argued that evolution and ethics are incompatible. He wrote that “the practice of that which is ethically best—what we call goodness or virtue—involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence.” [Evolution and Ethics, The Romanes Lecture, 1893.]
Huxley nonetheless went on to try to justify ethics as a positive result of humanity’s higher rational functions, and he called upon his audience neither to imitate “the cosmic process” nor to run away from it, but rather to combat it—ostensibly by maintaining some semblance of morality and ethics. But what he could not do—what he and other philosophers of his era did not even bother attempting to do—was offer any justification for assuming the validity of morality and ethics per se on purely naturalistic principles. Huxley and his fellow naturalists could offer no moral compass other than their own personal preferences, and predictably, their philosophies all opened the door wide for complete moral subjectivity and ultimately amorality.
Philosophers who incorporated Darwin’s ideas were quick to see Huxley’s point, conceiving new philosophies that set the stage for the amorality and genocide that characterized so much of the twentieth century.
Karl Marx, for example, self-consciously followed Darwin in the devising of his economic and social theories. He inscribed a copy of his book Das Kapital to Darwin, “from a devoted admirer.” He referred to Darwin’s The Origin of Species as “the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” [Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin (New York: Norton, 1977), 26.]
Herbert Spencer’s philosophy of “Social Darwinism” applied the doctrines of evolution and the survival of the fittest to human societies. Spencer argued that if nature itself has determined that the strong survive and the weak perish, this rule should govern society as well. Racial and class distinctions simply reflect nature’s way. There is therefore no transcendent moral reason to be sympathetic to the struggle of the disadvantaged classes. It is, after all, part of the natural evolutionary process—and society would actually be improved by recognizing the superiority of the dominant classes and encouraging their ascendancy. The racialism of writers such as Ernst Haeckel (who believed that the African races were incapable of culture or higher mental development) was also rooted in Darwinism.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s whole philosophy was based on the doctrine of evolution. Nietzsche was bitterly hostile to religion, and particularly Christianity. Christian morality embodied the essence of everything Nietzsche hated; he believed Christ’s teaching glorified human weakness and was detrimental to the development of the human race. He scoffed at Christian moral values such as humility, mercy, modesty, meekness, compassion for the powerless, and service to one another. He believed such ideals had bred weakness in society. Nietzsche saw two types of people—the master-class, an enlightened, dominant minority; and the “herd,” sheeplike followers who were easily led. And he concluded that the only hope for humanity would be when the master-class evolved into a race of übermenschen (supermen), unencumbered by religious or social mores, who would take power and bring humanity to the next stage of its evolution.
It’s not surprising that Nietzsche’s philosophy laid the foundation for the Nazi movement in Germany. What is surprising is that at the dawn of the twenty-first century, Nietzsche’s reputation has been rehabilitated by philosophical spin-doctors and his writings are once again trendy in the academic world. Indeed, his philosophy—or something very nearly like it—is what naturalism must inevitably return to.
All of these philosophies are based on notions that are diametrically opposed to a biblical view of the nature of man, because they all start by embracing a Darwinian view of the origin of humanity. They are rooted in anti-Christian theories about human origins and the origin of the cosmos, and therefore it is no wonder that they stand in opposition to biblical principles at every level.
The simple fact of the matter is that all the philosophical fruits of Darwinism have been negative, ignoble, and destructive to the very fabric of society. Not one of the major twentieth-century revolutions led by post-Darwinian philosophies ever improved or ennobled any society. Instead, the chief social and political legacy of Darwinian thought is a full spectrum of evil tyranny with Marx-inspired communism at one extreme and Nietzsche-inspired fascism at the other. And the moral catastrophe that has disfigured modern Western society is also directly traceable to Darwinism and the rejection of the early chapters of Genesis.
But this fails to account for the fact that, in the last century, Jesus-inspired, caring-and-sharing Socialism was defeated by Christian-backed, Darwin-inspired, survival-of-the-fittest, Capitalism.
The fact is, Christianity is the cult of the individual. This is why is goes hand-in-hand with uncaring Capitalsim. The “if you’re good you go to heaven” is a selfish idea. How about “if you’re good, your neighbour will go to heaven”? Now that’s unselfish.
In fact, Darwins’s revolution in understanding how species were created is vulnerable to human interpretation: There are those who will use ideas, any popular or powerful ideas, for their own destructive desires. Popes have used Christian ideas to get rich or encourage others to kill and torture, for example.
I certainly don’t think humanity needed Evolution to support it’s moral depravity. I’m pretty sure it was pretty well in hand.
Your a Bible literalist so Sodom and Ghomorra (spelling?) would prove that point wouldn’t it?
Rob
Dear Simon,
Please forgive me, I’m not trying to be argumentative, and I know it’s somewhat off topic. I just wanted to correct you on a certain point. True and biblical Christianity is not “If you are good, you go to heaven”. I know that some people who name the name of Christ would explain it that way, I know that is the way it appears to much of the world. But real Christianity, based on what the Bible teaches, is that we are all evil, and completely dead in our trespasses and sin. We all deserve judgement and owe an un-payable debt to God. It was by the mercy and grace of God that any of us are saved, and not based on any inherent righteousness or good works performed by us. The good works that Christians exhibit are to be understood as evidence of our thankfulness to God, for sending Christ to die in our place and pay our un-payable debt. They are not deeds to save us, and “good” people are not the ones who go to heaven. The ones who go to heaven, are those whom Christ died for, the ones who cry out to God for mercy and he grants saving faith to.
Simon,
In reading through several of your comments, it seems you are making the following three assertions.
1. Christianity (and more specifically, theistic creationism) cannot be true because, in your opinion, it fails to account for the meaning of human existence.
2. Christianity (and more specifically, belief in the creator God of the Bible) cannot be true because, in your opinion, it has fueled much of the world’s problems throughout history (from corrupt Popes to contemporary capitalism and the misuse of natural resources).
3. Christianity cannot be true because, in your opinion, it is inherently selfish for individuals to think that, by believing in Christ, they can secure for themselves eternal heaven. Instead of doing good for society, Christians are intrinsically self-focused.
I would like to respond to each of these three arguments in turn. But I want to make sure I am properly understanding you before I do so. Is this an accurate assessment of your perspective?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
- NB
Nate
No it isn’t.
1. I am merely revealing the facade that Christianity provides a meaning for our existence. Whether this leads us to decide it then can’t be true is another issue. It is from having Christians accuse my atheist beliefs of lacking meaning that I counter-accuse Christianity of faking meaning.
2. Again, I am counter-accusing Christianty. Having read this attack on naturalism, I say Christianty has also encouraged bad behaviour for which it should be equally accountable. As I say, Christianity is the cult of the individual. This has nothing to do with the truth of Christinianty, unless someone wishes use this to make that case.
3. Of course, Christians do good works for society. But I would suggest the underlying motive encouraged by Christianity is self-focused. I suggest the Christian doctrine does not want to share responsibility. The buck stops with the individual. The reward and the punishment also lie with the individual.
Erica: “The ones who go to heaven, are those whom Christ died for, the ones who cry out to God for mercy and he grants saving faith to.”
So, Christianity doesn’t even provide this level of meaning. Atheism is accused of leaving us with nothing after we die. In your story, Chrisianity leaves us a random chance we might have a decent afterlife.
It gets worse, doesn’t it. How Christians have the temerity of accusing naturalists of being nihilistic is beyond me.
Simon,
Thank you for your clarification. I apologize for misrepresenting your position.
Let me take another stab at understanding your arguments. (I’m not trying to be overly redundant here. I just want to make sure I’m not talking past you in responding to your assertions.)
1. Christians assert that naturalistic evolution (and the atheism that accompanies it) renders life meaningless. This, in your opinion, is an empty allegation because you believe that Christianity is equally unable to offer meaning to human existence.
2. Christians assert that naturalistic evolution has resulted in great social ill (Marxism, social Darwinism, etc.). This, in your opinion, is an empty allegation because you believe that Christianity is also responsible for many destructive elements in society (such as corrupt popes and a misuse of natural resources).
3. Christians assert that naturalistic evolution encourages man’s pursuit of his own selfish ends because it leaves him without any “higher accountability.” This, in your opinion, is again an empty allegation because you believe that Christianity is also inherently motivated by selfish ambition.
Is this closer to what you are saying? Before responding, I want to be careful that I am accurately understanding you.
Thanks,
NB
Simon,
I would like to point out that one can be a Christian and think evolution is a pretty good theory. Poetry and nuance tends to be lost on this lot of folks. Genesis 1 resembles a lot of Jewish poetry and probably shouldn’t be interpreted literally.
I think there’s a more important use for Genesis 1 then arguing with the evil evolutionists. Genesis 1 gives us a backdrop. It basically says, we made the mess society is in by ourselves. We did it to us. God wanted and hoped for a better way for us, but we thought we knew more. We thought we had a better way.
When God was finished creation He said it was good. He seemed proud of what He accomplished. Adam (another word for man) walked in the cool of the day with God. What does that mean?
Anyways, Simon I wanted to let you know that I think evolution is a good theory and I think Jesus died on the cross for me, and you.
Rob
Nate B, that’s about right. For number 3, I would also say there is no popular doctrine which hasn’t been exploited, misused or misreprespented. I also don’t see that man has behaved any more selfishly since Darwin. If anything, society is fairer than it was in Darwin’s day. If you’re going to blame 2 world wars on Darwin, I will take you up on that idea.
Rob. Yes, I’ve met plenty of Christians who go for evolution, gererally who don’t take all the Bible literally. The only problem here is: how does a mortal human get to pick and chose which part of a holy book is literal or poetical? This seems to imply that you have a value system outside the Bible with which to judge it. See, the Bible doesn’t say, “This next bit is not to be taken literally”. How do you know? More importantly, how can you judge which parts of the Bible are not literal?
Is it not that you are conveniently removing parts which don’t stack up with modern discovery?
Simon,
Thanks for your response to my earlier comment. Unfortunately, I will not be able to respond until next week. But I do look forward to interacting with you on these issues.
NB
Simon,
The Bible is not a text-book or a how to manual. How do you know what’s literal and what’s not? Great question. We can’t shut off our brains when we approach the text. What would Moses have known of evolution 4000 years ago when he was writing Genesis? No, however the Bible is inspired by God. This is a story that God wanted in His book.
The Bible is a collection of stories all surrounding one story. What’s literal and what’s not isn’t really the point. What’s history and what’s not isn’t the point (although the Bible has done a decent job of standing the scholarly test of time). The point of it all is what are the stories telling us? Now that we know this is God’s story how are we going to live? Approach the text this way and I’m not picking and choosing what I want to believe. I’m taking the Bible very seriously and listening to what it’s saying to me.
Rob
Rob, the Bible appears to be such a mixed bag it’s hard to take a cohesive message from it. On the one had you have Jesus encouraging use to turn the other cheek, then you’ve got God suggesting a bit of gay-execution wouldn’t go amiss.
I struggle to comprehend ‘God’s story’, even if I turn a blind eye to it’s illogical nature.
Simon,
Me too. God’s story certainly looks confusing. I think the message that I get from it is that God pursue’s His people. I look at Genesis and read Adam walked in the cool of the day with God. What does that mean? I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a literal Adam, but to me it means that before we rejected God it was different.
I see a pursuer who wants me to know Him. Once I put all the stories into that context it begins to make more sense.
Rob
You haven’t explained why your god wants gay people executed.
Why are you picking on gay people? The Bible doesn’t single them out. It labels homosexual practice as a sin worthy of death in the same way that every other sin in the Bible is worthy of death. Rejecting God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ is a sin that will bring death on all kinds of people regardless of gender, race or age.
So your god wants lots of different kinds of people executed. Is that something to be proud of?
Simon,
I’m not proud of it. The penetrating truth of the Bible is that we all deserve to be executed because we all have exchanged our worship of God for the worship of something else. The stories of execution in the Bible should not drive us to ask “Why them?” but “Why not me?” God’s character as revealed in the Bible should drive us to cry out to him for mercy.
Sounds like a really caring god. And you guys accuse atheism of leading to nihilism…
Nihilism is the natural outworking of man functioning in the place of God. The Christian God can be caring because he is just. If we only talk about the consequences for sin, we are left hopeless. However, God, in his mercy and in order to satisfy his just nature, sent his Son to earth to take the punishment for our sins that we deserve. God sent Jesus to take care of our sin problem precisely because he cares for us. Anyone who cries out for mercy from our God finds that he gives it freely.
And yet Christianity provides no more meaning to human existence than atheism.