The Universe Next Door

A BASIC WORLDVIEW CATALOGUE

For any of us to be fully conscious intellectually, so that

we can first understand and then genuinely communicate with others in our pluralistic world,
we should not only be able to detect the worldviews of others but be aware of our own –
why it is ours and why in light of so many options we think it is true.

As long as we are alive, we will live the examined or unexamined life.

It is the assumption of this article that the examined life is better.
September 2010

www.takeittothestreets.info

www.scribd.com/takeittothestreets

[email protected]

The source of ch. 1, & chs. 4-12 was derived from James W. Sire's The Universe Next
Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, 3rd 1997, 4th 2004, & 5th 2009 eds. The ch. 3 summary was
taken from an article posted on Scribd.com. The source of ch. 2 was adapted from Sire's Naming
the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept. The postscript was written by (the author of)
scribd.com/takeittothestreets. The annotated bibliography is taken from the footnotes of Sire's
books.
Contents

Section 1: OVERVIEW
1. Introduction: A World of Difference
2. A Brief History of the Worldview as a Concept
3. Summary of the Worldviews

Section 2: CHRISTIANITY AND WESTERN PHILOSOPHY

4. Christian Theism: A Universe Charged with the Grandeur of God
5. Deism: The Clockwork Universe
6. Naturalism: The Silence of Finite Space
7. Nihilism: Zero Point
8. Existentialism: Beyond Nihilism

Section 3: EASTERN RELIGION

9. Islamic Theism: The Revelations of Another Prophet
10. Pantheistic Monism: A Journey to the Far East

Section 4: MODERN INTERNATIONAL TRENDS

11. Postmodernism: The Vanished Horizon
12. The New Age: A Separate Universe

Postscript
Annotated Bibliography
1. Introduction: A World of Difference
The most fundamental issues we as human beings need to consider have no academic departmental boundaries.
This article is about worldviews – in some ways more basic, more fundamental, than formal studies in either
philosophy, theology, or comparative religion. Few people have anything approaching an articulate philosophy - at
least as epitomized by the great philosophers. Even fewer, it is suspected, have a carefully constructed theology. But
everyone has a worldview. Whenever any of us thinks about anything – from a causal thought to a profound question
– we are operating within our own worldview, our frame of reference for all thought and action. For any of us to be
fully conscious intellectually, we should not only be able to detect the worldviews of others but be aware of our own
– why it is ours and why in light of so many options we think it is true.
Therefore, use this article as a stepping-stone for self-conscious development and justification of your own
worldview. The purposes of this article are: (1) to give a basic outline the some worldviews that underlie the way we
think; (2) to encourage us all to think in terms of worldviews, that is, with a consciousness of not only our own way
of thought but also that of other people, so that we can first understand and then genuinely communicate with others
in our pluralistic world.

1.1 Of the Definition of a Worldview

Essentially, a worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story
or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold
(consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides
us the foundation on which we live. The biblical concept of heart includes the notions of wisdom (Prov 2:10), emotion
(Ex 4:14; Jn 14:1), desire and will (1 Chron 29:18), spirituality (Acts 8:21), and the intellect (Rom 1:21). According
to David Naugle it is “the central defining element of the human person.”
All worldviews first assume that something is there rather than that nothing is there. And, if we expect to know
anything, we must assume that we can know something. If we don’t recognize this, we can’t move forward. The
apprehension that something is there is the beginning of conscious life – as well as of two branches of philosophy:
metaphysics (the study of being) and epistemology (the study of knowing). What we quickly discover however is that
once we have recognized that something is there, we have not necessarily recognized what that something is. There
is, of course, a way things are but we can often be mistaken or inconsistent. And that is where worldviews begin to
diverge.
While worldviews may at first appear to proliferate, they are made up of the various answers to questions that
have only a limited number of answers. A worldview is then the set of answers to these seven questions: (1) what is
prime reality? (2) what is the nature of external reality? (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? However, these seven questions are too theoretical and do not adequately address the
nature of the worldview as a committment worked out through our choices in everyday life. Therefore, the 5 th edition
added the following question: (8) What personal, life orienting commitments are consistent with this worldview.?
When stated in such a sequence the questions can boggle the mind. If we feel that the answers are too obvious to
consider, then we have a worldview but have no idea that many others do not share it. Alternatively, if we feel that
none of the questions can be answered without cheating or committing intellectual suicide, then we have already
adopted a sort of worldview – a form of skepticism which in its extreme form leads to nihilism. Also, refusing to adopt
an explicit worldview will turn out to be itself a worldview or at least a philosophic position. In short, we are caught.
So as long as we are alive, we will live the examined or unexamined life. It is the assumption of this article that the
examined life is better partly because our own worldview may not be what we think it is. It is rather what we show it
to be by our words and actions. Our worldview could lay so deep within our subconscious that unless we have reflected
long and hard, we are unaware of what it is. And even after we lay it out in clear propositions we may well be wrong
for our very actions may belie our self-knowledge.

1.2 On Choosing a Worldview

Unless each of us begins by assuming that we are in our present state the sole maker and meaning-giver of the
universe – a position held by few even within the New Age – it would be wise to accept an attitude of humility, not
skepticism, because we do tend to adopt positions that yield power to us, whether true or not. Whatever worldview
we adopt will be limited because our finitude as human beings will keep us both from total accuracy in the way we
grasp and express our worldview. However, to say that we can know something to be true does not mean we must
know exhaustively what is true. Knowledge is subject to refinement, but if it is true knowledge, there must have been
at least a grain of truth in one’s unrefined conception.
And with that assumption other elements are entailed, primarily the so-called laws of thought: the laws of identity,
non-contradiction and the excluded middle. By following such laws we are able to think clearly and be assured that
our reasoning is valid. Such assumptions, then, lead to the first characteristic that our adopted worldview should
possess – inner intellectual coherence. If a conceptual system contains as an essential element a set of propositions
which is logically inconsistent, it is false.
A second characteristic of an adequate worldview is that it be able to comprehend the data of reality – data of all
types – that which each of us gleans through our conscious experience of daily life, that which is reported to us from
the experience of others, and that which is supplied by critical analysis and scientific investigation. All of this data
must, of course, be evaluated at the lowest level first (is it veridical? is it illusory?). But if the data stands the test, we
must be able to incorporate it into our worldview. To the extent that our worldview denies or fails to comprehend the
data, it is falsified, or at least inadequate.
Third, an adequate worldview should explain what it claims to explain. How does the worldview explain the fact
that humans think but think haltingly, love but hate too, are creative but are also destructive, wise but often foolish
and so forth? What explains our longing for truth or personal fulfillment? Why do we usually want more – more
money, more love, and more ecstasy? How do we explain our human refusal to operate in an amoral fashion? These
are huge questions but that is what a worldview is for – to answer such questions or at least provide the framework
within which such questions can be answered.
Finally, a worldview should be subjectively satisfactory. A worldview satisfies by being true. But, to determine
the truth of a worldview, we are cast back to the first three characteristics. Still, subjective satisfaction is important,
and it may be lack of it that causes us to investigate our worldview in the first place. We find, in fact, that it is only
when we pursue our doubts and search for the truth that we begin to get real satisfaction.

2. A Brief History of the Worldview as a Concept

Of the great philosophers, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was the first to use in his writings the idea of a worldview.
But he did so only in passing unlike Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) who was the first to use it centrally. Dilthey
considered a worldview to develop through a thought process that begins with the riddle(s) of life, then proceeds to
consider a ‘cosmic picture’, and then onto an understanding of consciousness & the external world, who we are as
humans, values, and the good in order to describe the ideal life and society. Dilthey suggested a reflectivity between
internal & local makeup of humans with one’s macro-vision. He had an emphasis on mental structures/categories
arising from experience.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), the bold nihilist, saw the effects on man and society of life without God and
therefore declared God’s death. This infamous claim was made because people were living, as he observed, as if there
wasn’t a god, that is, without a guide, goal, or purpose. As an existentialist he asserted the power of his will to
overcome nihilism by imposing his own values on others. Nietzsche thought that people create their own models of
reality and become dependent, subordinate products of them after they forget that truth is just canonized illusion. In
this manner, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) considered worldviews, at least in his later years, to be mutually
exclusive, unverifiable, non-competitive, linguistic constructions of reality.
By the 1970s was beginning to be fleshed out and one of its major proponents was Michel Foucault (1926-1984).
Foucault considered truth to be a set of rules or a way of reasoning that generated and governed all patterns of thought.
Significantly, he proposed that truth is in a dynamical relation with the power systems that produce, sustain, and are
affected by it. Effectively, people are trapped in language structures and knowledge regimes that are inescapable,
oppressive, power plays.

James Orr (1844-1913) was the first to introduce the concept of worldview into Christian theology. Orr considered
worldviews to originate deep within the constitution of human nature and involving the intellect and the actions we
perform. He observed the attacks against the Christian worldview on multiple fronts and held that a proper theological
exposition of it was actually its main defense. Orr demonstrated that a Christo-centric, rational, self-authenticating
system of biblical truth can adequately address all the issues related to human flourishing.
Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) extended Orr’s approach by demonstrating Calvinistic Christianity as an all-
embracing life system. Kuyper said that each worldview addresses three fundamental relationships: man to God, man
to man, and man to world. Kuyper went on to discuss how the Christian worldview illuminates and stimulates culture
(i.e. religion, politics, science, and art) to its highest peak of perfection. One of Kuyper’s main contributions was that
he held to the need for all thought to proceed from a single principle.
Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) was the most philosophic of Christian thinkers and most insistent that
theoretical thought is not the basis of worldviews. Rather, he held each worldview as proceeding from a spiritual &
volitional commitment, of which there are only two: man converted to God or man averted to God. Personally, I (of
article) have added my thoughts in the postscript about these key points of Kuyper’s and Dooyeweerd’s.
3. Summary of the Worldviews
A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set
of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or
subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides us the
foundation on which we live.

Choosing A Worldview
How well does the worldview relate to itself?
Consistency - It does not violate the law of non-contradiction.
Coherence - Do its parts fit together; do separate statements support one another? (For instance the
following statements are true [grass is green; 2 + 2 = 4, Springfield is the Capital City of Illinois] however
they do not support one another in any way and therefore taken holistically they are not coherent)

How well does the worldview explain the world?

Comprehensiveness - Does it cover all the bases?
Congruence - Does it fit with reality; does it fit the data?

How well does the worldview explain humanity?

Compensation - Does it provide a sense of satisfaction; is the worldview livable?

Is the worldview the best alternative?

Comparability - Does it do the best job of answering all the questions?

Christian Theism Meaningful.

God/ultimate reality: Leading to the fulfillment of god’s purposes.
Creator, infinite, personal, triune, rational. Guided by god’s providence and miraculous intervention.
Transcendent and immanent. Deism
Sovereign and good. God/ultimate reality:
Creator.
Cosmos/prime reality: Transcendent not immanent.
Created ex nihilo. Not fully personal.
Operates with a uniformity of cause and effect.
Open system (miracles possible through god’s immanence). Cosmos/prime reality:
Fallen world. Created.
Operates with a uniformity of cause and effect.
Humans: Closed system (miracles not possible/actual because god
Created in the image of god lacks immanence).
Possess self-transcendence, rationality, personality, morality, Not fallen.
creativity, sociability.
Originally good, now fallen but capable of redemption. Humans:
Personal.
Knowledge/revelation: Part of the clockwork universe.
Can have adequate knowledge of the world and god. Capacity for morality is “built in”.
Available through general and special revelation. Not currently dependent upon god’s involvement.

Ethics: Knowledge/revelation:
Transcendent. Cosmos is knowable via human reason.
Based on the character of god as good (holy and loving). God is knowable only through natural revelation.
Some ethical principles are universal (not relative).
Given by general and/or special revelation. Ethics:
Moral principles based on god’s transcendent nature.
Death: Knowable only through natural revelation.
Gateway to eternity with or eternity separated from god. What “is” must be “right”.
Outcome determined by relationship with christ.
Individuality retained. Death:
Possibly devine judgment with rewards and punishment
History: based on merit.
Linear. Possibly death as the end of personal existence.
No reason to think the brain as pure matter would give
History: “truth”.
Linear. Truth and illusion indistinguishable.
Determined at creation.
God does not act in history. Ethics:
No basis for moral values.
Optimistic naturalism (secular humanism) Values relative.
God/ultimate reality: Cannot produce “oughts” from what “is” the case.
Eternal or self-generated matter.
No god. Death:
Extinction of consciousness, personality, and individuality.
Cosmos/prime reality: Final absurdity.
Uncreated.
Operates with a uniformity of cause and effect. History:
Closed system (miracles not possible because there is no No direction or purpose.
god). Individual and world history are meaningless.
Everything is within the “box” of the universe.
Atheistic existentialism
Humans: God/ultimate reality:
“fee yet “complex machines”. Two disunited forms objective (matter) and subjective (my
Personality not yet understandable. experience of freedom).
Appears to be nothing more than the interaction of physical
and chemical properties. Cosmos/prime reality:
Consists of objective “essences” which are governed by
Knowledge/revelation: nature’s law and logic.
Possible to discover. Absurd.
Important to effect progress.
Not divinely revealed. Humans:
Existence precedes essence (for humans alone).
Ethics: Man free to define himself.
Created by human consensus. Alienated from the world.
Autonomous (not dependent on any god).
Situational. Knowledge/revelation:
Objective knowable by logic and science.
Death: Self removed from analysis.
Extinction of consciousness, personality, and individuality.
Ethics:
History: Humans must “revolt” against absurdity and create value.
Linear stream of events linked by cause and effect. Good actions are those that are consciously and freely
No overarching purpose. chosen.

Pessimistic naturalism (nihilism) Death:

God/ultimate reality: Undeniable absurdity.
No god. Face it boldly as the final exercise of revolt.
A cosmos that appears not to care, to value goodness, or to
be rational. History:
Absurd. World history is meaningless.
Temporary individual meaning may arise through choices
Cosmos/prime reality: and personal encounters.
Operates either from necessity or chance.
No inherent value or meaning. Theistic existentialism
Provides no answers. God/ultimate reality:
Absurd. God is personal, transcendent, immanent and good.
Accepted without proof through a leap of faith.
Humans:
No value, meaning or self. Cosmos/prime reality:
Freedom and consciousness undermined. Paradoxical.
Gives no meaning.
Knowledge/revelation: Offers no evidence for god.
No foundation for knowledge.
Humans: Distinction between good and evil abandoned due to oneness
The “personal” i-thou is valuable. of reality.
Finite.
Fallen. Death:
Not satisfied apart from surrender to god. Cycle of rebirth (samsara) that is only stopped when oneness
is achieved.
Knowledge/revelation: Future life determined by karma.
Often paradoxical.
God believed without reason or proof. History:
Revelation is personal encounter not revealed propositions Individual and cosmic history are cyclical.
or doctrines. Time is unreal as one passes beyond it in the experience of
the one.
Ethics:
Understood primarily in “personal” terms. New Age
Emphasis on personal relationship not moral values. God/ultimate reality:
Self linked to a permeating force throughout the universe.
Death: No transcendent god, only the good within.
Personal encounter with god can prompt hope over the
absurdity of death. Cosmos/prime reality:
Literal continued life uncertain. Visible (accessible by normal consciousness).
Invisible (accessible by altered consciousness).
History:
Uncertain and unimportant. Humans:
Can provide a model to live by. Individual more important.
Atman is brahman.
Eastern pantheistic monism Growing cosmic consciousness leads to superior human
God/ultimate reality: race.
All reality is “divine oneness” (brahman).
This “god” supersedes all rational/moral distinctions. Knowledge/revelation:
Experiencing true reality in its unity is the goal.
Cosmos/prime reality: Accomplished through altered states of consciousness.
Cosmos is one. Assisted by meditation, mantras, mediums, etc.
Not perceived as it is, it is thus maya (illusion).
Ethics:
Humans: Good is whatever facilitates a cosmic consciousness of
Real self is not psycho-physical self (jiva). oneness.
Real self is a passive observer (atman) that is one with Often involves ecological and human sensitivity.
brahman. Everything part of mother earth.
Atman is brahman. Death:
Not the end of self.
Knowledge/revelation: What lies beyond unclear.
Transcends logic, language, physical senses. Many opt for repeated reincarnations.
A direct experienced knowledge of one’s oneness with the History:
universe. Cosmos and man have entered a new age.
Some stress a one-world government and coming one-world
Ethics: leader.
4. Christian Theism: A Universe Charged with the Grandeur of God
Up to the end of the seventeenth century, the theistic worldview was clearly dominant. The intellectual squabbles
that existed did so within the circle of theism, for most parties still held the same basic presuppositions. The reason is
obvious. Christianity had so penetrated the Western world that whether people believed in Christ or acted as Christians
should, they all lived in a context of ideas influenced and informed by the Christian faith. This cultural consensus, that
gave a sense of place and dominion, and the basis for meaning, morality, and identity, no longer exists as worldviews
have since proliferated.
It is important to note that Christian theism was culturally abandoned not because it was inadequately understood,
forgotten completely or not applied to the issues at hand. Moreover, not everyone abandoned theism. There remains
at every level in society, every academic discipline, and every profession, those who take their Christian theism with
complete intellectual seriousness and honesty.

4.1 Basic Christian Theism

1) God is infinite, transcendent and immanent, omniscient, sovereign, personal (triune) and good.
God is infinite: He is beyond scope, measure. No other being can challenge his nature – all else is secondary. He
is the only self-existent being and is the be-all and end-all of existence. God is the one prime existence, the one prime
reality, and the source of all reality. As God spoke unto Moses out of the burning bush, “I am who I am” (Ex.3:14).
God is transcendent. This means that God is beyond all, yet in all and sustaining all. Yet God is not so beyond
that He bears no relation to us and our world. It is likewise true that God is immanent, and thus He is with us. For God
is not matter, but Spirit. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is “upholding the universe by His word of power” (Heb 1:3).
God is omniscient. This means that God is all-knowing, the ultimate source of knowledge and intelligence. He is
the alpha and the omega, knowing the beginning from the end (Rev. 22:13).
God is sovereign. This is another ramification of God’s infiniteness, but it emphasizes the fact that nothing is
beyond God’s interest, control, and authority.
God is personal: This means that God is not mere force or energy or existent “substance”. God is He, that is, God
has a personality, which requires two basic characteristics: i) self-reflection, ii) self-determination. God is personal in
that He knows Himself to be (He is self-conscious) and he possesses self-determination (He “thinks” and “acts”). One
implication is that God is not simple unity, an integer. He has attributes, characteristics. In fact, He is a unity, but a
unity of complexity.
Another implication of the personality of God is that He is like us. (In fact we made in His image, see proposition
#3). This means that there is someone ultimate who is there to ground our highest aspirations, our most precious
possession - our personality, which means that we find our true home in a relationship with Him. “There is a God-
shaped vacuum in the heart of everyman,” wrote Augustine. “Our hearts are restless till they rest in thee,” wrote Pascal.
God fulfills our ultimate longing by being the perfect fit for our very nature, by satisfying our longing for interpersonal
relationship, by being in His infiniteness the end to our search for knowledge and refuge from all fear, by being in His
holiness the righteousness ground of our quest for justice, by being in His infinite love the cause of our hope for
salvation, by being in His infinite creativity both the source of our creative imagination and the ultimate beauty we
seek to reflect as we ourselves create.
Actually, in Christian theism (not Judaism or Islam) God is not only personal, but triune. That is, within the one
essence of the Godhead we have to distinguish three ‘persons’ who are neither three gods nor three parts or modes of
God, but coequally and coeternally God. The Trinity confirms the communal, “personal” nature of ultimate being.
God is not only there – an existent being – he is personal and we can relate to Him in a personal way. To know God,
therefore, means knowing more than He exists. It means knowing Him as we would our own father!
God is good. This is the prime statement about God’s character and from it all else follows. There is no sense in
which goodness surpasses God or God surpasses goodness. As being is the essence of His nature, goodness is the
essence of His character. Although God is totally unconstrained by his environment, God is limited (we might say)
only by his character. God, being good, cannot lie, be tempted, act with evil intent and so forth. But, God is free to do
as He wills, and His will is in control of His character.
God’s goodness is expressed in two ways, through His holiness and His love. God’s goodness means that there
is an absolute standard of righteousness, which is found in God’s holy character. Also there is hope for humanity
because God is love and will not abandon His creation. This twin observation becomes especially significant as we
trace the results of rejecting the theistic worldview.
2) God created the cosmos ex nihilo to operate with a uniformity of cause and effect in an open system.
It is important to understand that God did not make the universe out of Himself or out of some pre-existence
chaos (if it were really “pre-existent”, it would be as eternal as God). Rather, He spoke it into existence and created it
out of nothing. For “God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (Gen 1:3). Also, God’s universe and God’s
character are closely related. God does not present us with confusion but with clarity as the universe has an orderliness
and regularity to it (this is expanded in proposition #5).
Furthermore, the system is open, meaning it is not programmed. God is constantly involved in the unfolding
pattern of the ongoing operation of the universe. And so are we as humans: each decision to pursue one course rather
than another, changes or rather “produces” the future. We find the universe dramatically altered at the fall, when Adam
and Eve made a choice. But God made another choice in redeeming people through Christ. If the universe were not
orderly, our decisions would have no effect. If the course of events were determined, our decisions would have no
significance. So theism declares that God’s universe is orderly and undetermined.
3) a) Human beings are created in the image of God and thus possess personality, self-transcendence, intelligence,
morality, gregariousness, and creativity.
The key phrase here is the image of God, a conception highlighted by the fact that it occurs three times in the
short space of two verses (Gen. 1:26-27). That people are made in the image of God means we are like God. We are
personal because God is personal. That is, we know ourselves to be and we are capable of acting to change the course
of both human and cosmic events as opposed to merely reacting to our environment. Our self-transcendence makes
us unique and reflects (as an image) the self-transcendence of God. No two people are alike not only because no two
have shared the same heredity and environment but because each possess a unique character out of which we think,
feel, judge – in short, choose to act.
We can summarize this conception of man made in God’s image by saying that, like God, we have personality
(we are self-conscious), self-transcendence (we possess self-determination), intelligence (the capacity for reason and
knowledge), morality (the capacity for recognizing and understanding good and evil), gregariousness or social
capacity (our characteristic and fundamental desire and need for human companionship/community, especially
represented by the male and female aspect), and creativity (the capacity to imagine new things or to endow old things
with new significance).
In Christian theism human beings are indeed dignified. As human beings we are dignified, but people do not
possess it, even if as a gift so we are not to be proud of it, for it is a dignity derived from a reflection of the Ultimately
Dignified. Yet it is a reflection. So people who are theists see themselves as a sort of midpoint – above the rest of
creation (for God has given them dominion over it – Gen. 1:28 and Ps. 8:6-8) and below God. Helmut Thielicke says
it well: “His [man’s] greatness rests solely on the fact that God in His incomprehensible goodness has bestowed His
love upon him. God does not love us because we are so valuable; we are valuable because God loves us.” This is then
the ideal balanced human status. It is failing to remain in that balance that our troubles arose.
b) Human beings were created good, but through the fall, the nature of man, as created in the image of God,
became defaced, though not so ruined as to be incapable of restoration; through the work of Christ, God redeemed
humanity and began the process of restoring people to goodness, though any given person may choose to reject that
redemption.
Human “history” can be summed up in our words: creation, fall, redemption, and glorification. To the essential
human characteristics, as noted above, we now add that all of humanity, indeed all of creation was created “very good”
(Gen. 1:31). Because God by His character sets the standards of righteousness, human goodness consisted in being
what God wanted people to be – beings made in he image of God and acting out that nature in their daily life. The
tragedy is that we did not stay as we were created.
As noted, God gave humans the capacity for self-determination and therefore, God gave the original pair, Adam
and Eve the freedom to remain or not remain in the close relationship of image to original. As Genesis 3 reports, they
chose to disobey God at the only point where God put down limitations, and hence violated the personal relationship
they had with their Creator. The result of this act of rebellion was death for Adam and Eve. And their death has
involved for subsequent generations long centuries of personal, social, and natural struggle, turmoil, and decay.
The image of God in man was defaced in all its aspects. In personality we lost the capacity to know ourselves
accurately and to determine our own course of action freely in response to our intelligence. Our self-transcendence
was impaired by the alienation we experienced in relation to God, for as Adam and Eve turned from God, God let
them go. And as we, humanity, slip from the close fellowship with the ultimately transcendent one, so we loose our
ability to stand over against the external universe, understand it, judge it accurately and thus make truly “free”
decisions. Rather, humanity has and is becoming more of a servant to nature than to God. And so our status as vice-
regent over nature (an aspect of the image of God) was reversed.
Human intelligence also became impaired and so now we can no longer gain a fully accurate knowledge of the
world around us, nor are we able to reason without constantly falling into error. Morally, we became less able to
discern good and evil. Socially, we began to exploit and subjugate other people. Creatively, our imagination became
separated from reality; imagination became an illusion, and the artists that created gods in their own image led
humanity further and further from its origin, its purpose, its Creator.
As in the manner of the first humans, people of all eras have attempted to set themselves up as autonomous beings,
arbiters of their own way of life, choosing to act as if they had an existence independent from God. But that is precisely
what they we do not have, for we owe everything – our origin, our salvation, and our continued existence – to God.
In brief summary, at the fall humanity became alienated from God, from others, from nature, and even from ourselves.
This is the essence of fallen humanity.
But humanity is redeemable and has been redeemed. The story of the creation and fall is told within the first three
chapters of Genesis. The rest of the bible is devoted to the story of redemption, or, the story of God’s love in redeeming
us by the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ, and thereby granting us the possibility of a new life.
It is important to note that Christians disagree on precisely what role God takes and what He leaves us (i.e.
predestination vs. free will), but most would agree that God is the primary agent in salvation. But this does not mean
that we play no role. Adam and Eve were not forced to fall and we are not forced to return. Our role is to respond by
repentance for our wrong attitudes and acts, to accept God’s provisions and to follow Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Redeemed humanity is humanity on the way to substantial healing of our alienations, primarily fellowship with
God, and restoration of the defaced image of God (i.e. our personality, self-transcendence, and reasoning, moral, social
and creative capacities). Glorified humanity is humanity totally healed and at peace with God, and individuals at peace
with others and themselves. But glorification happens only on the other side of death.
4) For each person death is either the gate to life with God and His people or the gate to eternal separation from the
only thing that will ultimately fulfill human aspirations.
At death a person is transformed and either enters an existence with God and His people – a glorified existence.
Or a person enters an existence forever separated from God, holding their uniqueness in awful loneliness apart from
precisely that which would fulfill them. G.K. Chesterton once remarked that hell is a monument to human freedom,
and, we might add, human dignity. Hell is God’s tribute to the freedom He gave each of us to choose whom we would
serve. From this we recognize that our decisions have a significance that echoes into eternity.
Those, however, who respond to God’s offer of salvation by accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord an Saviour, live
forever as glorious creatures of God – completed, fulfilled, but not sated, engaged in the ever-enjoyable communion
of the saints. The scriptures give little detail about this existence (ex. Rev. 4-5, 21), but of what is known creates a
longing Christians can expect to be fulfilled beyond their fondest desires.
5) Human beings can know both the world around them and God Himself because God has built into them the capacity
to do so and because He takes an active role in communicating with them.
The foundation of human knowledge is the character of God as creator. As He is the all-knowing knower of all
things, so we can be the sometimes-knowing knowers of some things.
The Word (in Greek logos, from which the world logic is derived) is eternal, an aspect of God Himself (see Jn.
1:1-4). That is logicality, intelligence, rationality, and meaning are all inherent in God. It is out of this intelligence that
the universe came to be. And therefore, because of this source the universe has structure, order and meaning.
Moreover, in the Word (see Jn. 1:1-4), this inherent intelligence, is the “light of men,” light being in the book of John
a symbol for both moral capacity and intelligence. Verse 9 adds that the Word, “the true light … enlightens every
man.” God’s own intelligence is thus the basis of human intelligence. Knowledge is, therefore, possible because there
is someone to know (the omniscient God and humans made in His image) something to be known (all else of God’s
creation).
Of course, God is forever so far beyond us that we cannot have anything approaching total comprehension of
Him. In fact, if God desired, he could remain forever hidden. But God wants us to know Him, and He takes the
initiative in this transfer of knowledge. This initiative is called revelation and God reveals, or discloses, Himself to us
in two basic ways.
Through general revelation God speaks through the created order of the universe (see Rom. 1:19-20 and Ps. 19:1-
2). God’s existence and His nature as Creator and Sustainer is revealed in God’s “handiwork,” the universe. As we
contemplate the magnitude of this – its orderliness and its beauty – we can learn much about God. When we look at
humanity, we see something more, for humans add the dimension of personality. God, therefore, must be at least as
personal as we are. Thus far can general revelation go, but little further. As Aquinas said, we can know that God exists
through general revelation, but we could never know that God is triune except for special revelation.
Special revelation is God’s self-disclosure in extra-natural ways. Not only did He reveal Himself by appearing in
spectacular forms such as to Moses as a burning bush that was not consumed (Ex. 3:1-17). In fact, in this passage God
carried on a dialogue with Moses in which genuine two-way communication occurred. Later, God gave Moses the
Ten Commandments and revealed a long code of laws by which the Hebrews were to be ruled. God revealed Himself
to the patriarchs before Moses and the prophets after him, who recorded His Word. The cumulative writings grew to
become the Old Testament, which was affirmed by Jesus Himself as an accurate and authoritative revelation of God.
And because Jesus Christ was very God of very God but still completely man, he showed us what God is like more
fully and more clearly than can any other form of revelation. Jesus Christ is God’s ultimate special revelation. “The
Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth”, says John 1:14, and “we have beheld His glory”.
The main point is that is that theism declares that God can and has clearly communicated with us. Because of this
we can know much about who God is and what He desires for us.
6) Ethics is transcendent and is based on the character of God as good (holy and loving).
Made in God’s image we are essentially moral beings, and thus cannot refuse to bring moral categories to bear
on our actions. Our sense of morality has been flawed by the fall but even in our moral relativity we cannot get rid of
the sense that some things are ‘right’ or ‘natural’ and others not. Differing in our moral judgements does nothing to
alter the fact that we continue to make, to live by and violate moral judgements. We live in a moral universe and
virtually everyone – at least if they reflected upon it – recognizes this and would have it no other way.
However, theism teaches that not only is there a moral universe but that there is an absolute standard – God’s
character of goodness - by which all moral judgements are measured. Furthermore, Christians (and Jews) hold that
God has revealed His standard in the various laws and principles expressed in the bible – the ten commandments, the
sermon on the mount, the apostle Paul’s teaching, etc. Thus there is a standard of right and wrong and people who
want to know it can know it.
Jesus Christ is the fullest embodiment of the good. He is the complete man, the second Adam (I Cor.15:45-49),
humanity as God would have it be. In Jesus we see the good life incarnate but Jesus’ good life was supremely revealed
in His death – an act of infinite love (see Rm. 5:7-8, 1 Jn. 4:10). Inevitably, while ethics is very much a human domain,
it is ultimately the business of God. We are not the measure of morality. God is.
7) History is a linear, meaningful sequence of events leading to the fulfillment of God’s purposes for humanity.
History is not reversible, not repeatable, not cyclic, nor is it meaningless. Rather it is teleological, linear meaning
that the actions of people – as confusing and chaotic as they may appear – are nonetheless part of a meaningful
sequence that has a beginning, middle and is being directed toward a known end. God, in His infinitely transcendent
omniscience, knows the beginning from the end and is aware of and sovereign over all human action.
Several basic turning points in the course of history form the background for the theistic understanding of human
beings in time. These turning points include the creation, the fall, the flood, God’s revelation to the Hebrews (which
includes calling of Abraham from Ur to Canaan, the exodus from Egypt, the giving of the law, and the witness of the
prophets) the incarnation, Jesus’ life, the crucifixion and resurrection, Pentecost, the spread of the good news via the
church, the second coming of Christ, and the judgment. This is a slightly more detailed list of events paralleling the
pattern of man’s life: creation, fall, redemption, and glorification.
Looked at in this way, history itself is a form of revelation. That is, not only does God reveal Himself in history,
but also the very sequence of events is revelation. One can say, therefore, that history (especially as localized in the
Jewish people) is the record of the involvement and concern of God in human events. Theists look forward, then, to
history being closed by judgement and a new age inaugurated beyond time. But prior to that new age, time is
irreversible and history is localized in space. In Christian theism, “it is appointed for men to die once, and after that
comes judgement” (Heb. 9:27).
As such, an individual’s choices have meaning to that person, to others, and to God. History is the result of those
choices, which under the sovereignty of God, bring about God’s purposes for His creation. In short, the most important
aspect of the theistic concept of history is that history has meaning because God – the Logos (meaning itself) – is
behind all events, not only by “upholding the universe by His word of power” (Heb. 1:3) but also “in
everything…[working] for good with those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose” (Rm. 8:28).
Behind the sometimes seemingly chaotic events stands the loving God sufficient for all.
8) Christians live to seek first the kingdom of God, that is, glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
The Christian worldview is unique because it serves as the focus for the ultimate meaning of human existence,
human history, and the life of each Christian. To glorify God is not just to do so in religious worship and praise. It
also includes revealing God’s character by being who we were meant to be – the embodiment of the image of God in
human form. To be like Jesus is to be like God. We are to imitate him, seek first his kingdom and righteousness (Mk.
6:33). All the happiness and joy we receive when we substitute our desires for God’s glory comes to us as a result of
yeilding our will to his. Human flourishing, while not being a primary goal, is a result of turning one’s attention toward
God and his glory.
There are other ways to personalize our committment to the Lord. Some Christians say it is to obey God, or to
love Him with all our hearts, minds, soul, and strength and their neighbours as themselves. Others sacrifice for the
sake of the gospel.

4.2 The Grandeur of God

It should now be obvious that Christian theism is primarily dependent on its concept of God, for theists’ hold that
everything stems from Him. Nothing is prior to God or equal to Him. He is He Who Is, the I Am. Thus theism has a
basis for metaphysics. Since He Who Is also is He Who Knows, theism has a basis for epistemology. And since He
Who Is also is The Worthy One, for He has a worthy character, theism has a basis for ethics. Therefore, theism is a
complete worldview.
The world, as Gerard Manley Hopkins once wrote, is “charged with the grandeur of God”. The greatness of God
is the central tenet of Christian theism. Fully cognizant Christian theists, therefore, do not just believe and proclaim
this view as true. Their first act is toward God – a response of love, obedience and praise to the Lord of the Universe
– our maker and sustainer, and through Jesus Christ, redeemer and friend.
5. Deism: The Clockwork Universe
A man said to the universe: “Sir, I exist.”
“”However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation.”
From Stephen Crane, War Is Kind and Other Lines (1899), frequently anthologized.

Although theism lasted for so long, many forces operated to shatter the basic intellectual unity of the West. Deism
held sway over the intellectual world of France and England briefly from the late seventeenth into the first half of the
eighteenth century. Deism developed, some say, as an attempt to bring unity out of a chaos of theological and
philosophical discussion. The period became bogged down in interminable quarrels over what began to seem, even to
the disputants, as trivial questions. Deism, to some extent, is a response to this, though the direction such agreement
took put deism rather beyond the limits of traditional Christianity.
Another factor in the development of deism is a change in the location of the authority of knowledge about the
divine; it shifted from the special revelation found in Scripture to the presence of reason, “the candle of God,” or to
intuition, “the inner light”. The reason for this shift is somewhat ironic. Through the middle ages, due in part to the
rather Platonic theory of knowledge that was held, the attention of theistic scholars and intellectuals was directed
towards God; the idea was that knowers in some sense “become” what they know. And since one should become
“good” and “holy” one should study God. Theology was thus considered the queen of the sciences (which at that time
simply meant knowledge), for theology was the science of God. This hierarchical view of reality is more Platonic than
theistic because it picks up from Plato the notion that matter is somehow, if not evil, than at least irrational and certainly
not good or worthy of study.
But more biblical minds began to recognize that this is God’s universe and even though it is fallen, it still has
value. Furthermore, God is rational and thus His universe is rational, orderly, and knowable. Scientists operating on
this basis began to study the form of the universe. A picture of God’s world emerged as a huge, well-ordered
mechanism, a giant clockwork.
Due to the success of the method of obtaining knowledge about the universe, the same method was used to obtain
knowledge about God. Having cast out Aristotle as an authority in matters of science, deism now casts out scripture
as an authority in theology and allows only the application of “human” reason. Deism thus sees God only in “nature”
by which was meant the system of the universe. And since the system of the universe is seen as a giant clockwork,
God is seen as the clock maker.
Christian theism, of course says that the depth of the content revealed about God in nature, general revelation, is
limited. For Christians, much is left to learn from the study of special revelation. However, deism denies that God can
be known by revelation, by special acts of God’s self-expression in, for example, Scripture or the Incarnation. As Peter
Medawar says, “The seventeenth century doctrine of the necessity of reason was slowing giving way to the sufficiency
of reason.”

5.1 Basic Deism

Historically, deism is not really a school of thought because although a number of people held related views, not
all held every doctrine in common. Still, it is helpful to think of deism as a system and to state that system in a relatively
extreme form. For in that way, we will be better able to grasp the implications the various “reductions” of theism were
having on eighteenth century society.
1) A transcendent God, as a First Cause, created the universe but then left it to run on its own, God is thus not
immanent, not fully personal, not sovereign over human affairs, not providential.
As with theism, the most important proposition regards the existence and character of God. Essentially, deism
“reduces” the number of features God is said to display. He is a transcendent force or energy, a Prime Mover or First
Cause, a beginning to the otherwise infinite regress of past causes. But he is really not a he. Certainly he does not care
about his creation; he does not love it. He has no “personal” relation to it at all. To deists, God is distant, foreign, alien.
Such a god is not one to be worshipped, but merely an intellect or force to be recognized. The lonely state this leaves
humanity in was, however, not seemingly felt by early deists. Almost two centuries past before this implication was
played out on the field of human emotions.
2) The cosmos God created is determined because it is created as a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system;
thus, no miracle is possible.
The universe is closed in two senses. First, it is closed to God’s reordering because he is not interested in it and
because any tampering would suggest an error in the original plan, which would be below an all-competent deity.
Therefore, no miracles or events which reveal any special interests of God are possible. Second, the universe is closed
to human reordering because for any human to be able to reorder the system, he or she would have to be able to
transcend it, get out of the chain of cause and effect. But this we cannot do. It should be noted that this second
implication is not often emphasised by deists. Most continue to assume, as we all do apart from reflection, that we can
act to change our environment.
3) Human beings, though personal, are part of the clockwork of the universe.
To be sure, deists do not deny that humans are personal. Each of us has self-consciousness and, at least at first
glance, self-determination. Bishop Francois Fenelon (1651-1715), criticizing the deists of his day, wrote, “They credit
themselves with acknowledging God as the creator whose wisdom is evident in his works; but according to them, God
would be neither good nor wise if he had given man free will – that is, the power to sin, to turn away from his final
goal, to reverse the order and be forever lost.” If we cannot “reverse the order” then we cannot be significant. If an
individual has personality, it must then be a type which does not include the element of self-determination.
Deists, of course, recognize that human beings have intelligence, a sense of morality, a capacity for community
and creativity. But all these, while built into us as created beings, have a sort of autonomous nature just like the rest
of the stuff of the universe. They are not grounded in God’s character and thus have to be seen in the light of human
dimensions only. That is, as human beings we have no essential relation to God and thus we have no way to transcend
the system in which we find ourselves. Human beings are what they are; and according to deism, we have little hope
of becoming anything different or anything more.
4) Human beings may or may not have a life beyond their physical existence.
Were the history of worldviews a matter of the immediate working out of rational implications of a change in the
idea of the really real, a belief in the afterlife would have immediately disappeared. But it didn’t. Nor did a belief in
morality; that took another century. So warm deists, like Ben Franklin who believed in a creator-god worthy of worship
and John Locke who was not hostile to Christianity, are those closet to Christian theism and persisted in the notion of
an afterlife. Cold deists, like Voltaire, who was hostile to Christianity, however, did not.
5) Through our innate and autonomous human reason and the methods of science, we can not only know the universe
but we can infer at least something of what God is like. The cosmos, this world, is understood to be in its normal
state; it is not fallen or abnormal.
To deists, God is to be known through nature and not through history, since no special revelation is necessary or
possible, and none has occurred. God had simply created and maintains the universe, but otherwise has left it alone
and man in charge of his own destiny. But humanity, while in one sense the maker of its own destiny, is yet locked
into the closed system. Human freedom from God is not a freedom to anything; in fact, it is not a freedom at all.
Deism maintains the primacy of empiricism and reason, since nothing is revealed to us, they say, outside that
which we experience. However, some deists, like Alexander Pope in his Essay on Man, assume knowledge of God
and of nature that is not capable of being known by experience. But then how is it known that the universe is a vast
all-ordered clockwork? One can’t have it both ways. Either (1) all knowledge comes from experience and we, not
being infinite, cannot know the system in its entirety, or (2) some knowledge comes from another source – for example,
from innate ideas built into us or from revelation from the outside. Since revelation is rejected and innate ideas are
often discounted, tension thus arises in deism’s epistemology.
6) Ethics is intuitive or limited to general revelation; because the universe is normal, it reveals what is right.
Another implication of seeing God only in a natural world which one views as unfallen is that God, being the
omnipotent Creator, becomes responsible for everything as it is. This world must then reflect either what God wants
or what he is like. Ethically, this leads to the position expressed by Alexander Pope that, “whatever is, is right”, which
effectively destroys the notion of ethical decisions. Good becomes indistinguishable from evil, and therefore, neither
good nor evil exists. As Baudelaire said, “If God exists, he must be the devil.” Also, the notion of sin takes on a new
colour in such a context or even disappears if whatever is, is right. For a sin would be not against a personal God, but
against the “Eternal Cause”, against a philosophic abstraction. This also would remove any thought of eternal spiritual
accountability further promoting an anything goes attitude.
Yet, we continue to make ethical distinctions. Somewhere, every one of us distinguishes between good and evil,
right and wrong, moral and immoral. Deistic ethics do not fit us in our actual human dimensions, making deism an
impractical worldview to live by. However, not all deists saw (or now see) that their assumptions lead to Pope’s
conclusions. Some believe that Jesus’ ethical teachings were really natural law expressed in words. As interested as
the deists were in preserving the ethical content of Christianity, or in claiming that humans have an innate capacity to
discern right and wrong, they were unable to find a suitable basis for it.
7) History is linear; for the course of the cosmos was determined at creation. Written histories are based solely on
the autonomy of human reason and as a result display a wide variety in the interpretation of the meaning and
significance of human events.
Deists themselves see little interest in history because they sought knowledge of God primarily in nature. The
Bible is most useful not as a record of God’s acts in history but as illustrations of divine law from which ethical
principals can be derived. Since the stress is on general rules, the specific acts of history are unimportant. Furthermore,
God is quite uninterested in men and women and even whole peoples. Besides, the universe is closed to his reordering
anyways.
8) Cold deists use their own autonomous reason to determine their goal in life; warm deists may reflect on their
commitment to a somewhat personal God and determine their goal in accordance with what they believe their god
would be pleased with.
Unlike with Christian theism, there is no orthodox deism and so deists are able to choose from amongst their
reason, intuition, tradition, or whatever else to decide aspect of life is most important to them. But as a deist becomes
more divorced from an allegiance to a personal God and His eternal standards of right and wrong, the more societies
become pluralistic and less socially cohesive.

5.2 An Unstable Compound

For its inconsistencies, impracticality, and dependence on Christian theism, deism did not prove to be a stable
worldview. These tensions soon became apparent, and include (1) humans could not maintain significance and
personality in the face of a universe closed to reordering. Once reason replaced revelation, the concept of God was up
for graps and the slide from Christian theism to belief in gods with lesser and lesser personality was inevitable.
However, the human personality is a “fact” of the universe. If God made that, must he not be personal?
(2) Iductive reasoning proved inadequate, for it would take an infinite mind to hold the details necessary for an
accurate generalization. Since no human mind is infinite, certain knowledge of universals was impossible, and
thoughtful people were left with a relativity of knowledge they found hard to accept. Today we could find even more
aspects of deism to question. Scientists have largely abandoned thinking of the universe as a giant clock. Subatomic
particles do not behave like minute pieces of machinery. If the universe is a mechanism, it is far more complex than
we thought, and God must be quite different from a mere “architect” or “clock maker”.
(3) The assumption of an unfallen, normal universe tended to imply that whatever is, is right, thereby eliminating
ethics. But deists were very interested in ethics, that being the one division of Christian teaching that was most
acceptable. And at first autonomous reason and traditional morality tracked well together as the the surrounding culture
assumed the reasonableness of these values. In the early years, deists had confidence in the universality of human
reason; people who used their reason would agree on what is right and wrong. This eventually turned out to be a false
hope. However universal human nature may be, in practice people do not agree on matters of good and evil or what
constitutes “good” behaviour as much as the early deists thought.
So historically deism is a transitional worldview, and yet it is not dead in either popular or sophisticated forms.
Some describe God as superflous with words like Energy, Force, or First Cause, or, as astrophysicist Stephen
Hawking, use “the term God as the embodiment of the laws of physics.” Others of a more philosophical deism describe
God as mystery of being, order of existnece, the hidden sphere, absolutue horizon, and while this being manifests
theistic characteristics, some like Vaclav Havel (former Czech Republic president) aviod this conclusion by shifting
the attention to themselves as reflector of their conscious experience. They take this being to have a moral dimension
and the ontological foundation for human moral responsibility. Some more youthful and therapeutic versions of deism
consider the creator to watch us as we live good, happy, but secular lives and going to heaven when we die. These
views are not uncommon because a full blooded naturalism is not so ambivalent.

6. Naturalism: The Silence of Finite Space

Deism is the isthmus between two great continents – theism and naturalism. Then, if deism is just a passing phase,
almost an intellectual curiosity, naturalism, on the other hand, is serious business. The intellectual route is this: in
theism God is the infinite-personal Creator and sustainer of the cosmos. In deism God is “reduced”; he begins to lose
his personality, though he remains the Creator and (by implication) the sustainer of the cosmos. In naturalism God is
further “reduced”; he loses his very existence.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650), a theist by conscious confession, set the stage by conceiving of the universe as a
giant mechanism of “matter” which people comprehended by “mind.” He thus split reality into two kinds of being in
such that ever since the Western world has found it hard to see itself as an integrated whole. The naturalists, taking
one route to unification, made mind a subcategory of mechanistic matter.
John Locke (1632-1714), a theist for the most part, believed in a personal God who revealed himself to us but
thought that our God-given reason was the judge of what was to be taken as true from the “revelation” in the Bible.
The naturalists removed the “God-given” from this conception and made “reason” the sole criterion for truth.
Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1709-1751), a theoretical deist but a practical naturalist, has said, “Not that I call in
question the existence of a supreme being; on the contrary it seems to me that the greatest degree of probability is in
favour of this belief.” Nonetheless, he continues, “it is a theoretic truth with little practical value.” The reason he can
conclude that God’s existence is of so little importance is because the God who exists is only the maker of the universe.
He is not personally interested in it nor being worshipped by anyone. It is precisely this conclusion, this feeling, which
marks the transition to naturalism.
6.1 Basic Naturalism
1) Prime reality is matter. Matter exists eternally and is all there is. God does not exist.
In naturalism, the nature of the cosmos is primary and with an eternal creator-God out of the picture, the cosmos
becomes eternal – always there though not necessarily in its present form. Nothing comes from nothing. Something
is. Therefore, something always was. But that something is not a transcendent creator but the matter of the cosmos
itself. However the definition of matter changes.
In the eighteenth century scientists had yet to discover the complexity of matter nor its close relationship with
energy. They conceived of reality as made up of irreducible “units” existing in mechanical, spatial relationship with
each other. A relationship that was being investigated and expressible in exorable “laws”. Later scientists were to
discover that nature is not so neat or at least not so simple. There seem to be no irreducible “units” and physical laws
have only mathematical expression. Now, scientists search for a complete description of the universe but some have
lost confidence in ever discovering nature’s true form.
2) The cosmos exist as a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system.
Modern scientists have found the relations between the various elements of reality to be far more complex, if not
more mysterious than the deistic clockwork image can account for. Nonetheless, the universe is a closed system. It is
not open to reordering from the outside – either by a transcendent being (for there is none) or by self-transcedent or
autonomous humans (for we are part of the uniformity). Most naturalists are determinists, though they say that this
does not remove our (sense of) free will or our responsibility.
3) Human beings are complex “machines”; personality is an interrelation of chemical and physical properties we do
not yet fully understand.
There is only one substance in the cosmos: matter, and we are it and only it. Humans are unique among animals
because we alone are capable of conceptual thought, employ speech, possess a cumulative tradition (culture), a moral
capacity, and have had a unique method of evolution. However, any mystery that surrounds us is a result of our
mechanical complexity and not because of an extramaterial basis or transcendent power. Through stressing humanity’s
distinctiveness naturalism finds a basis for value.
4) Death is the extinction of personality and individuality.
The only immortality that is possible is to continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have
influenced others in our culture. This is perhaps the hardest proposition of naturalism to accept, yet it is demanded by
their conception of the universe. It is clear and unambiguous and may trigger immense psychological problems.
5) Through our innate and autonomous human reason, including the methods of science, we can know the universe.
The cosmos, including the world, is understood to be in its normal state.
Both deists and naturalists accept the internal faculty of reason and the thoughts humans have as givens. From a
cosmic standpoint, reason developed under the contingincies of evolution over a long period of time. From a human
standpoint, a child is born with innate faculties which merely have to be developed. These faculties work on their own
within the framework of the languages and cultures to which they are exposed. At no time is there any information or
interpretation or mental machinery added from outside the ordinary material world. As children grow, they learn which
of their thoughts are helpful to deal with the world around them. The methods of science are especially useful in
producing more profound knowledge. Human knowledge, then, is the product of natural human reason grounded in
its perceived ability to reach the truth about human beings and the world. Many early naturalists, and some modern
scientists and other lay educated people may think in this way but modern philosophical naturalists claim that no one
can know what something truly is. They are content to say that we can learn to describe what we take to be reality in
language that allows us to live successfully in the world. There is a rift between words and things that cannot be
bridged, which is fully played out in post-modernism.
6) Ethics is related only to human beings.
Ethical considerations did not play an early role in the rise of naturalism as it was an outworking of notions of the
external world. Most early naturalists continued to hold ethical views similar to those in the surrounding culture, that
is, theism and deism. And though these three worldviews could adopt similar ethical norms, their basis is radically
different.
If there was no consciousness prior to the existence of humans then there was no prior sense of right and wrong.
And if there was no ability to do other than what one does, any sense of right and wrong would have no practical
value. So for ethics to be possible there must be both self-consciousness and self-determination (ie personality).
Naturalists say that personality came with the appearance of human beings and so too came ethics. No ethical system
was derived solely from the nature of “things” outside of human consciousness meaning that no ethical system or
natural law is inscribed in the cosmos.
How exactly value and morals are brought about in the human situation, in other words, how to transition from
the realm of what is (personality) to what ought to be without a transcedent standard or guide is very difficult and
debateble. Some hold that humans have a sense of morality from intuition, authority, and convention. And while a
person may reject these and live in ostracisim and martyrdom, rarely does anyone succeed in inventing values totally
divorced from culture.
Of course values differ from culture to culture and none seems absolutely universal. So some argue for an ethic
based on objective inquiry and find it in a harmonious adjustment of people to each other and their environment.
Whatever promotes harmony is good. This may tend to define good action as group-approved, survival promoting
action. The persistence of naturalism lies in its appearance as objective and coherent.
Naturalists conceive of morality in a totally mechanistic fashion, with nothing transcedent about it. People simply
follow a pattern embedded in them as creatures. Recently many naturalists give permission to sex outside of marriage,
euthanasia, and abortion. Naturalism holds values are constructed by human experience, need, and interest. An ethic
of behaviourism would define happiness as having short run reinforcers congruent with long-term ones. Humanism is
the overall attitude that human beings, especially individuals are of special value. Christian humanists (Calvin,
Erasmus, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton) emphasized human dignity deriving from the image of God. Secular
humanism is completely framed within naturalism, but not all naturalists are secular humanists.
Some take the good to be something that has so far only been recognized by the elite, “a voluntary aristocracy of
the spirit.” The good consists of disinterestedness as a now mandatory way of alleviating the disorders and frustrations
of the modern world. Marxism can vary from humanistic democracy to Stalinistic totalitarianism. In theory, Marxism
is supposed to benefit working people and enable them to gain economic control over their own lives. In reality, the
bureaucratic rigidities of life under communism led to economic stagnation as well as loss of personal freedom.
7) History is a linear system of events linked by cause and effect but without an overriding purpose.
Naturalism views natural and human history as a continuity. Natural history self-activated and began in the
recesses of the universe an incredibly long time ago. The theory of evolution, which is held responsible for human
origns, was given a “mechanism” by Darwin. However, evolution is nonteleological and so aks as many questions as
it answers. Thus while evolution considered strictly on the biological level continues to be unconscious and accidental,
human actions are not: they are human history. In other words, when humans appeared, meaningful history began
also. But like evolution, which has no inherent goal, history has no inherent goal. Human events have only the meaning
people give them when they choose them or reflect back on them.
8) Naturalism itself implies no particular core commitment on the part of any given naturalist. Rather core
commitments are adopted unwittingly or chosen by individuals.
Each individual is unconstrained in their choice of direction in life. Most naturalists are an integral part of a
particular cultural community and orient their personal lives within its norms. However, social rebels cannot be
reasonably critized from within naturalism. And while naturalism has no justification to act selflessly, some choose to
serve a purely secular human flourishing.

7. Nihilism: Zero Point

Nihilism is more a feeling than a philosophy. Strictly speaking, nihilism is not a philosophy at all. It is a denial
of philosophy, a denial of the possibility of knowledge, a denial that anything is valuable. If it proceeds to the absolute
denial of everything, it even denies the reality of existence itself. In other words, nihilism is the negation of everything
- reality, knowledge, ethics, beauty. In nihilism no statement has validity; nothing has meaning. Everything is
gratuitous, de trop, that is, just there.
Those who have been untouched by the feelings of despair, anxiety, and ennui associated with nihilism may find
it hard to imagine that it could be a seriously held worldview. But it is, and it is well for those who want to understand
the twentieth century to experience, if only vicariously, something of nihilism as a stance toward human existence. To
read nihilistic art is to begin to feel the pangs of human emptiness, of life without value, purpose, meaning: Marcel
Duchamp's ordinary urinal, signed with a fictional name; Samuel Beckett's End Game, Waiting for Godot, Breath;
Douglas Adam's The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy; Franz Kafka, Eugene Ionesco, Joseph Heller, Kurt Vonnegut
Jr.,

7.1 The First Bridge: Necessity and Chance

A moderate form of nihilism holds to the first two propositions of naturalism, that (1) matter is all there is and it
is eternal, and (2) the cosmos operates with a uniformity and continuity of cause and effect in a close system, but
recognize that these propositions imply a loss of human dignity and freedom. If the universe is closed then its activity
can only be governed from within. Any force that acts to change the cosmos, on any level (microcosmic, human,
macrocosmic), is part of the cosmos. There would thus seem to be only one explanation for change: the present state
of affairs must govern the future state. In a closed universe the possibility that some things need not be, that others are
possible, is not possible. In a closed universe, freedom must be a determinacy unrecognized which precludes self-
determinacy and moral responsibility. Self-consciousness, as it is only an epiphenomenon, can be affected by changing
the agent's environment. According to behavioural pyschologist B.F. Skinner, "a person does not act on the world, the
world acts on him." In sum, human beings are without the ability to choose on the basis of an innate self-conscious
character to affect their own destiny or do anything significant.
Nihilism holds that some events are more predictable than others, but none is uncertain. However, naturalism
offers chance and necessity as the cause for humanity’s emergence and freedom. But chance is either the inexorable
proclivity of reality to happen as it does, appearing to be chance due to an ignorance of the forces of determinism, or
it is absolutely irrational. In the second sense, chance is not an explanation but the absence of one. An event occurs.
No cause can be assigned. So while chance produces the appearance of freedom, it actually introduces absurdity since
it is causeless, purposeless, directionless. Chance, then, does not allow for self-consciousness and freedom, but a
subjection to capriciousness.

7.2 The Second Bridge: The Great Cloud of Unknowing

The presupposition of a closed universe also has epistemological consequences: if a person is the result of
impersonal forces – either haphazard or inexorable – then that person has no way of knowing whether what is seemed
to be known is truth or illusion. Naturalism holds that perception and knowledge are either identical with or byproducts
of the brain; they arise from the functioning of matter. But matter functions by a nature of its own. There is no reason
to believe that matter has any interest in leading a conscious being to true perception or to logical conclusions.
The only beings in the universe who care about such matters are humans. But people are bound to their bodies.
Their consciousness arises from a complex interrelation of highly ordered matter. Why should whatever that matter is
conscious of be in any way related to what actually is the case. Any tests for distinguishing illusion from reality utilize
the brain they are testing. Each test could well be a futile exercise in spinning out the consistency of an illusion.
Therefore if naturalism is true there is no way of establishing its credibility, let alone proving it. Any argument
constructed implies the classical laws of identity, noncontradiction, and the excluded middle but this does not
guarantee the truthfullness of these laws in the sense that any claim obeying them necessarily relates to the objective,
external universe. Moreover, any argument to check the validity of an argument is an argument that might be mistaken.
Virtually no one is a pure epistemological nihilist. Yet naturalism does not allow a person to have any solid reason
for confidence in human reason. One of the worst consequences of epistemological nihilism is the very denial of the
facticity of the universe. But while we think of such situations primarily in pyschological terms committing such
“cases” to institutions, this is the proper state, the logical result of any perception or dream becoming equally real or
unreal. We thus end in an ironic paradox. Naturalism, born in the Age of Enlightenment, was launched on a firm
acceptance of the human ability to know. Now naturalists find that they can place no confidence in their knowing.

7.3 The Third Bridge: Is and Ought

For naturalism, the universe is merely there, not providing humanity with a sense of oughtness. It only is. Ethics,
however, is about what ought to be, whether it is or not. If every person has moral values and many values conflict
with each other then which are the true or higher values. That moral values are relative to one’s culture is only another
way of saying that is (the fact of a specific value) equals ought (what should be so). Moreover, the cultural rebel’s is
is not considered ought if they upset social cohesiveness and jeopardize cultural survival. Therefore the cultural
relativist has affirmed a value – the preservation of a cultural in its current state – as more valuable than its destruction
or transformation from one or more elements within it.
The situation is not so critical if there is sufficient separation of peoples of radically differing values. Ethical
nihilism holds that there is no nonrelative standard by which to judge the values in conflict exitence and thereby
determine which are ultimately true or give meaning to specific variations.

7.4 Inner Tensions in Nihilism

Most naturalists are not nihilists because they do not take their naturalism seriously. No naturalist can live an
examined life, if examination leads to nihilism, for there are at least five reasons no one can live a life consistent with
nihilism.
1) From meaninglessness nothing at all follows, or rather anything follows. No act is more or less appropriate.
Furthermore, goal oriented behaviour is creating value by choice, which is not living by nihilism.
2) Every moment nihilists think and think their thinking has substance they cheat their philosophy, for they have
denied that thinking is of value or that it can lead to knowledge. Nihilism’s one affirmation, that the universe
has no meaning, is meaningless since otherwise it would be false. They merely are; they merely think. And
none of this has any significance whatsoever.
3) While a limited sort of pratical nihilism is possible for a while, eventually a limit is reached. In order to be a
practicing nihilist, there must be something to oppose and deny. A practicing nihilist is a parasite on meaning.
4) Nihilism spells the death of art although much of modern art has nihilism as its core ideology. To the extent
that these artworks display the human implications of a nihilistic worldview, they are not nihilistic; to the
extent that they themselves are meaningless, they are not artworks. Art is nothing if not formal, that is,
endowed with structure by the artist. But structure implies meaning. So to the extent that an artwork has
structure, it has meaning and thus is not nihilistic. Even if the art is random, attempting to be anti-art and
suggesting meaningless it still participates in one of the above paradoxes, and is thus nonnihilistic.
5) Nihilism poses severe psychological problems for those who hold to it. People cannot live with it because it
denies what every fiber of their waking being calls for – meaning, truth, value, beauty, dignity, freedom,
significance, worth.

8. Existentialism: Beyond Nihilism

Existentialism, and every other important worldview that has emerged since the beginning of the twentieth
century, has as its major goal to transcend nihilism. Atheistic existentialism was a major theme of Nietzche (the “will
to power” of the “overman”) that quickly became distorted. Theistic existentialism was born in the mid 19 th century
as Kierkegaard reflected on the death of Danish orthodoxy. Either form did not appear in any fullness or cultural
significance until after the WW1-WW2 era in the 1950s, for it was only during that period that nihilism finally gripped
the intellectual world and began affecting the lives of ordinary people.

8.1 Basic Atheistic Existentialism

Atheistic existentialism affirms most propositions of naturalism (worldview questions 1,& 4-7) except those
relating human nature and our relationship with the cosmos. Indeed, existentialism’s major interest is in our humanity
and how we can be significant in an otherwise insignificant world. In short: Matter exists eternally; God does not
exist. Death is extinction of personality and individuality. Through our innate and autonomous human reason,
including the methods of science, we can know the universe. The cosmos, including this world is understood to be in
its normal state. Ethics is related only to human beings. History is a linear stream of events linked by cause and effect
but without an overarching purpose.
2) The cosmos is composed soley of matter, but to human beings reality appears in two forms – subjective and
objective.
The universe is structured or chaotic. Whichever it makes no difference. The world merely is. The world is
assumed to have existed long before humans. For unknown reasons there are two different kinds of beings, one coming
from the other and into a separate existence. The first is the objective unconscious world which people know through
reason, sensation and science. The second kind of being is the subjective realm – that of the mind, of consciousness,
awareness – which science cannot penetrate. The objective world is orderly whereas the subjective knows no order.
The inner awareness of the mind is a conscious present, a constant now. Time has no meaning, for the subject is always
present to itself, never past, never future. Subjectivity is the self’s apprehension of the non-self; subjectivity is making
that non-self par of itself. The subject takes in knowledge not as a bottle takes in liquid but as an organism takes in
food. Knowledge turns into the knower.
Naturalism holds to the unity of the two worlds by seeing the objective world as real and the subjective as its
shadow. As this path leads to nihilism, existentialism emphasizes the two world’s disunity. Since there are no
extraterrestial beings, humans are the only beings who are self-conscious and self-determinate. There is no longer an
attempt to understand why this is so.We perceive self-conscious and self-determinate and so we work from these
givens. Our significance is not related to the facts of the objective world, over which we have no control, but up to the
consciousness of the subjective world over which we have complete control.
3) a) Human beings are complex “machnines”; personality is an interrelation of chemical and physical properties
we do not yet fully understand. F or human beings alone existence precedes essence; people make themselves who
they are.
The objective world is one of essences as everything comes into being bearing its nature. Only human beings are
not humans before they make themselves so. Each person becomes human through using self-consciousness and self-
determination. In Satre’s words, “If God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence,
a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and … this being is man…. First of all, man exists, turns
up, appears on the scence, and, only afterwards, defines himself.”
b) Each person is totally free as regards their nature and destiny.
From proposition 2 it follows that each person is totally free. Each is uncoerced, radically capable of doing
anything imaginable with our subjectivity. There is freedom within.
4) The highly wrought and tightly organized objective world stands over against human beings and appears absurd.
The hard, cold facticity and thereness of the objective world appears alien and absurd. It does not fit us. It is
impervious to our wishes. We are strangers in a foreign land and the sooner we learn to accept this the sooner we
transcend our alienation and pass through the despair. The authentic existentialist is unimpressed by the objective
world’s ultimate absurdity and weapon, the toughest fact to transcend – death. We are free so long as we remain
subjects. Death places us as objects once again. We must not forget our bent toward nonexistence, but live out the
tension between the love of life and the certainty of death.
5) In full recognition of and against the absurdity of the objective world, the authentic person must revolt and create
value.
Here is how existentialism moves beyond nihilism. Nothing is of value in the objective world but while we are
conscious we create value. The authentic person is one who keeps ever aware of the absurdity of the cosmos but who
rebels against that absurdity and creates meaning. Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “underground man” is a paradigm of the rebel
without a seemingly reasonable cause. Dostoevsky says that, “the meaning of a man’s life consists of proving to
himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano key.”
Ethics is simple for existentialists for the good action is the consciously choosen action. The good is part of the
subjective; it is not measured by a standard outside the individual human dimension. However, subjectivity leads to
solipsism but we are all in this absurd world together, making meaning for ourselves, and our actions affect each other
in a manner that nothing can be good for us without being good for all. Moreover, as we think and act and effect our
subjectivity, we are engaged in a social activity by choosing a certain image of a man. People living authentic lives
create value for themselves and others too.
However, if we create value simply by choosing it and thus can never choose evil, does good have any meaning?
Evil is seen as not choosing, as passivity, as living at the direction of others and not recognizing the absurdity of the
universe. To counter these objections some claim that although death does indeed end it all, human life is more than
itself, for it stems from a past humanity and it affects humanity’s future.
Albert Camus’ The Plague depicts the possibility of living a good life in a universe where God is dead. It is
attractive to those whose moral values are traditional, not because Camus offers a base for those values but because
he continues to affirm them even though they have no base. Unfortunately, affirmation is not enough since it can be
countered by an opposite affirmation.
8) The core commitment of every full-blown atheistic existentialist is to himself or herself.
The Sartrean notion of human selves making themselves whom they will come to be, they are the emperors and
bishops of their own pointland. Since they themselves make themselves who they are, they are responsible only to
themselves. They admit they are finite beings in an absurd world, subject to death without exception. The authenticity
of their value comes solely by their virtue of their own conscious choices.

8.2 How far Beyond Nihilism?

Atheistic existientialism fails to provide a referent for a morality that goes beyond each individaul. By grounding
human significance in subjectivity, it places it in a realm divorced from reality. The objective world keeps intruding
causing the subject to continually affirm and affirm. But when affirmation ceases, so does authenic existence. Atheistic
existientialism goes beyond nihilism only to reach solipsism. Many would say that this is not beyond nihilism at all;
it is only donning a mask called value that is stripped clean at death.

8.3 Basic Theistic Existentialism

A watered-down liberal theology of morality and good works that reduced God to simply a pure man and that
Kierkegaard responded to produced not despair but optimism. Late in the second decade of the twentieth century Karl
Barth and subsequent theologians such as Emil Brunner and Reinhild Neibuhr reburbished Christianity along
existentialist lines as what came to be called neo-orthodoxy, since it put God very much back into the picture.
Theistic existentialism begins by accepting the following presuppositions of theism (worldview questions 1-4, 6,
& 8): God is infinite and personal (triune), transcendent and immanent, omniscient, sovereign and good. God created
the cosmos ex nihilo to operate with a uniformity of cause and effect in an open system. Human beings are created in
the image of God, can know something of God and the cosmos and can act significantly. God can and does
communicate with us. We were created good but now are fallen and need to be restored by God through Christ. For
human beings death is either the gate to life with God and His people or life forever separated from God. Ethics is
transcendent and based on God’s character. However, theistic existentialism has special variations and emphases.
3 & 5) Human beings are personal beings who, when they come to full consciousness, find themselves in an alien
universe; whether or not God exists is a tough question to be solved not by reason but by faith.
The most important variation from theism is that theistic existentialism does not start with God. With theism God
is assumed to be there and of a given character. Theistic existentialism emphasizes the place in which humans find
themselves when they first come to self-awareness. We find our selves conscious but the objective world impervious,
without answers, and a not immediate perception of God. The human situation is ambivalent since we have evidence
for cosmic order, love and therefore a benevolent deity but also evidence to the contrary. Rather than accounting for
the absurdity of the universe on the basis of the Fall, as theism does, theistic existentialism assumes God is immediately
responsible and therefore that he must believe in God in spite of the absurdity. The point is that while reason may lead
us to atheism, we can always take a leap of faith and refuse to accept reason’s conclusions.
To be sure, if the Judeo-Christian God exists, we had better acknowledge it because in that case our eternal destiny
depends on it. But, say the existentialists, the data is not all in and never will be, and so every person who would be a
theist must step forth and choose to believe. God will never reveal himself unambiguously. Consequently each person,
in the loneliness of his or her own subjectivity, surrounded by a great deal more darkness than light, must choose. And
that choice must be a radical act of faith. When a person does choose to believe, a whole panorama opens to the
traditional propositions of theism. Yet the subjective, choice-centered basis for this worldview colours the style of
each Christian existentialist’s stance within theism.
3 & 6) The personal is the valuable.
Both forms of existentialism emphasize the disjunction between the objective and subjective worlds. Theistic
existentialism emphasizes personal relationships as of primary value. The impersonal is there; it is important; but it is
to be lifted up to God. To do so serves to eradicate the alienation so strongly felt by people when they concentrate on
objective relationships with nature and, sadly, with other people as well. The following basic elements of Christianity
are described by a dead orthodoxy on the left contrasted with a live theitic existentialism on the right:
Depersonalized Personalized
Sin Breaking a rule Betraying a relationship
Repentance Admitting guilt Sorrowing over personal betrayal
Forgiveness Canceling a penalty Renewing fellowship
Faith Believing a set of propositions Committing oneself to a person
Christian life Obeying rules Pleasing the Lord, a Person

When put this way the existentialist version is obviously more attractive. Of course, traditional theists respond by
saying the second column demands or implies the existence of the first column and, theism has always included the
second column in its system.
5) Knowledge is subjective; the whole truth is often paradoxical.
Knowledge about objects is necessary but not sufficient. Full knowledge is intimate interrelatedness an is linked
firmly to the authentic life of the knower. Some existentialists have so disjoined the objective and subjective world,
that one has no relation to the other, and have thereby abandoned the concept of objective truth. It is not that facts are
unimportant but that they must be facts for someone and that changes their character making knowledge become the
knower.
7) History as a record of events is uncertain and unimportant, but history as a model or type or myth to be made
present and lived is of supreme importance.
Theistic existentialism distrusts the accuracy of recorded history and loses interest in its facticity and to emphasize
its religious implication or meaning. The former is associated with the high criticism of the mid 19 th century. Rather
than taking the biblical accounts at face value the higher critics, such as D.F. Strauss, Ernest Renan, and Julius
Wellhausen denied a Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch made the naturalistic assumption that miracles cannot
happen. These accounts must therefore be false, not necessarily fabricated by writers who wished to decieve but
propounded by credulous people of primitive mindset. Rather than change their assumptions they concluded that the
Bible was historically untrustworthy. But instead of an abandonment of the Christian faith entirely, a radical shift in
emphasis took place. The facts of the Bible were not important; what was were its examples of the good life and its
timeless moral truths. The Fall was not an event but is existential as a mythological description of the universal
experience of man rebelling against God. Other supernatural events are similarly demythologized. Either they are not
taken literaly, or if they are, their meaning is not in their facticity but in what they indicate about human nature and
our relationship to God. However, theists charge, their must be an event for there is to be meaning. Meaning is created
in the subjective world, but it has no objective referent. Such abandonment should lead to doubt and a loss of faith.
Instead it has led to a leap of faith.

9. Islamic Theism: The Revelations of Another Prophet

During the middle ages, Islamic scholars had contributed to western thought by preserving, commenting on and
advancing the philosophy of the ancient Greeks. But the intellectual influence on Europe and subsequently the New
World largely disappeared by the 17th century. Politically, the middle east has posed a continued challenge to the west,
even if in the background of the cold war, from the Ottoman Empire, to the 1979 Iran embassy bombing, to 9/11 and
the ensuing conflicts.
The word Allah is the Arabic word for God, or a contraction of al-ilah, the God. It is not a proper name but used
as “God” is English. This chapter will limit itself to the teachings of the Qur’an and the Hadith. Where there are
differences among various Islamic groups, the most widely held interpretation will be used. And if that’s not possible,
priority will be given to the more literal reading of the Qur’an.
9.1 Basic Islamic Theism
1) The fundamental reality of Islam is God (Allah), described as monotheistic, infinite, personal, transcendent,
immanent, omniscient, sovereign, and good. Of these attributes Islam emphasizes his oneness, transcendence and
sovereignty. There has been debate as to what extent the Qur’an should be included in the category of fundamental
reality.
Islam arose in the context of rivalry and a great amount of content in the Qur’an consists of demonstrating that
Islam is better than any other religion, and that God, as portrayed in Islam, is better than any other deity. Muhammad
proclaimed monotheism, as he understood it, against the polytheism that dominated Mecca of his day, the monotheism
of Judaism, which he considered hypocritical, and the trinitarian monotheism of Christianity, which he censured as
both idolatrous and absurd. Islam did not so much define itself internally as externally against the other existing
options.
The constantly proclaimed unequaled greatness of Allah is the founding convinction upon which hinges all other
attributes. Anything that could conceivably be construed as detracting from his greatness must be considered to be
false, or even offensive. The worst sin in Islam is shirk, which is commonly translated as “idolatry,” but literally means
“association.” Shirk means to conjoin Allah with any of his creatures, to ascribe a partner to him, or to understand him
to possess limitations that are characteristic of his creatures but not him.
Not only does this prohibition rule out such notions as an incarnation or direct revelation in any humanly
apprehensible form, but it also means that whatever attributes God has revealed about himself cannot be measured by
human standards. Allah is not unknowable, but it would be presumptuous for us to infer from his attributes specifically
how he would manifest them in any particular cases. An integral part of any theism is that God is both transcendent
and immanent but in Islam Allah’s transcendence far outweighs his immanence. Any notion of a possible relationship
with Allah must respect this boundary. In Islam, we can know that Allah is merciful, but we should in no way pretend
that we comprehend what this means sufficiently to draw implications from it.
While Christian theism allows for a personal relationship with God, and notions of God’s incarnation in the world
and the indwelling of his spirit within us, Islamic theism holds that this would bring God too far down to the level of
his creatures. When the Qur’an notes of Allah’s presence, his guidance, and availability of his kindness, it does so in
the context of exhortation to obedience and even threats. Some verses (50:16-18) seem to imply a personal relationship
but Allah’s presence is not apparent and is actually mediated by angels.
Sufism, the mystical side of Islam, teaches that after many years of labours beyond the normal rules of Islam, one
must reach a state of absolute purity before attaining a moment of being in the direct presence of God. Sufism does
not supply an exception to the emphasis on God’s transcendence because its goal is not for God to move downward
in order to be closer to the human being, but for the Sufi monk to rise up in his spiritual state until he finally attains
the height sufficient to experience God.
General revelation by God in the universe is understood by those who are wise, in other words those who already
believe in Allah. It is generally accepted that the Qur’an is eternal. In its true form it exists in heaven as the Mother of
the Book (Umm-al-kitab). When Gabriel first commissioned Muhammad, the angel presented him with excerpts out
of the Umm-al-kitab and commanded him to read and subsequently recite these portions (sura 96). This order seriously
perplexed Muhammad at first because he was illiterate. The angel reassured him that the same God who creates people
out a mere clot of blood (ie the fertilized ovum), would also give him the ability to read the book and to repeat its
content with complete precision. This is one of the reasons why Muslims refer to the Qur’an as a miracle (the other
being its perceived perfection in form and content). The nature of the book-behind-the-book, the true Qur’an, has
caused a lot of discussion among Muslims.
The debate concerns the fact that if the Qur’an is eternal then there would be two fundamental realities, Allah and
the Qur’an, which would detract from Allah’s greatness. To deal with this some say that the Qur’an is temporal but
this reduces the authority of the book which is so engrained within most Muslims. Therefore, a common alternative is
to indeed hold that the Qur’an is eternal, though not as an independent reality, but as the thoughts of Allah.
Consequently, one has to think of the Qur’an on two levels, distinguishing it as the content of the mind of God (which
is never accessible to us) and as divine revelation (which is the only way to have accurate knowledge about God).
2) Allah created the universe ex nihilo, and all creatures are resposnsible to him. However, the world is a closed
system insofar as nothing happens in the world outside his divine decrees.
The magnificence of God’s greatness is brought out clearly in the miracle of his creation. God’s creation is not
limited to material things but includes the realms of angels and jinn (malicious spirits) that were brought into existence
prior to humans.Allah’s method of creation is to speak a thing into existence. Thus we read concerning the creation
of Adam, “He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be.’ And he was.” (3:59).
Since Allah created the universe, he has absolute discretion over it. Insofar as he does care for it, it is purely a
matter of his good nature, which he is not obligated to maintain. Nothing happens outside of Allah’s plan. Knowledge
for Allah is never just his taking cognizance of certain states of affairs or holding all correct propositions to be true.
With him, to know a thing or an event is to control it. Whatever creativity creatures may possess, they can exercise it
nly insofar as Allah permits it according to his inscrutable will.
3) Human beings are the pinnacle of God’s creation. They have been given abilities of which other creatures, such as
angels and jinn, are not capable. However, their high standing also brings with it the responsibility to live up to God’s
standards.
According to the Qur’an, when Allah set out to create Adam, he called a general meeting of all of the spiritual
beings he had created heretofore and announced what he was about to do.When the angels learned of his intention,
they were offended and actually questioned Allah’s wisdom. After all, they claimed, they had been praising God
faithfully all along. Why would he now put another creature above them, particularly one who would be prone to
mischief? (2:30).
Allah personally educated Adam in how to identify the many creatures on earth. He then called another meeting
in which he challenged the angels to give the proper labels to various items in creation, but they failed miserably at
this task. Then God brought out Adam, and to their amazement, he was able to do the very thing that they could not.
The angels took back their criticism and acknowledged that Allah had not made a mistake in creating such a wonderful
being. Allah then commanded all of the angels to bow down before Adam (3:34). Iblis refused to do so and became
Satan or Shaytan.
God then placed Adam and his wife in a garden and gave the command not to eat of a certain tree. In a manner
that is not specified, Satan was able to persuade them into disobedience, and they were expelled from the garden and
deprived of their happiness. Even while Adam was out of favour with God, he received instructions from Allah, and
upon proper penitence, God restored him to fellowship. Thus there was no permanent curse, Adam did not remain a
fallen creature, and humanity was not beset with heritable original sin.
We have then the following preliminary description of what Islam teaches regarding mankind: we are God’s
representatives on earth, higher than any other living creature (in contrast to Christian teaching) with a nature that was
not corrupted by Adam’s fall. Consequently, we are born in a state of purity and innocence, a fact that implies that
any newborn that comes into the world as a Muslim. We have now an obligation to live up to our standing as being
born pure is no guarantee that we will remain pure. Privilege requires responsibility, and the stakes are immeasurably
high. It is one thing to acknowledge God as the greatest with mere words, even if they are meant sincerely, it is quite
another to live one’s entire life in submission to him, and the latter requirement is the test for whether a person will
qualify for salvation.
4) Death is a time of transition between this life and our eternal state, which will consist of either paradise or hell,.
Proper observance of burial customs contributes to the fate of the soul after death. Some time in the future, the
deceased will face an interrogation by the two angels Munkar and Nakir, and anything that the survivors can do in
order to help the deceased give the proper answers will increase their chances of entering paradise. Therefore it is a
good thing to encourage a person right before he dies to say the confession one last time: “There is no God but God,
and Muhammad is the prophet of God.” If this is no longer possible, those who are gathered at the funeral will repeat
it on behalf of the deceased. The corpse must be washed and transformed into a state of ritual purity. Finally, he or
she must be buried lying on the right side, facing in the direction of Mecca.
These outward physical measures have their purpose in guiding the soul into being fully prepared for the
upcoming judgment at the end of time. Everyone agrees that eventually there will be the last day on which all the dead
will be raised in order to face judgment. In the meantime, what happens in the interval immediately after death and
before the resurrection and the judgment is a matter of debate. Some Muslims hold that the soul will sleep peacefully
until that time; others believe that between death and resurrection there will be a period of spiritual purgation in which
postmortem suffering will purify the soul so as to become fit for heaven.
Regardless of these speculations, there is no question of what will happen when the resurrection takes place. All
human beings will be called to stand before the divine tribunal, and all of their beliefs and attitudes as well as the
record of every last little action that they have performed during their lifetime will become a basis for judgment. Every
human being will have accumulated a book of their deeds, both good and evil, during their mortal lives. No one can
be fully sure that they have enough good to outweigh any bad, and so be assured of going to paradise (my
emphasis). The three notable exceptions to this are martyrs, children before puberty and those who are mentally
impaired, the later two because they are not fully accountable for their actions. To claim assurance for salvation implies
that one can dictate to Allah what he must do.
The Qur’anic description of hell is first of all a place of hot, odiferous, poisonous water in which the unbeliever
will have to endure numerous tortures. Heaven is depicted as a beautiful oasis with fresh water, luscious green plants,
handsome boys serving all the best to eat and drink, and the beautiful huri, the enticing, dark-eyed virgins, whose
services are perennially available. Now, there is no question that the description of heaven is utterly geared toward
men. Nonetheless, one should not infer that women will not be eligible for heaven.
5) Allah has endowed human beings with the capacity of knowledge by means of reason and the senses. Thereby, they
can also know God’s revelation. However, God’s sovereign decrees limit human knowledge.
Allah has created humans in a way that their senses will be a reliable sources of information and their reasoning
skills are trustworthy. Human reason is sufficient to determine truth from falsehood. Of course, our reasoning ability,
no matter how sharp, would be useless if we did not have the necessary information to apply it, but this is where divine
revelation helps us out. Around the globe, every group of people has had one or more messengers from God who
taught them the same precepts as Muhammad. Thus whatever should be known could be known easily by simply
listening to the prophets. The prophets were a clear source of knowledge and the fact that the people did not submit to
Allah is due to their evil, not to a lack of sufficient information.
Furthermore, among the prophets were a few who were even more distinguished. These were the “messengers,”
who also left books of their teachings for posterit: Moses brought the Law, David brought the Psalms, and Jesus
brought the Gospel. But the same unbelieving people who did not accept them in person corrupted their writings in
order to suit their idolatrous preferences. As a result, the clear messages from God, which might have survived in
writing even if their original bearers had been rejected, became distorted in their written forms as well.
All of that should have changed with the coming of Muhammad. He was considered to be the “seal of the
prophets,” and what distinguishes him is the belief that his message, as recorded in the Qur’an, was perceived free
from error or human interference. There is thus no need for any further prophets, and however much the message may
have been obscured previously, it should now be clear and accessible to everyone.
Nevertheless, clear revelation does not imply automatic acceptance of the revelation. Those who are committed
to unbelief will not change their minds, no matter how strong the evidence may be. Those who do not recognize the
truth will be kept from doing so by God. Although humans have a choice whether to obey Allah or not, the choice is
not open-ended. It appears that God classifies each person into one of two groups: those who are believers and those
who are his enemies. Allah refuses aid to his enemies and will make sure they remain deluded in their unbelief. It is
important to draw a distinction with Christianity on this point, and that while we were enemies we were reconciled to
God through Christ (Rom. 5:10).
6) Right and wrong are based on the teachings of the Qur’an, as amplified by the Hadith and interpreted by the
schools of law, the shari’a.
There is nothing left for us to do than to try our best to follow all of God’s commandments. There is no point in
speculating on God’s will. Rather than search for God’s purposes, we should accept whatever he sends our way bila
kayf, which means “without asking why.” Any statement of intent on our part should be accompanied by the phrase
“inshallah” – “if God wills.”
In case there is ambiguity concerning how a particular Qur’anic command is interpreted, one can consult the
hadiths, which are several collections of sayings and actions by Muhammad, as allegedly remembered by those who
knew him well. Even though it is accepted practice the use the expression Hadith in the singular, there is no single
authoritative collection, and the various components are of uneven authority. Consequently, there developed among
Sunni Muslims four schools of Islamic Law that advocated different degrees of strictness in applying the rules of the
Qur’an and their relationship to the Hadith.
The obligations of a Muslim begin with the five pillars: to recite the confession, to pray five times a day, to fast
during the month of Ramadan, to give the annual contribution for the poor, and to make the pilgrimage to Mecca at
leaast once in a lifetime. But this is only the beginning as Muslim life is strictly regulated. There are three fundamental
categories of actions: those that are directly commanded (farad), those that are permitted (halal), and those that are
prohibited (haram). It is important to note that any violation of halal is haram and not to carry out the obligations of
farad is also haram. When everything is riding on one’s actions, and when there is no assurance of God’s indulgence,
let alone any grace, avoiding the potentially negative consequences of any sin is bound to become the primary
incentive for one’s actions rather than the positive motivation of keeping the rules out of gratitude.
7) History has significance in demonstrating the absolute sovereignty of God but, even more so, as the opportunity
for people to demonstrate their submission to him.
Human history is the world’s longest final exam, and the test starts right along with the lectures. On a less ultimate
level, the goal of history is to subsume the entire world under the umma, the Islamic community, which is as much a
political entity as a congregation of believers. Islam commands to set up Islamic governments, and it is never fully
implemented unless there is an Islamic state. In this state no idolatry will be allowed but Jews and Christians will be
tolerated so long as they pay the jizya, a compensation for living in a Muslim community without contributing to it.
Many Muslims believe that prior to the last judgment, the Mahdi will appear. Some hold this person to be Christ,
others do not. How history ends is not all that crucial considering that the all-important last judgment follows
immediately.
8) A devout Muslim is grateful to Allah for providing the opportunity to serve him and will strive to follow the divine
instructions in even the smallest part of life.
Such a devout believer will frequently express gratitude that Allah has provided the chance to enter Paradise.
Muslims tend to find the idea of salvation by grace irresponsible, and even without a notion of original sin, they are
sufficiently convinced of human sinfullness that they consider any chance at salvation at all to be a true act of mercy
on God’s part.
Still, Islam demands of the person nothing less than everything. The stardards for a truly acceptable life are high
and become extremely detailed the more one seeks to implement them according to the Hadith. Nevertheless, gratitude
and hope are not the same things as joy and grace. The weight of obligations and their consequences are too profound
to induce automatic rejoicing. But what really makes the picture so poignant is that, all the compliance by a human
notwithstanding, the will of Allah can always override all the good works a person may have accumulated. It is easy
to believe that God has it in his power to forgive a person’s sins without the need for any atonement. This
understanding of forgiveness, however, leaves open a frightening uncertainty, since we can never have any assurance
about God’s verdict for each individual on the day of judgment. For example, the first two caliphs (who are considered
exemplary in their lives) expressed feelings of terror on their deathbeds.

9.2 Folk Islam

For virtually any religion, in addition to its various schools, denominations, and sects, it is possible to encounter
a wide gulf between the “standard” version of the religion, which is the way it is being taught in the books and by its
leaders, and the folk version of the religion, which is the way the religion is actually lived out on a day-to-day basis
by the common people. Since Islam so heavily stresses the transcendence of God it stands out as a religion in which
the gulf between the standard form and the folk version has become particularly wide.
If a Muslim population is living in an area with another dominant religion, and it appears that this other religion
meets needs the Islam does not, the result is often a syncretism in which the elements of the other religion are
incorporated into Islamic practice. Sufism developed as a way of addressing the “hunger for the heart” for those who
“longed for a faith that has reality for the individual.” Wahhabite Islam, the version practiced by the Taliban, was
founded precisely to eliminate the practices of folk Islam.
Folk Mulsims carry out the basic duties of the five pillars and observe other Islamic obligations, but their goal is
not the worship of Allah for its own sake but rather to tap into the sources of power and blessing that Islam provides.
Life is too large and complicated for individual humans to manage by themselves, and people always look for solutions
that will provide immediate aid. For example, a common phenomenon is that people who have manifested a great
amount of devotion during their lives may be venerated as saints, and those who admire them visit their tombs in order
to say prays and receive special blessings. Additionally, practices of folk Islam are frequently geared toward spiritual
protection from the malicious spirits (jinn), curses, or the “evil eye.” In fact, in some areas, this second aspect is so
overwhelming that one could conclude that folk Islam is more animism than theism.

10. Pantheistic Monism: A Journey to the Far East

We have discovered that our reason leads us from naturalism to nihilism, which is hard to transcend. Is it possible
that we need not abandon naturalism but say that our reason cannot be trusted? Existentialism went part way down
this route. Also, since the West has a history of quarrelling over “doctrines” then let us call a moratorium on quarelling
and even distinguishing intellectually at all. Perhaps any usefull doctrine will do. Third, if all our activism to produce
positive change and social betterment go unrewarded, or are even detrimental then lets stop doing and raise our quality
of life by simply being.
The beginning of the modern western world’s interest in Eastern philosophy is the 1893 Parliament of World
Religions and the rejection of middle class life and values in the 1960s. With its antirationalism, syncretism, quetism,
lack of technology simple living, and its radically different religious framework, the East is attractive to some.
Pantheistic monism underlies the Hindu Advaita Vedanta system of Shankara, the Transcendental Meditation of
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, much of the Upanishads, and Hermann Hesse’s Siddhartha, which is a popular 1970s novel.
Buddhism shares many key points but differs on ultimate reality. The description of Zen is that part of Buddhism most
popular in the West. Hare Knishna also differs in the respect that it holds reality not to be monistic (that only one
impersonal element constitutes reality) but rather ultimately personal.

10.1 Basic Eastern Pantheistic Monism

1, 2, 3a) Atman is Brahman; that is, the soul of each and every human being is the soul of the cosmos.
Atman (the essence, the soul, of any person) is Brahman (the essence, the Soul of the whole cosmos). Effectively,
each person is God. But God must be defined in pantheistic terms: God is the one, infinite-impersonal, ultimate reality.
That is, God is the cosmos. God is all that exists; nothing exists that is not God. If anything that is not God appears to
exist, it is maya, illusion, and does not truly exist. It is not our separateness that gives us reality, it is our oneness, the
fact that we are Brahman and Brahman is (the) One.
Ultimate reality is beyond description; it just is. In fact, we cannot express in language the nature of this oneness.
We can only “realize” it by becoming it, by seizing our unity, our “godhead,” and resting there beyond any distinction
whatsoever. But the West is not used to this as the laws of thought deman distinction: A is A, but A is not non-A. To
know reality is to distinguish one thing from another, label it, catalog it, recognize its subtle relation to other objects
in the cosmos. In the East to “know” reality is to pass beyond distiction, to “realize” the oneness of all by being one
with all. Not realizing our oneness leads to the second proposition.
1, 2, 3b) Some things are more one than others.
This proposition is a way of saying that reality is a hierarchy of appearances. Some “things” are closer than others
to being one with the One. The ladder is common: inorganic and organic matter, animals, and humans who are also
hierarchical with the Perfect Master, the Enlightened One, the guru nearest to pure being. “Realizing” oneness implies
consciousness but when one is one with the One, consciousness completely disappears as it is discared as useless
through meditative techniques along with everything else.
1, 2, 3c) Many (if not all) roads lead to the One.
Since ideas are not formally important, orientation to oneness is not so much a matter of doctrine but technique.
Some suggest chanting a mantra, a seemingly meaningless Sanskrit word sometimes selected by a guru and given in
secret to an initiate. Others recommend meditation on a mandala, a highly structured, often fascinatingly ornate and
beautiful circular image, symbol of the totality of reality. Others require endless repetition of prayers or acts of
obeisance. All of these intellectually contentless methods of mediation require quietness and solitude. One attempts
to get on the vibe level with reality, to turn one’s soul to the harmony of the cosmos and ultimately to the one solid,
nonharmonic, nondual, Ultimate vibration – Brahman, the One. To achieve this is the Eastern monistic way of
achieving salvation.
1, 2, 3d) To realize one’s oneness with the cosmos is to pass beyond personality.
Since Atman is Brahman and Brahman is impersonal then human beings in their essence are impersonal. This is
diametrically opposed to theism because the chief characteristic of God and people is His and our personality.
Personality means an individual has complexity at the core of his or her being. Personality demands self-consciousness
and self-determinancy. In pantheism the chief characteristic about God is Oneness, a sheer abstract, undifferentiated,
nondual unity. For any of us to “realize” our being is for us to abandon our complex personhood and enter the
undifferentiated One.
According to the Mandukya Upanishad, Atrman has “four conditions”: waking life, dreaming life, deep sleep,
and “the awakened life of pure consciousness.” Notice that the highest state is the state most approaching total
oblivion, for one goes from the activity of ordinary life in the external world to the activity of dreaming to the
nonactivity, nonconsciousness, of deep sleep and ends in a reversal of the first three, “pure consciousness.”
“Pure consciousness” has nothing to do with the consciousness the western society is familiar with. “Pure
consciousness” is sheer union with the One, pure being, and not “consciousness” at all, for that demands duality – a
subject to be conscious and an object to be conscious of. Even self-consciousness demands duality in the self. This
explains why Eastern thought often leads to inaction and quietism.

4) Death is the end of individual, personal existence, but it changes nothing essential in an individual’s nature.
Human death signals the end of an individual embodiment of Atman; it signals as well the end of a person. But
the soul, Atman, is indestructible. No human being in the sense of individual person survives death. Atman survives
but Atman is impersonal. When Atman is reincarnated it becomes another person. Eastern thought teaches the
immortality of the soul but not the personal and individual immortality. But the personal is illusory so nothing of value
perishes; everything of value is eternal. This explains why life is cheap in the East. Individual embodiements of life
are of no value. But in essence they are of infinite value; for in essence they are infinite.

5) To realize one’s oneness with the cosmos is to pass beyond knowledge. The principle of non-contradiction does not
apply where the ultimate reality is concerned.
From the statement Atman is Brahman, it also follows that human beings in their essence are beyond knowledge.
Knowledge and language, like personality, demands duality – a knower and a known, speaker and listener, subject
and predicate. Ergo, language cannot convey the truth about reality. This is why Eastern thought is nondoctrinal since
no doctrine can be true in the sense that it could give the full and complete description of reality. Perhaps some can
be more useful at bringing a subject to unity with the One, but then even a lie or a myth could be useful. But if there
can be not true statement there can also be no lie.

6) To realize one’s oneness with the cosmos is to pass beyond good and evil; the cosmos is perfect at every moment.
Karma is the notion that one’s present fate is the result of past action, especially in a former existence. This ties
it to reincarnation, which follows from the general principle that nothing that is real (that is, no soul) ever passes out
of existence. On its way back to the One, however, it goes through whatever series of illusory forms its past action
requires. Karma is the Eastern version of reaping what you sow but there is no God to give forgiveness and so
confession is of no avail. A person can choose his future acts; thus karma does not imply determinism or fatalism.
This suggests a moral universe in which people should do the good. However, the basis for doing good is not so
that it will be done or for the benefit of others. Karma demands that every soul suffers for its past “sins”, so there is
no value in alleviating suffering. The soul so helped will have to suffer later. So there is no agape love, giving love,
nor would any love benefit the recipent. One does good deeds in order to attain unity with the One and therefore doing
good is first and foremost a self-helping way of life.
Second, all actions are merely part of the whole world of illusion. The only “real” reality is ultimate reality, and
that is beyond differentiation, beyond good and evil. Like true and false, the distinction between good and evil fades
away. Everything is good is identical to nothing is good or everything is evil.

7) To realize one’s oneness with the One is to pass beyond time. Time is unreal. History is cyclical.
History has no meaning where reality is concerned.In fact, our task as people who would realize their godhead is
to transcend history. This helps to explain why Christians, who place great emphasis on history, find their presentation
of the historical basis of Christianity almost entirely ignored in the East. In the East, yesterday’s facts are not
meaningful in themselves. They do not bear on us today unless they have a here-and-now meaning; and if they have
a here-and-now meaning, then their facticity as history is of no concern. The Eastern scriptures are filled with
epigrams, parables, fables, stories, myths, songs, haiku, hymns, epics, but almost no history in the sense of events
recorded because they took place in an unrepeatable space-time context.
To be concerned with history would be to invert the whole hierarchy. The unique is not the real; only the absolute
and all-encompassing is real. If history is valuable, it will be so as myth and myth only, for myth takes us out of
particularity and lifts us to essence. Despite notable attempts of some, like D.T. Suzuki, to insist that Buddhism is not
nihilistic, it will usually seem so to Western readers.

8) Core commitments among individual Eastern pantheistic monists may vary widely, but one consistent commitment
is, by the elimination of desire, to achieve salvation, that is, to realize one’s union with pure consciousness, the One
(Hinduism) or the Void (Buddhism).
Hinduism and Buddhism both locate the problem with human beings in their separateness from the really real,
the One or the Void. Human beings live an illusory material existence in an illusory material world, desiring illusory
goals. The result is suffering. To avoid suffering, one should eliminate this desire. Hinduism focuses on a variety of
meditation practices. Buddhism presents an eightfold path: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right
livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right consciousness.

10.2 The Buddhist Difference

Both Hinduism and Buddhism emphasize the singularity of prime reality but there is a key difference. Advaita
vedanta (nondualist Hinduism) holds that final reality is Brahman, the One. The One has, or better, is Being itself.
From Brahman (the One) emanates the cosmos (the many). Buddhist monism holds that final reality is the Void. Final
reality is nothing that can be named or grasped. To say that it is nothing is incorrect, but to say that it is something is
equally incorrect. That would degrade its essence by reducing it to a thing among things. The Hindu One is still a
thing among things, though it is the chief among things. The Void is not a thing at all. It is instead the origin of every
thing.
This leads to a different understanding of human beings as well. For a Hindu, an individual person is a soul
(Atman) and thus has substantial (spiritual, not material) reality because it is an emanation of Brahman (reality itself).
In death an individual soul loses its bodily residence but is reincarnated in another individual – a sort of transmigration
of the soul.
For a Buddhist, an individual person is a not-soul. There is no namable nature at the core of each person. In fact,
each person is an aggregate of previous persons. There is not so much the transmigration of the soul as the
disappearance of a person at death and the reconstitution of another person from the five aggregates or “existence
factors”: body, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness.
Religious practice, techniques of meditation, differ too. Hindus will commonly repeat a mantra, like Om, and thus
induce a trance or trance-like state that is taken to be an ascent toward godhood. Buddhists may likewise repeat a
mantra, but their goal is to reach a state of realizing their root in nonbeing – the nonentity of their “face before they
were born.” In any case, the attempt is made to empty the mind of all analytical thought, for ultimate reality is not
only nonbeing, it is also “no-mind,” that is, a mind that does not analyze does not analyse what it is grasping but grasps
what is only as what it is.

10.3 East and West: A Problem in Communication

Cyclical history, paths that cross, doctrines that disagree, evil that is good, knowledge that is ignorance, time that
is eternal, reality that is unreal: all these are the shifting, paradoxical, even contradictory masks that veil the One. If
we point to its irrationality, Easterners reject reason as a category. If we point to the disappearance of morality, the
Easterner scorns the duality that is required for the distinction. An understanding that the East and West operate on
two very different sets of assumptions seems to be the starting point for any dialogue.
11. Postmodernism: The Vanished Horizon
Over a hundred years after Nietzsche, the acknowledgement of the death of God finally reached the ears of man,
thus beginning the era of postmodernism. Postmodernism is actually not “post” anything; it is the last move of the
modern, the result of the modern taking its own commitments seriously. Two major intellectual shifts have occurred
over the past centuries. From a ‘premodern’ concern for a just society based on revelation from a just God to a
‘modern’ attempt to use universal reason as the guide to justice to a ‘postmodern’ despair of any universal standard
for justice. Our society now finds itself in an age afloat in a pluralism of perspectives, a plethora of philosophical
possibilities, but with no dominant notion of where to go or how to get there. A near future of cultural anarchy seems
inevitable.
How does one define the indefinite? Top scholars have long debated and disagreed on the core of the theory
without a centre. However, some common elements can be noted, namely “fragments, hybridity, relativism, play,
parody, and camp.” Academic postmodernism is more a loosely structured constellation of ephemeral disciplines like
cultural studies, gay and lesbian studies, science studies and post-colonial theory making it long on attitude and short
on argument. The term is usually thought to have first arisen in architechture, as architects moved from unadorned,
impersonal boxes of concrete, glass, and steel to complex shapes and forms drawing motifs from the past without
regard to their original purpose or function. But the term became a key word in cultural analysis when French
sociologist Jean-Francois Lyotard defined postmodernism as “incredulity towards narratives” and used the term to
signal a shift in cultural legitimation. No longer is there a single story, a mettanarative, or worldview that ties the
Western world together. It is not just that there have long been many stories, each of which gives its binding power to
the social group that takes it as its own. But with postmodernism no single story can have more credibility than any
other.

11.1 From Being to Knowing

1) The first question postmodernism addresses is not what is there or how we know what is there but how language
functions to construct meaning itself. In other words, there has been a shift in “first things” from being to knowing to
constructing meaning.
In reflecting on this report’s own set of presuppositions, some have challenged the order of the seven questions.
In particular, premodernity and especially theism puts being before knowing whereas naturalism puts knowing before
being. This shift came with Descartes who thought he could doubt everything except his own thoughts. From this he
argues that God necessarily exists and that reality is dual – matter and mind. Descartes championed the autonomy of
human reason, freeing society from the ancients and giving way to intellectual progress on the basis that the human
mind itself can come to know the truth.
Nietzsche completed what Descartes started, as Nietzsche took doubt beyond Descartes, rejecting his certitude
about the existence of the self. In other words, what if it is the thinking that creates the ‘I’ instead of the ‘I’ that creates
the thoughts? What if the activity of thinking does not require an agent but produces only the illusion of one? What if
there is only thinking – a fluid flow of language without discernible origin, determinate meaning or direction. After
Nietzsche no thoughtful person could secure easy confidence in the objectivity of human reason. But as Nietzsche
pointed out in the parable of the madman, it takes a long time for ideas to sink into culture.

11.2 The Death of Truth and the Power of Language

2) The truth about the reality itself is forever hidden from us. All we can do is tell stories.
If we begin with the seemingly knowing self and follow the implications , we are left with a solitary self (solipism)
and then not even that. Postmodernism holds that those who hang onto their own stories as if they were the master
story, encompassing or explaining all other stories, are under an illusion. We can have meaning, for all these stories
are more or less meaningful, but we cannot have truth. Nothing we can know can be checked against reality. Language
is a human construct that we cannot determine the ‘truthfullness’ of, only its usefulness. Truth is whatever we can get
others to agree to. If we can get them to use our language, then – like the stong poets – Moses, Jesus, Plato, Freud –
our story is as true as any story will ever get. In short, there is only pragmatic truth, not truth of correspondencce. So
in postmodernism there is a movement from the Christian ‘premodern’ notion of a revealed determinate metanarrative
to the modern notion of the autonomy of human reason with access to truth of correspondence to the postmodern
notion that we create truth as we construct languages that serve our purposes, though these very languages deconstruct
upon analysis.
3) All narratives mask a play for power. Any one narrative used as a meta-narrative is oppressive.
If there is no truth of correspondence then there are only stories, that when believed, give the storyteller power
over others. Several major postmodern theorists have taken up this angle, notably Michel Foucault. Any story but
one’s own is oppressive. Since there is no way of knowing who’s story really is then all we have is our definitions
which benefit some and not others. To reject oppression is to reject the stories that society tells us. Hence we can trace
the transition from the premodern acceptance of the inspired metanarrative written by holy men of God to the ‘modern’
universal belief in reason yeilding truth to a ‘postmodern’ reduction of all metanarratives as power plays.
11.3 The Death of the Substantial Self and Being Good without God
4) Human Beings make themselves who they are by the languages they construct about themselves.
We make ourselves by what we choose to do. For Nietzsche the only self worth living is the Ubermensch, the one
who has risen above the conventional herd and has fashioned himself as a ‘man beyond man’. However few can do
this as most of us have ourselves constructed by the conventional language of our age and society. So again there is a
shift from the ‘premodern’ theistic notion that human beings are dignified by being created in the image of God to the
‘modern’ notion that human beings are the product of their DNA template which is the result of unplanned evolution
to the ‘postmodern’ notion of an insubstantial self constructed by the language it uses to describe itself.
5) Ethics, like knowledge, is a linguistic construct. Social good is whatever society takes it to be.
This is a postmodern version of an older cultural relativism that takes truth to be what we decide it is. Individual
freedom remains if the person agrees with how society draws its ethical lines. Postmodernism can make no normative
judgement; it can only observe and comment. So much the worse by those who find themselves oppressed by the
majority.

11.4 The Panoramic Sweep of Postmodernism

The value in literature resides not strictly within a text, but in a complex interaction between what a text says and
what the reader wants and needs. This view takes literature not as ‘literature’ but as linguistics, politics, or an
instrument of social change. In history there is a trend away from modern historicism ( that the meaning of events is
to be found in their historical context) to a denial of the fixity of the past, of the reality of the past apart from what the
historian chooses to make of it, and thus any objective truth about the past. Postmodern history does not use
imagination to re-create for readers a sense of the past itself but creates a past in the image of the present and in accord
with the judgment of the historian. The move away from academic footnotes only exacerbates this situation. The
content and context of history should be a generous series of methodologically reflexisive studies of the makings of
the histories of postmodernity itself. Furthermore, scholars will become reluctant to attempt any thoroughgoing
critique of the existing social order. In other words, history becomes reflection on histories of reflection.

11.5 Postmodernism: A Critique

Some aspects of postmodernism seem useful, if not true (as per theism). First, postmodernism’s critique of the
optimism of naturalism is often on target. Second, the postmodern recognition that language is closely associated with
power is also apt. However, if we accept the radicial form this suspicion takes then we end up in a contradiction or at
least an anomaly. If all linguistic utterances are power plays, then that utterance itself is a power play and no more
likely to be proper than any other. Third, attention to the social conditions under which we understand the world can
alert us to our limited perspective as finite human beings. But a radical sociology of knowledge is also self-refuting.
If we are only the product of nature and society then so is our view that we are only the product of nature and society.
More critically, postmodernism’s rejection of all metanarratives is itself a metanarrative. Second, the idea that we
have no access to reality and that we can only tell stories about it is self-referentially incoherent. Put crudely, this idea
can’t account for itself, for it tells us something that, on its own account, we can’t know. Third, deconstructive
postmodernism’s view of the indeterminacy of language raises the question about how to understand deconstruction’s
own propositions. There is an unresolvable paradox in using language to claim that language cannot make
unambiguous claims. Fourth, postmodernism’s critique of the autonomy and sufficiency of human reason rests on the
autonomy and sufficiency of human reason. In short, the postmodernist is boxed into subjective awareness consisting
of an ongoing set of mere language games.

12. The New Age: A Separate Universe

Eastern mysticism provides a way out for those caught in the West’s nihilistic bind. However, it is foreign and
even watered down versions require a radical reorientation from the West’s normal mode of grasping reality.
Numerous writers have sought to propagate New Age ideals and integrate them into mainstream North American
culture, including, Marilyn Ferguson, Shirely MacLaine, Carlos Castaneda, Jean Houston, Fritjof Capra, Deepak
Chopra, Eckhart Tolle, Ken Wilber, and journals Body & Soul and Yoga Journal.
Many New Age thinkers are expecting a ‘quantum leap forward’ and the introduction of a new man and a new
age. Basing their hope on a non-theistic origins theory (i.e., evolution), they see humankind as evolving in stages
towards higher states of consciousness and societies evolving in stages towards greater comprehensiveness and
sophistication. New Agers read ancient religious texts or biographical accounts of those who claim to have made a
breakthrough and wait for it to become more widespread. The use of psychedelic mind altering drug in the 1970s has
given way to hope in a ‘techno-shamanism’ or ‘trans-humanism’ which is humanity transcending bio-physical barriers
by escaping into the digital world. Some have turned to a variety of ‘holistic’ and alternative medicine to achieve
optimum physical and spiritual health. Critics of this hope want assurance that the prophesised euphoric bliss is more
than an opium pipe dream.

11.2 The Basic Tenets of the New Consciousness

1) Whatever the nature of being (idea or matter; energy or particle), the self is the kingpin – the prime reality. As
human beings grow in their awareness and grasp this fact, the human race is on the verge of a radical change in
human nature; even now we see harbingers of transformed humanity and prototypes of the New Age.
New Age proponents don’t agree on what exactly this self is, be it an idea, spirit, ‘psycho-magnetic field’, or the
unity that binds the diversity of cosmic energy. But they do agree that the self - the consciousness-center of the human
- is indeed the centre of the universe. And more than that, as the self is said to create and recreate the universe, pulling
energy from the ‘void’ and establishing reality. If one is absolute supreme, the “I AM,” then it is obvious that self-
deception is the weakness of the new consciousness.
2) The cosmos, while unified in the self, is manifested in two more dimensions: the visible universe, accessible through
ordinary consciousness, and the invisible universe (or Mind at Large), accessible through altered states of
consciousness.
In the basic picture of the cosmos, then, the self (in the center) is surrounded first by the visible universe to which
it has direct access through the five senses and which obeys the “laws of nature” discovered by natural science. The
second realm is the invisible universe to which the self has access through such ‘doors of perception’ such as drugs,
meditation, trance, biofeedback, acupuncture, ritualized dance, certain kinds of music, etc.
Human groups are viewed ‘societies of island universes’ and while distinct each universe (i.e. each self) is similar
enough to other universes to be able to communicate. As each self is the universe, the self is not capable of perceiving
or remembering all that has happened. Thus, comprehension of the universe is possible because the brain acts as a
reducing valve by filtering out what is not important.
New Agers hold to the uniformity of cause and effect but preach that the universe is open to reordering by the
self, especially if one realizes its oneness with the One. However, the invisible, Mind at Large, cosmic God
consciousness does not obey the laws as time becomes elastic, and energy and power become available. It takes time,
we are told, for the self to realize that it has made up the rules of reality. But when one does, one can go on to generate
whatever reality one desires.
Of those who have altered their state of consciousness and connected with the other reality, a change in luminosity
is often reported. For some, Mind at Large is not a separate reality but ordinary reality as it really is. A second
distinctive characteristic is that this realm is populated by many beings, be it persons in past lives, or ‘helper’,
‘guardian’, spirits of various sorts.
3) The core experience of the New Age is cosmic consciousness, in which ordinary categories of space, time and
morality tend to disappear.
Underlying this proposition is the notion that seeing is believing: that is, anything that the self sees, perceives,
conceives, imagines, or believes exists. The New Age offers a radical and simple resolution to the problem of
distinguishing between appearance and reality: by flatly denying the distinction. Perception takes two forms, first one
for the ordinary universe which is known as waking consciousness or “straight thinking.” The second is actually
composed of multiple states of consciousness, some say three, others six. Central to cosmic consciousness is the
unitary experience: first, the experience of perceiving the wholeness of the cosmos; second, the experience of
becoming one with the whole cosmos; and finally, the experience of going beyond even that oneness with the cosmos
to recognize that the self is the generator of all reality and in that sense is both the cosmos and its maker.
It is important to note that not every altered state of consciousness is an euphoric experience. Some report bouts
with demons, feelings of the overbearing weight of the judgment seat, and visions of the lows of hell. When traversing
in an unknown area, New Age proponents recommend a guide, at least during the early attempts. This highlights a
contradiction since if one is capable of creating what it wishes then why the nightmarish visions? And why would
God need a guide?
Not all proponents of the new consciousness agree that the category of morality disappears but it must if there are
no metaphysical distinctions. Nevertheless, they agree that it is better to ‘love’ than to ‘hate’ and better to help usher
in the new age than to just watch the old collapse.
4) Physical death is not the end of the self; under the experience of cosmic consciousness, the fear of death is removed.
New Age proponents claim that humans are a unity beyond the body. The reason for this is that if one ‘knows’
that one is the be all maker of the universe and that one’s consciousness is more than a physical manifestation, then
there is no need to fear death. This is repeatedly confirmed by altered states of cosmic consciousness such as through
near death or out of body experiences, past-life recall, which can be triggered by acupuncture and spiritism, or from
LSD trips.
5) Three distinct attitudes are taken to the metaphysical question of the nature of reality under the general framework
of the New Age: (1) the occult version, in which the beings and things perceived in states of altered consciousness
exist apart from the self that is conscious, (2) the psychedelic version, in which these things and beings are
projections of the conscious self, and (3) the conceptual relativist version, in which the cosmic consciousness is the
conscious activity of a mind using one of many non-ordinary models of reality, none of which is any “truer” than
any other.
There is no use denying that some people have had strange experiences. If a person reports a strange experience,
he or she could be lying, misremembering, or embellishing but we could not critique the account except on a priori
basis, that is, if it is self-contradictory or doesn’t hold under cross examination. Each person with an altered state has
unique experiences but they are analogous in some ways, for example, with light, timeless, beings, etc.
The first answer, deriving from paganism, suggests that cosmic consciousness lets one see, react to, receive power
from and perhaps begin to control the spiritual beings that reside in the other dimension. On the one hand this presents
a contradiction because if the self is the sole maker of the universe then who are these beings? On the other hand, one
may be the maker if one can wrest power from the beings for one’s own use. Either way, occult bondage is a frequent
problem, even for those who dabble in this area with a level of expertise.
The second answer points to the origin of reality in the psyche of the person who experiences it. This view is
more consistent with the first proposition as one does not so much open doors of perception but creates a new reality
to perceive. If one’s self is the creator of the vision, then heaven and hell are merely inner constructs.
The third answer holds to a radical distinction between objective reality and perceived reality. It is as if our manner
of perception is deeply influenced by our environment and symbol systems. Boring from postmodernism, the
Benjamin Whorf hypothesis states that “the structure of the language one habitually uses influences the manner in
which one understands his environment. The picture of the universe shifts from tongue to tongue.” The conceptual
relativist version of the new consciousness worldview allows people to substitute one symbol system for another, that
is, one vision of reality for another. The only category left to determine between symbol systems is by considering
which one allows us what we want.
6) Human beings can understand reality because in a state of God-consciousness they directly perceive it.
Nonetheless, when New Age teachers present this view to others, they often cite the authority of ancient Scriptures
and other religious teachers.
The New Age knowledge of direct reality is not mediated by rational argument or any external authority. Rather,
the experience is the source and authority for the knowledge. Most people, however, do not have a direct knowledge
of their own divinity but need to be convinced of it through various methods, such as meditation. But to think that one
is God or can become a god is the primal sin of pride.
7) History as a record of events that actually occurred in the past is of little interest, but cosmic history which ends
with the deification of humanity, especially the individual human self, is seen as a great vision and a great hope.
New Age proponents do not hesitate to consider accounts of experience from throughout human history. But they
are more interested in the ‘experience’ induced by these events than with the significance of these events themselves.
The overall pattern of history is of considerable interest, as this impacts the human experience. First there was the
general evolutionary development of the cosmos, the formation of the earth and first organic matter, leading to the
development of higher life forms, including humanity, which now waits on the edge of a transition into a … new age:
the arrival of a new man and a new women.
8) New Agers are committed to realizing their own individual unity with the cosmos, creating and recreating it in their
own image.
By no means would all who refer to themselves as a part of the New Age would imitate Shirley MacLaine as she
runs up a California beach shouting, “I am God. I am God!” But behind the specific beliefs and practices of fully New
Age individuals is the hope held by each of them that each one is in the center of reality even though they have not
yet achieved a fully cosmic consciousness. Their commitment is to reach this goal.

12.5 Cracks in the New Consciousness

The first major problem with the New Age worldview is shared with naturalism and pantheistic monism, that is,
of a closed universe. The problems with the absence of a transcendent God are many, including the absence of ethical
distinctions, as discussed previously. The second problem is the host of demigods from another reality or projections
of the psyche. Either way, they must be placated with ritual incantations or meditation or drugs. But as the Bible
attests, we have no power over the occult realm except through Jesus Christ.
The third major difficulty with the new consciousness is its understanding of the nature of reality and of truth.
The New Age is incredibly syncretistic as it accepting as equal the languages and systems of many descriptions of
reality. Therefore, there is no truth of correspondence, only a pattern of inner coherence. This is actually
epistemological nihilism because it says that one cannot know what actually is but only what one experiences. The
flip side is that the self is god, maker of his own reality. But what meaning is there if one is all that exists?
Postscript
First of all, I would like to thank J. Sire, and others, because I find thinking in worldviews helpful since by doing
so we can compress every philosophy alternative to Christian theism into a finite number of categories that more or
less fit together on a single spectrum. However, I am beginning to form my own ideas on how I would develop a
system of worldviews.

First, I suspect that certain very fundamental beliefs, like of a triune-creator-God, logically deduce to only one
possible conclusion. If we were to fully understand just a few basic Scripture verses then we could develop the full
Gospel, of course with its help. This idea is discussed below as how I would descibe all worldviews as an answer to
one question, instead of eight. Also, this means that those religions or worldviews that claim to hold to some
fundamental aspect but not its logical conclusion (ie salvation by faith) have an inconsistency. I suspect that in such
cases the fundamental belief is held to so that it can be twisted solely to produce a different conclusion. Such
worldviews would not be partially true but entirely false because some erroreous belief is most prefered and allowed
to override (reinterpret) a correct and more fundamental belief.

It seems that it is human nature to desire to know God before we do know Him. We follow, or attempt to follow,
His commands before we know them personally because they are written on our hearts and on our conscience.
However, some people do not prefer the ways of the Lord.... why...what does this mean? This is an important aspect
of the ‘Christian worldview.’ There is something that we intrinsically prefer, that we choose or deny, value and give
priority. It is possible that this fundamental orientation of the heart, mindset, committment, basic preferance, is what
we are driven by to seek and accept the Lord or reject His offering. It is more than a misunderstanding of the Gospel
and a hatred for ‘religion’ that keeps people from Christ. Either the Gospel is a sweet fragrance for those who seek
Him or it is foolishness....why? Why do people react differently to the Gospel? Is it that prior seeds have been planted
in them, or their upbringing and personal experiences, or socio-economic environment? No. I suspect it is because of
a very natural willingness to be positive and to prefer good & truth over evil and subjectiveness. It has to do with the
heart....the heart.

Sire states (Universe, 5th ed., pg. 10) that Naugle has introduced a link between the concept of worldview and
what many books of the Bible refer to as ‘heart.’ But what I am suggesting is that there is an orientation of the heart
that preceedes our adoption of the Christian worldview, for those who do. Now I don’t want to begin to discuss
predetermination and free will before I am capable of doing so. However I would like to point out that Romans 9
discusses God creating people for different purposes. But even so these verses, I think, do not refer to their salvation
and so the question why people react differently to the Gospel may still remain.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses,

I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have
compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth
mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that
I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou

wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O
man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why
hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one
vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to
make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore

prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
(Romans 9:14-24 KJV)

There is another related issue I’d like to discuss. That is if one does reject Christ as his or her saviour then they
are doing so not by accepting, or keeping with any of the eight main alternative worldviews, say, naturalism or
paganism, but rather they do so by acquiescing nothing less than worship of themself and Satan. Now many non-
Christians don’t consider themselves to being doing this but ultimately it is so since at the end of life there is only
heaven or hell and eternity with God or a lonely eternity with the devil. Obviously this is thoroughly Christian but I
am making two agruments here:
1) that there is an additional worldview not mentioned in Sire’s books.
2) that there are ultimately only two worldviews.

Currently, I can identify two varieties of this additional worldview, which is effectively satanism, that is extreme
beyond the new age. First there is entry level satanism, or luciferianism, which considers the serpent to have been
wrongly cursed in the Garden as, they believe, the devil was only trying to free humanity from the suffocating grip of
Yahweh. As a result such people have a very twisted, overly pragmatic, and indifferent ethical views. The other is
hardcore black theistic satanism that recognizes the sovereign authority and personal character of the Creator but
without worship of Him and instead worship and sacrifice is directed to Satan and his anti-christ. Filled with delusion
and rage, such people refuse to serve the Lord and would rather take up war against Him and His people, possibly in
spite of knowing they will loose.

It is a good thing to be able to take all possible perspectives and condense them into a ten worldviews. But can
we go further and categorize these worldviews into just two? I propose that all worldviews should be lined up on the
question asked by Jesus to Peter “who do you say I am?” (Matt 16:15). If we say that Jesus, the Son of man, is “the
Christ, the Son of the living God” then we essentially have the Gospel and more elements follow producing Christian
theism. If we do not say that Jesus Christ is the 2nd person of the God-head and the promised messiah, the only mediator
between God and man, then there are numerous ways to answer this question. All of this questions’s negative answers
can be divided and developed into worldviews, some being close and some far from what is traditionally, biblically,
Christian. As such, if this could be possible (and dare I say useful) then we have effectively classified all thought as
either that which conforms to the truth (Jn. 14:6) and which is built upon the only sure bedrock (Matt. 16:18) and that
which does not, in all the myriad ways of man’s speculation that it could possibly do so.

Moreover, and linking back to the above agrument, since denying Christ would essentially be worship of self
and Satan, we are ultimately faced with only two alternatives: good and evil. Based around this one question with
essentially only two answers is how I would develop a system of worldviews. And this is how I would interpret “seeing
the world in a grain of sand” (W. Blake, Auguries of Innocence, 1805). This view, I think, is in concord with all of
the Bible, but especially the ceation and fall. In Genesis 3 the “very good” work of God was corrupted, not by a
plurality of religions, but by a slight ignorance of Word of God (as Eve added to what God had said) influenced by
Satan himself and thereby resulting in human sin and separation from God.

It is possible that by being created in the image of God we have an innate longing for Him, like an infant who’s
face brightens up when his mother appears and saddens when she leaves momentarily. As discussed earlier, there
seems to be a fundamental orientation of the heart preceeding our recognition of our worldview. An eternal
committment not towards a particular religion or set of beliefs but rather towards either God and goodness or evil. I
wonder and hope it is possible to rightly divide all theology, philosophy, and comparative religion upon one significant
question, as described, and thereby simplfy even further our systems of thought and making even more obvious the
glory of God.
Annotated Bibliography
On Worldviews
Sire, J.W., The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, 5th ed. (InterVarsity Press, 2009).
This book helped to convince me of Christianity.
Sire, J. W., Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept (InterVarsity Press, 2004).
This book unpacks each specific characteristic of Sire’s definition of the worldview.
Sire, J.W., Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All? (InterVarsity Press, 1994).
In this book Sire talks at length about why one should choose one worldview over another.
Naugle, D., Worldview: The History of a Concept (Eerdmans, 2002).
Naugle gives an extended description of the biblical concept of the heart and his identification of it with the
worldview concept spawned the 4th edition of Sire’s Universe Next Door. It also surveys the origin , development,
and various versions of the concept from Immanuel Kant to Arthur Holmes and beyond, and presents his own
definition of the Christian worldview.
Marshall, Griffioen, and Mouw eds., Stained Glass: Worldviews and Social Science (Univ. Press of America, 1989).
A helpful collection of essays, especially by J.H. Olthuis, “On Worldviews.” Every expression of a worldview, it
is claimed, is deeply imbedded in the flow of history and the varying characteristics of language. Each expression
of any general worldview bears the marks of the culture out of which it comes and is therefore not absolute or
ahistorical. Therefore, each formulation of each worldview must be considered on its own merits, of course. But for
each of the worldviews Sire weighed and found wanting he knows of no formulation that does not contain problems
of inconsistency (p.282, 5th.)

Comparative Religion
Smart, N., Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs, 3rd ed. (Prentice Hall, 2000).
For a phenomenological and comparative religion approach.
Burnett, D., Clash of Worlds (Monarch Books, 2002).
Has a focus on religious worldviews.
Corduan, W., Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions (InterVarsity Press, 1998).
Neill, S., Christian Faith and Other Faiths (InterVarsity Press, 1984).
The above two books survey and evaluate several world religions.

Christianity
The following recently published books offer decent expositions of the Christian worldview:
Holmes, A.F., Contours of a Christian Worldview (Eerdmans, 1983); The Making of a Christian Mind (InterVarsity
Press, 1985).
Phillips, G.W. & Brown, W.E., Making Sense of Your World from a Biblical Viewpoint (Moody Press, 1991).
Walsh, B. & Middleton, R., The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian World View (InterVarsity Press, 1984);
The Truth is Stranger Than It Used to Be (InterVarsity Press, 1995).
Sire, J.W., Discipleship of the Mind (InterVarsity Press, 1990).
Pearcey, N., Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Crossway, 2004).
Bertrand, M.J., (Re)thinking Worldview: Learning to Think, Live and Speak in This World (Crossway, 2007).
Kraft, C.H., Worldview for Christian Witness (William Carey Library Publishers, 2008).
Hiebert, P.G., Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change (Baker, 2008).

The following books offer a consideration of the theistic concept of God from the standpoint of academic
philosophy:
Gilson, E., God and Philosophy (Yale University Press, 1941).
Mascall, E.L., He Who Is: A Study in Traditional Theism (Libra, 1943).
Owen, H.P., Concepts of Deity (Macmillan, 1971).

The following books discuss a variety of metaphysical and philosophical theological issues:
Hasker, W., Metaphysics (InterVarsity Press, 1983).
Evans, S.C., Philosophy of Religion (InterVarsity Press, 1985).
Morris, T.V., Our Idea of God (InterVarsity Press, 1991).
Moreland, J.P. & Craig, W.L., Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (InterVarsity Press, 2003).

For a more extended treatments of epistemology from a Christian perspective, see:

Holmes, A.F., All Truth is God’s Truth (InterVarsity Press, 1977).
Wood, W.J., Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous (InterVarsity Press, 1998).
For an extended analysis of the problem of evil, see:
Kreeft, P., Making Sense out of Suffering (Servant, 1986).
Blocher, H., Evil and the Cross (InterVarsity Press, 1994).
Wenham, J. The Enigma of Evil (Zondervan, 1985).
Schaeffer, F.A., Genesis in Space and Time (InterVarsity Press, 1972).
Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity.
The opening argument of Lewis’s book is on the universality of the notion of good and evil.

Christianity and Science:

Lewis, C.S., Miracles (Fontana, 1960).
This book contains an excellent description of what an open universe involves.
Ratzsch, D., Science and Its Limits (InterVarsity Press, 2000).
Pearcey, N.R. & Thaxton, C., The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy (Crossway, 1994).
These books are helpful to understand the Christian understanding of science.
Bube, R., Putting It All Together: Seven Patterns for Relating Science and the Christian Faith (University Press of
America, 1995).
Jaki, S., Chance or Reality and Other Essays (University Press of America, 1986).
Plantinga, A., Warrant and Proper Function (Oxford, 1993).
This book rejects Darwin’s idea that the mind developed by chance and natural selection.

Deism
Hill, J., Faith in the Age of Reason (InterVarsity Press, 2004).
Taylor, C., A Secular Age (Belknap, 2007).
These books detail the transition from theism to deism and beyond.
Bloom, A., The Closing of the American Mind (Simon & Schuster, 1987).
This book argues for basing our values on more than commitment and decision.

Islam
Bavinck, J.H., The Church Between Temple and Mosque (Eerdmans, 1981).
For an approach to worldview analysis with an even more individual and personal focus.
Chapman, C., The Cross and the Crescent: Responding to the Challenge of Islam (InterVarsity Press, 2003).
Haneef, S., What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims (Kazi Publications, 1979).
Moucarry, C., The Prophet and the Messiah: An Arab Christian’s Perspective on Islam and Christianity
(InterVarsity Press, 2001).
These books take up the challenge of dealing more intently with the spcific details of each worldview – where
possible internal inconsistencies are, the differing conception of the nature and character of Allah and God, the
historical evidence for the nature and character of Jesus and Mohammad, and the reasons for the authority afforded
their two foundational scriptures (the Bible and the Qur’an).

Eastern Religion
Guinness, O., The Dust of Death (Crossway, 1994).
Includes a Christian critique of the Western trend towards the East.

Postmodernism
The following are presentations and critiques of the postmodern worldview:
Best, S. & Kellner, D., Postmodern Theory (Guilford, 1991).
Connor, S., Postmodernist Culture (Blackwell, 1989).
Burnham, F.B., Postmodern Theology: Christian Faith in a Pluralist World (Harper San Fransico, 1989).
Borgmann, A., Crossing the Postmodern Divide (University of Chicago Press, 1992).
Toulmin, S., Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (Free Press, 1990).

The following are introductions to recent literary theory:

Lundin, R., The Culture of Interpretation (Eerdmans, 1993).
Stevens, B.K. & Stewart, L.L., A Guide to Literary Criticism and Research, 3rd ed. (Harcourt Brace College, 1996).
Walhout, C. & Ryken, L., Contemporary Literary Theory: A Christian Appraisal (Eerdmans, 1991).
Mitchell, W.J.T., Against Theory (University of Chicago Press, 1985).
The journals The Christian Scholar’s Review and Christianity and Literature.

New Age
Groothuis, D.R., Unmasking the New Age (InterVarsity Press, 1986); Confronting the New Age (InterVarsity Press,
1988); Jesus in an Age of Controversy (Harvest House, 1996).
These books contribute to a clearer and more comphrensive definition of the New Age worldview. The later deals
with the New Age concept of Jesus.
Herrick, J.A., The Making of the New Spirituality (InterVarsity Press, 2003).
Raschke, C.A., The Interruption of Eternity: Modern Gnosticism and the Origins of the New Religious Consciousness
(Nelson-Hall, 1980).
Herrick’s book argues that the roots of the New Age movement originate in ancient Gnosticism and can be seen
in subsequent stages of Western civilization and emerging into a ‘new religious synthesis.’

God Loves You

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him
shall not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16).
All Are Sinners
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
As it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one” (Romans 3:10).
Jesus Christ: God’s Remedy for Sin
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord
(Romans 6:23).
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to
those who believe in His name (John 1:12).
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day
according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:34).
Our Response
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from
all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).
Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved (Romans 10:13).
Assurance As a Believer
That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised
Him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9).
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life,
and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death and into life (John 5:24).
But these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and
that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:31).
Next Steps
Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said,
“No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, I do not condemn you either. Go, and sin no more (John 8:10-
11).
But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18).