Chapter II

In Modern Times, Paul Johnson suggests that uncertainty is the attitude that
characterizes man since early in the twentieth century. He explains that the
theory of relativity of Einstein, the instability of the international situation, and the
declaration of Nietzsche that God is dead have caused man to live in a world
without direction and at the mercy of a relativistic universe. 1

There is a painting by Francis Bacon (1949) called Head VI which expresses

the terror of contemporary man. It shows a Catholic cardinal seated within a
glass cube as if he were in an exhibition. His head is disappearing from the nose
and above, showing only black shadows. The only part of his head that you can
see clearly is his mouth, open in a spine-tingling scream. Curiously, this painting
reflects a reaction to the philosophy held by previous modern philosophers,
including another man by the same name, Francis Bacon, from the 16 th century.
He was an empiricist who believed in reason, inductive logic, and the scientific
method.

What happened between the first Francis Bacon and the second? People
realized that, if the modern philosophers were right, then man lost his dignity and
meaning. If everything is a result of an impersonal process, as these
philosophers had proposed, then in order to be consistent, they must admit that
their own thoughts are also part of that impersonal process, and that they mean
absolutely nothing. No wonder that the man of the twentieth century is screaming
desperately like Head VI.

Chapter IV

Current self-destructive world views

Richard B. Ramsay
Translated from Chapter IV from Integridad Intelectual

During a period of my life, I was afraid to read philosophy and non-Christian

literature, because I thought I might lose my faith. I remember once when I
starting reading Nausea by Jean Paul Sartre; it really did make me sick! I had to
put it down, and only years later could I finally pick it up and read it. However,
after understanding more about other world views, I have seen that people are
very uncertain, that non-Christian philosophies dont have a solid foundation, and
there is really nothing to fear. In this chapter, we will briefly survey non-Christian
world views, and we will see how they self-destruct.

1
Paul Johnson, Tiempos modernos (Buenos Aires: Javier Vergara Editor, 1988), p. 59.
A. The Universe Next Door

James Sire has written an excellent book about popular world views called The
Universe Next Door . 2 I will summarize his analyses of these views, then
propose my own analysis of their fundamental problems.

Sire defines a world view as a group of presuppositions (hyphotheses that may

be true, partly true, or totally false) that we sustain (consciously or unconsciously,
consistently or inconsistently) about the basic characteristics of our world. 3 He
says there are seven basic questions that, when we answer them, reveal a
persons world view.
1. What is primary reality-real reality?
2. What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?
3. What is man?
4. What happens to a person when he dies?
5. How is it possible to know something?
6. How can we distinguish between right and wrong?
7. What is the meaning of human history?

Sire presents eight world views: 4

1) Christian theism
2) Dualism
3) Naturalism
4) Nihilism
5) Existentialism
6) Eastern pantheistic monism
7) The New Age
8) Postmodernism

1. Christian theism
Christian theism (the Christian world view) holds that there is a personal God
who is transcendent but imminent, omniscient, sovereign, and good. God created
the universe from nothing, and made it to function according to the laws of cause
and effect, but within an open system. This means that the universe is not
chaotic, but neither is it programmed in a fatalistic way in which man is not free.
Man was made in the image of God with personality, intelligence, a moral sense,
sociability, and creativity. Man can know the world and God, because God made
him with that capacity. Man was created good, but in the Fall, he became sinful
and the image of God was disfigured. Through Christ, God redeemed man and
began a process of restoration. Nevertheless, a person can choose to reject this
salvation. Death is the door to another life, either a life with God and His people,

2
James Sire, The Universe Next Door; a Basic Worldview Catalogue (Downers Grove, Ilinois:
InterVarsity Press, 1997).
3
Sire, p. 16.
4
In the first edition published in 1976, the New Age was not identified as clearly, and neither as
postmodernism. This latest version is a valuable update.
or a life separated from God. Ethics is based on the character of God. History is
linear, a sequence of events that lead to the fulfillment of Gods purposes.

2. Deism
For deists, God is transcendent, but not personal, the first cause of everything,
who create everything but abandoned it and left it along to function like a big
clock. The cosmos that God created is determined and closed, without
intervention from God, and without the possibility of miracles. Man is part of the
machinery of the universe. The world is in its normal state, not fallen or
abnormal. We can know the universe and determine what God is like through a
scientific study of the universe. Ethics is also revealed in the universe; whatever
is, is correct. History is linear, and the course of history was determined at
creation. Deism had much influence in France and England at the beginning of
the eighteenth century, but was replaced by naturalism.

3. Naturalism
According to naturalism, matter exists from eternity, and that is all that exists.
God does not exist. The cosmos functions according to the laws of cause and
effect, and it is closed. Man is nothing more than a complex machine. Personality
is an inter-relation of chemical and physical properties. Death is the extinction of
the personality and of the individual. History is a linear flow of events with no
purpose. Ethics is derived from human experience, and basically consists of
doing whatever benefits and produces harmony. Marxism is an example of
naturalism.

4. Nihilism
Nihilism is more a sentiment than a philosophy, according to Sire. In fact, it is a
negation of philosophy, of the possibility of knowledge, and of all value. It is
expressed in the sculpture of Marcel Duchamp, Fountain, which is nothing more
than a common urinal, or in the drama of Samuel Beckett, Breathing, in which
there are 35 seconds of sound: first a cry, then breathing in, then breathing out,
and finally one more cry. Thats life. Nihilism is the result of accepting the
practical consequences of naturalism. If everything is matter, then nothing has
meaning, not even my own philosophy. Nietzsche is the precursor of this view, a
philosopher that died mentally ill.

5. Existentialism
Man cannot continue living with the conviction that nothing makes sense.
Therefore, existentialism arose as an effort to overcome nihilism. There are two
forms of existentialism: atheist and theist. Atheistic existentialism sustains that
the cosmos essentially contains matter, but that man has a conscience. That is,
he is conscious of himself and he thinks. The external world seems absurd to
him, but the authentic man rebels against the absurdity and creates his own
values and his own significance as an individual. Sartre and Camus represent
this view. Theistic existentialists accept the postulates of theism, but distrust
human reason. Faith is subjective and individual. Truth is a paradox. Sren
Kierkegaard represents this thought.

6. Eastern pantheistic monism

Eastern religions go even further than existentialism in their distrust of reason;

they totally renounce the struggle to know the truth. Also, they renounce the fight
to change the world; they prefer to simply exist. Pantheistic monism is the most
popular eastern view: only one kind of being exists, and god is in everything. Zen
Buddhism, por example, says Atman is Brahman, and the soul of every person
is the soul of the universe. All the cosmos is good, and there are no true
contradictions. Man is not conscious of his unity with the cosmos, and must wake
up to this reality. They try to obtain a mental state in which they sense no
distinctions between good and evil, truth and lie, reality and illusion.

7. New Age
The New Age is a western version of oriental religions, but with emphasis on the
individual, which for them is the primary reality. The cosmos manifests itself in
two ways, the visible universe, accessible by means of the normal conscience,
and the invisible universe, accessible through altered states of consciousness
(for example, with drugs). Man must realize that he is God. Know that you are
God; know that you are the universe, says Shirley MacLaine. 5 In contrast with
pantheistic monism, the New Age accepts the animistic concept of the existence
of many spiritual beings.

8. Postmodernism
Whereas modernism began with Descartes and trust in reason and science,
postmodernism no longer trusts reason, and has no world view. Postmodernists
no longer care about what reality is like (ontology) or about how you can know
the truth (epistemology). They only care about the meaning of language. Man is
what he decides he is. Ethics is determined by society; whatever we decide is
correct is correct.

Summary
We could summarize these views in the following table. Philosophy has made a
distinction between ontology (the study of being) epistemology (truth) and ethics
(right and wrong). We will use those categories to explain the different views, as
well as their views of God and man.

View God Man Ontology Epistemology Ethics

1 Christian Personal Image of God 2 apsects: By revelation We should do
theism God and from God the will of God,
creation summed up in
5
Sire, p. 155.
 loving God and
your neighbor.
2 Deism Impersonal. Part of a huge 2 aspects: By means of Revealed in the
Created the machine God and the study of the universe.
world and creation universe Whatever is, is
abandoned it. (empiricism) correct.
3 Naturalism Doesnt exist Is a machine Only matter By means of Do what
reason benefits you,
creates
harmony
4 Nihilism Doesnt exist Life has no Only matter Knowledge is Nothing has
meaning impossible value
5 Existentialism Atheist: Only matter, but Atheist: Only Atheist: Man Man makes his
Doesnt exist man has a matter, makes his own own values
conscience. universe is significance
Theist: Paradoxical. absurd Theist: Leap of
Personal Theist: faith, paradox
2 aspects:
God and
creation
6 Eastern United with the United with the Only one being, Renounce Renounce
pantheistic universe universe but God is in distinctions distinctions
monism everything. between truth between right
and untruth. and wrong.
Everything is Everything is
true. correct. Prefer
simply to exist.
7 New Age United with the Man is God. Only one being, Normal Man should
universe (Man God is in all, consciousness realize that he
is God.) and man is (visible is God.
God. universe), or
altered states
(invisible
universe)
8 Post Doesnt exist Man is Not concerned Doesnt trust Correct is
Modernism whatever he about knowing reason. Not determined by
decides to say what reality is. concerned society.
about himself. about knowing
the truth.

B. Animism and other religions

We should add another world view to Dires list that is very old, yet still very
common: animism. The term comes from anima (soul ), because they believe
that everything, including animals, plants, rocks, and all objects, have spiritual
life. Some people estimate that 40% of the worlds population today are animists.
Frequently this religion includes witchcraft, magic, superstition and rituals.
Normally they believe in one creator god who is over many small gods.
Nevertheless, man cannot relate to the creator, but only to the smaller gods of
health, weather, and all that affects his daily life. In reality, animism is often
another form of pantheism, because everything that exists contains the universal
soul of god. 6

In Latin America, from the time of the colonization, the Catholic Church has
cultivated a syncretism of Christianity and the animism that existed among the
indigenous. Some missionaries in Mexico took the image of Oztocteotl (god of
the witch doctors) out of a cave, replaced it with an image of Christ, and told
people that it had appeared miraculously. The problem is that this was only a
change in form, not in content; the Christ has the same characteristics of the
previous god. Now not only the catholics visit this statue every year, but also the
witch doctors! The famous Virgin of Guadalupe of Mexico is located in the same
place where there was formerly a temple dedicated to Cihuacoatl (goddess
mother earth, mother serpent), long before the conquistadores. In the image of
this Virgin, she is standing on a symbol of the moon, an important indigenous
deity, showing that she is superior, but that she does not destroy it. This image
expresses graphically how they have simply added Christianity on top of
animism, without eliminating the ancient beliefs. 7

There are other religions practiced by large numbers of people, such as Islam,
Judaism, cults like Mormonism and the Jehovas Witnesses. These religions are
distortions derived from Christianity, and for that reason as world views they have
a lot in common with Christianity. They believe in a personal God who exista
apart from creation, that man is created in the image of God, and that truth is
revealed by God. Nevertheless, the key doctrines are very different. It is not the
purpose of this chapter to compare world religions, but the differences are in the
content of the revelation they have accepted, especially with regard to the place
of Jesus Christ in salvation. Only orthodox Christianity preaches a God who is a
Trinity and a gospel of grace in which salvation is by faith alone. Only Christianity
has the true answer for the problems of the world: forgiveness, salvation and
transformation in Christ.

C. The self-destruction of non-Christian world views

All the views except the Christian world view contain their own self-destructive
postulates; they contradict themselves. On the one hand, some views propose a
monistic ontology that does not really allow the defense of any thought. On the
other hand, other views deny the possibility of knowledge, which similarly doesnt
allow the defense of any theory.

Lets look first at the problem of ontology. The majority of views analyzed by Sire
sustain some kind of unity in the universe, either material or spiritual (naturalism,
nihilism, atheistic existentialism, eastern pantheistic monism, New Age). The
inevitable dilemma with this scheme is that man is also a part of this unity, and he
6
http://religion-cults.com/Ancient/Animism/Animism.htm
7
Rodolfo Blank, Teologa y misin en Amrica Latina (San Luis, Missouri: Concordia, 1996), pp.
80, 101-105.
loses his identity and freedom as an individual. Therefore, his own thought have
no meaning.

For example, if deism is true, that the universe is like a huge clock, then his
thoughts are nothing more than the tick tock, tick tock of the clock. What would
his thoughts mean then? The same is true is the universe is one large spiritual
unity.

The ancient Greek philosophers understood this problem, and it led them into
skepticism. Heraclitus sustained that the universe was a in constant movement
like a river. Everything flows. You cant step twice into the same river. 8 Then
Gorgias decided that all knowledge and communication was impossible. 9 Why?
Because I cant believe that the universe is a great flowing river and pretend that
I am standing on the riverbank, outside the river, observing the flow in an
independent and objective way. I must also be a part of the river. And if I am only
a drop of water in the river, how can I pretend to give my opinion about the nature
of the river? Cratylus was consistent with this scheme, and he decided to stop
talking all together! 10 At least this was an honest reaction. If communication and
knowledge are impossible, why talk? Socrates exclaimed the motto of skeptics, I
only know that I know nothing. Plato and Aristotle tried to recover the possibility
of knowledge. Plato proposed the theory that the soul remembered what he know
in his life before he inhabited a body. Aristotle trusted logic. However, after the
period of these great thinkers, the Greeks went back to skepticism.

This dilemma also engendered existentialism. Hegel had proposed that the
universe was united, that it was a great Spirit that was continually evolving. With
the dialectic, he tried to eliminate all conflict. When a thesis encounters its
antithesis, instead of deciding which is correct, we simply let them form a
synthesis. With this, the notion of absolute truth is lost, along with the distinction
between right and wrong. Man becomes a part of this impersonal process and
thus loses his freedom and identity. Kierkegaard discerned this problem, but
could not offer a rational alternative. He could only suggest that reason doesnt

8
Humberto Giannini, Esbozo para una historia de la filosofa (Santiago de Chile, 1981), p. 17.
9
Humberto Giannini, p. 25.
10
Humberto Giannini, p. 34.
function, that it only exists in paradox. Man is a part of the impersonal process,
but somehow he is also free. This is the leap of faith, an irrational faith.

Think of the theory of evolution. If the world is nothing more than a product of an
impersonal process of evolution, and if nothing exists except matter, then my
thoughts are also nothing more than a movement of atoms, a chemical reaction.
A crude way of saying it is, The brain secretes thoughts in the same way that the
liver secretes bile. 11 Therefore, why should we pretend that our thoughts are
correct? Why would we think they mean anything? The very theory that I am
proposing is just a chemical reaction. This is like sawing off the branch I am
sitting on! Darwin himself wrote in a letter:

The horrendous doubt will always arise whether the convictions of the
human mind, which has evolved from the mind of inferior animals, really
has value or is to be trusted. Should one trust in the convictions of the
mind of a monkey, if convictions exist in such a mind? 12

C. S. Lewis explains the contradiction:

If all that exists is Nature, the great mindless interlocking event, if our own
deepest convictions are merely the bye-products of an irrational process,
then clearly there is not the slightest ground for supposing that our sense
of fitness and our consequent faith in uniformity tell us anything about a
reality external to ourselves. Our convictions are simply a fact about us
like the colour of our hair. If Naturalism is true we have no reason to trust
our conviction that Nature is uniform. 13

He also argues:

The Naturalist cannot condem other peoples thoughts because they have
irrational causes and continue to believe his own which have (if Naturalism
is true) equally irrational causes. 14

Lewis quotes the argument of J. B. S. Haldane:

11
Cabanis, quoted in Sire, p. 98 (sin indicar la fuente original, ni el nombre completo). Debe estar
citando a Pierre Jean George Cabanis, filsofo francs. Otros autores en el Internet (Thomas
Carlisle, Signs of the Times, en The Victorian Web,
http://65.107.211.206/authors/carlyle/signs1.html, y
http://members.tripod.co.jp/umemura/19402E.html) indican que la fuente es Rapports du
physique et du moral de l'homme; Paris, Bureau de la Bibliotheque choisie, 1830 (2 vols. 405 and
430 pp.). Sin embargo, esta cita tambin se la atribuye a Karl Vogt. (Encyclopdia Britannica,
"Modern Materialism.")
12
Citado en Sire, p. 83. Sire lo atribuye a una carta a W. Graham (3 de julio, 1881), citado en The
Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters [La autobiografa de Charles Darwin y
cartas seleccionadas] (New York: Dover, 1892, nueva impresin 1958).
13
C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: MacMillan, 1968), p. 108.
14
C. S. Lewis, Miracles, p. 22.
 If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in
my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are trueand
hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.
15

The views that deny the possibility of knowledge (nihilism, postmodernism) have
a more obvious problem. In the moment they affirm that nothing can be affirmed,
they have contradicted themselves hopelessly. If I cant be sure of anything, how
can I be sure that I cant be sure of anything? It is like saying, Everything I say is
a lie! Again, we come back to Cratylus: It would be better to say nothing!

While I was studying in seminary, I worked as a night supervisor in a college

library nearby to pay for my studies. There was a student who worked there also
and frequently talked with me about my faith. She once said, You cant be sure
of anything. When I asked her how she could be sure of that, she became angry
and left. Several hours later she returned and blurted out, I think that you cant
be sure of anything. She abruptly turned around and left without waiting for an
answer.

Existentialists recognize this problem, but they also know that man cannot live
with this complete uncertainty. Therefore, without being able to defend it
rationally, they make a leap of faith. The problem with the existentialist
epistemology is that anything can be true. If everyone invents their own values,
and decide for themselves what is true, then anything is true. But if anything is
true, then nothing is true!

Many truths contain within themselves the denial of other truths. For example, if
we say there is only one straight line between two points, then we are denying
that there are two straight lines between two points. We cant believe both. If we
begin to say that A is true and A is also not true, then we are losing our mental
sanity.

Its like the young man who appeared before presbytery to be examined for
ordination to be a pastor. When they asked him if he believed in the divinity of
Jesus, he said, I dont deny the divinity of Jesus; I dont deny the divinity of
anybody! The problem is, if everybody is divine, then divinity loses its meaning.
The very concept of divinity includes being superior to humans. If everybody is
God, then nobody is God.

Eastern pantheistic monism also suffers a similar problem with regard to ethics.
They want to deny distinctions between true and false, between good and evil.
But they cannot live consistently with this. If I ask one of them if I can hit him in
the nose, surely he will say No! But if I ask him why not, what can he answer? If
there were no distinction between right and wrong, it would be equally right to hit
him or not hit him!
15
Possible Worlds [Mundos posibles], citado por Lewis en Miracles, p. 22.
C. The Christian answer

Only the Christian view allows for knowledge and freedom. The Christian view is
not monist, but affirms that there are two kinds of reality: God and His creation.
Thus man is not simply part of a machine or a flowing spiritual river. He is a
creature of God, made in His image, with freedom of thought, with use of reason,
and with emotions. God, who is the source of all truth, reveals His truth to man.
Christianity is the only view that doesnt self-destruct.

As we defend our faith, we can ask the other people why they believe what they
believe. When they explain why, saying for example that it is logical, we can ask
why they trust logic. We can keep pushing them to their final answer. This is not a
game. We need to do this with much love and respect. Otherwise, we will lose
the opportunity to explain the gospel. But if we continue asking until there are no
more questions, where does the non-believer end up? What is his final answer?
He will have to back up to something beyond which he has nothing more to say.

One way or another, that final answer for the non-believer will be that he believes
it because he believes it. Its true because he thinks its true. The non-believer
essentially makes himself the judge of true and false and of right and wrong. We
still havent learned from the Garden of Eden, and man still pretends to be the
judge of things, in spite of the fact that his creator is right there beside him.

This of course eliminates all certainty with him, because to be sure of anything,
he really needs to know everything. This eliminates consistency, because he
knows deep down that he is not God and that he cant simply decide for himself
what the truth is.

The Christian alternative is to accept God as judge and the source of truth. When
you keep backing up a Christian to his final answer, it is God says so. Its true
because God says so. How do I know God says so? Because He says He says
so! I cant back up any further than God Himself. I cant put something over Him.
If I appeal to another authority superior to Him, I have just contradicted my world
view and destroyed the foundation underneath me.