This February, the world will be celebrating the 152nd anniversary of the Origin of Species and the 202nd anniversary of the birthday of Charles Darwin. Deemed as Darwin Day and administered by Institute of Humanist Studies, the day will be filled with all sorts of fun activities, such as lectures, conferences, and plain old birthday parties in various areas worldwide (see www.darwinday.org or www.humanists.org). Media agencies & major pop-culture websites will cover the organizations efforts to celebrate the occasion and most of their audience will acknowledge the headline and reflect, “Oh yes, thank God for Darwin,” then carry on with life as normal.

This will be a very welcome celebration for some few people around the world. But, the more there is a push for this annual celebration, the more Christians will be bashed and pushed out of the public square. Not to mention the label of Intelligent Design as Creationism or non-science. So what ought the Christian to do on Darwin Day? Here are some possible responses:

1. Use the day as an occasion to learn about Darwinism, the Origin of Species, theories of Micro & Macro evolution, Biological processes of natural election, research performed in the Intelligent Design movement to raise awareness. This learning can help us discuss the limits of Darwin’s ideas and understand the compatibility of Science and Christianity with families, friends, coworkers, etc on appropriate occasions. Information can be found at God and Evolution or Interview with Dr. Michael Behe (from www.apologetics.com).
2. Organize an international Intelligent Design Day to raise awareness of the results of scientific research in the fields of biochemistry and astrophysics that point to design.

While Christians can be appalled at how the gatekeepers of scientific knowledge in the ivory towers of academia attempt & succeed in holding minds hostage to this view, these may be helpful in beginning the dialogue.

Before we disagree with those who “know” Darwinism is a “fact” of the universe, we ought to figure out why we disagree. Do we have a wrongful bias to Darwin and theories of evolution? Can I really learn the truth about evolution, natural selection, the big bang theories, the age of the universe theories, what the Bible has to say about evolution or astrophysics, etc. We all could use a little academic honesty and confess that we are not the experts on everything. Let me help start a mutation of our worldview by introducing 4 basics views on relationship between science and religion.

#1 Conflict View

This is the most common perception of our day. It’s the battle between Scientific Materialism and Biblical Literalism. Each sees themselves as THE path to true knowledge, at the expense of religion (subjective) or science (conspiracy to prove atheism). It’s one or the other. Media likes the conflict and is biased to the side of science

#2 Independence View

This view shows a separation but not war between human discovery and revealed truth. That is, science is limited to the natural realms; to the objective, public, & repeatable data. Whereas, religion is limited to the spiritual realms; to order, beauty, & inner-life experiences.

#3 Dialogue View

This view is the historical one: Christianity had a strong influence in establishing the right worldview for science. Methodologies are not distinct. Scientist have faith & theologians have reason (scientist must trust their instruments; theologians must think critically). Both sides rely on personal judgment and authority.

#4 Integration View

This view develops a unified worldview where God’s action in Nature is plausible. In this view one must be very aware of naturalistic presuppositions and limitations. It’s Scientific Apologetics where one can use scientific data to argue for the existence of God.

Without going into the reasons, the 4th view is what I recommend. Perhaps you can research for yourself which view is best to hold. You see, there are many things to learn and we can prepare intellectually to use the celebration to our advantage.

Overall, we need to reclaim the intellectual influence in the western world that we lost. We have to take on the giant – science. God’s perspective should be our perspective here. As a result we can be ambassadors not soldiers; winning friends and influencing people. We tend to want to preach at them and score points, winning the battle – but losing the war.

Hopefully, at the end of Darwin Day, the fittest of these views on science and religion will survive.

This article will investigate the depths of the human struggle to become un-human in order to be God. It considers the implications of subjectivism, existentialism, and humanism (as seen in current bioethical issues) as articulate expressions of the destiny of man. As such, we will see how our human condition is bleak and impoverished, but is endlessly conquering – even conquering ourselves – to our own abolition. Yet it is our destiny apart from God. It will be finally made clear that the Christian mode of being is one of refreshment, stability, and peace.

Introduction – Bioethical Issues as Beacons of Darkness

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blaire said that we can’t let morality get in the way of science when he once told a newspaper of Britain’s plans to clone human embryos: “Our conviction about what is natural or right should not inhibit the role of science in discovering the truth.”[i]

Before unraveling what is behind Blaire’s statement, let us consider a quick breakdown of some current bioethical topics to whet the appetite for what is really at stake in our scientifically advanced generation.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESR): Around 400,000 human embryos exist in the freezers of fertility clinics around the U.S.A. these are from leftover In Vitro-fertilization.[ii] Researchers want to harvest them (this kills the embryo) to help other people with damaged cells. [iii]

Cloning: Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) cloning allows us to create organs from the embryonic stem cells of the patient by creating an exact genetically matching embryo. Therapeutic cloning is still reproductive and still requires embryos to be destroyed.[iv]

Genetics Engihneering, Trait Selection, Designer Embryos & Gender Selection: We are doing primitive form of eugenics where you can pick the traits and gender with sperm separation technology to 85% reliability allowing parents to get the boy or girl baby they want. Companies like “Microsort” are actively doing this.

Population control, Eugenics, & Human Genome Mapping: Already the Sanger Institute, a leading United Kingdom disease research center which uses genotyping infrastructure, claims that “In the next two years, we will sequence more than 1000 human genomes. By 2012, we will make stem cells in more than 10,000 genes.”[v]

These bioengineering practices have never been as significant to the future health and progress of the human race as they are now.

Moreover, no one can deny that bioethics is a necessary field of research and thought. The issues surrounding the various scientific advances are quite complex and extraordinary. This article will not have space to address these bioethical issues. But they are presented here because each bioethical issue raises passionate appeal to either the human condition or human nature.

At the moment, there is tremendous concentration in research to develop immunities and cures for fatal diseases. While this seems to be the honorable thing to do, now and in the coming years there are great fathoms of ethics to consider before making public policy against such ‘ethical pro-activism.’ In fact, this area of thought is not new. Previous western philosophical movements have already unveiled certain secretive plans.

One incredibly strong force that has not, is not, and will not quit lies beneath all bioengineering research. The force of human destiny. It is the destiny of man to assert his existence (to be) and fully attain master control of nature and himself to live as long as possible. Man is a being which strives to perpetually recreate himself, take the place of God in this world, to conquer and have control of his own destiny. This is the powerful but subtle goal of the philosophy of humanism.

One can easily see that humanism is the common worldview of the non-religious western person. Additionally, we have many formal groupings that evidence our plague. Organizations like the Council of Secular Humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/) and the Alliance of Secular Humanist Societies have dozens of local groups all around America. In their statement of affirmations:

“We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems. We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation…We are thus opposed in principle to any efforts to censor or limit scientific research without an overriding reason to do so..”[vi]

These organizations embody and champion such humanistic expressions of Paul Kurtz, Peter Singer, Richard Carrier, Tom Flynn, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and others.

However, this default orientation is the not the result of the underlying modern, existential, or postmodern systems of thought – although they have expressed it thoroughly. These systems, like bioethics, are pointers to justifications of deeper modes of being. Deep inside our entire reason for being is appeased with our own cure, ourselves conquering ourselves.

To reiterate, this article will investigate the depths of this struggle by considering subjectivism, existentialism, and humanism as more of the fruit rather than the root (i.e., the description rather than the prescription) in our history to become God. As such, we will see how our human condition is bleak, impoverished, but endlessly conquering to our own detriment.

Mankind has always longed for the power to create his destiny and control the one thing that no one has ever been able to control, death. To decide what he is, does, and when he dies is to be God. But this is man. The French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) bluntly stated in his famous “Existentialism is Humanism” 1945 lecture that “man is the being who wants to be God.”[vii]

This was even written by certain Christian theologians. In the middle ages, Maximus the Confessor (580-662) wrote as follows:

“In the same way in which the soul and the body are united, God should become accessible for participation by the soul and, through the soul's intermediary, by the body, in order that the soul might receive an unchangeable character, and the body, immortality; and finally that the whole man should become God, deified by the grace of God become man, becoming whole man, soul and body, by nature, and becoming whole God, soul and body, by grace.”[viii]

Obviously, this is heretical theology to the church. However, we must note our tendency to develop such a ‘Christian’ doctrine in light of our broken and inexhaustibly driven human nature.

That is our crux, we are made in his image but scarcely realizing it.

We are: 

• Of him, but not for him.
• With godlike attributes, only longing for their enhancements.
• Deriving his being, but hoarding it.
• Free to master, yet enslaved by ourselves.

And left to ourselves we are:

• Warriors, yet weak.
• Conquerors, yet hungry.
• Achievers, yet scared.
• Lovers, yet cold.
• Givers, yet jealous.
• Dreamers, yet unsatisfied.
• Explorers, yet bored.
• Hopeful, yet unsustainable.

Our inescapable fragility and inability to conquer our wounded selves has always been our anguish. Now, on the horizons of what was once a perpetual future of the human race, we can glimpse the coming end.

We have recently understood that the planet and sun have a shelf life, that Earth’s resources are in fact finite, and that our current consumption pace will destroy ourselves sooner that the 2nd law of thermodynamics will. If Jesus doesn’t return first, we can now see our end as a species. In this generation, we have never seen it so clearly.

Coincidentally, we see ways to improve our conditions now as we never have before – such as those bioethical issues mentioned above.

Poignantly, our technology provides us a place to be a God to ourselves.

Motivation
Humanism’s destiny of man must be reckoned with or the Christian world will not understand the extent of the depravity of man and will find this destiny is ineffective in providing the saving alternative to man. The issue is ultimately daunting to today’s Christian. By knowing the forces that are behind the intricately crafted thoughts, cliché sayings, and the cultural isms of our time we can adequately understand the pitfalls and shortcomings so as to avoid the destructive nature of their consequences. For those interested in apologetics, it is even more crucial that we understand the destiny of man for without having a firm grasp of the current technological and cultural issues of our time we will misunderstand them and will succumb to the powerful forces that push them onto us. Os Guinness puts it this way,

“What often happens is that Christians wake up to some incident or issue and suddenly realize they need to analyze what's going on. Then, having no tools of their own, they lean across and borrow the tools nearest them. They don't realize that, in their haste, they are borrowing not an isolated tool but a whole philosophical toolbox laden with tools which have their own particular bias to every problem…The toolbox may be Freudian, Hindu or Marxist. Rarely, is it consistently or coherently Christian. When Christians use tools for analysis which have non-Christian assumptions embedded within them, these tools eventually act back on them like wearing someone else's glasses or walking in someone else's shoes. The tools shape the user.”[ix]

Thus, it is imperative that we ourselves do not reflect a destiny back to culture that culture is forcing on us. We must find our destiny that God has created us to fulfill and reject the human notions that lead us to the contrary. These will become more clear in this article. To this end, we hope to invite our current culture to drink from a different fountain for once, a fountain whose source is from “everlasting to everlasting” rather than a fountain of concocted man-made ingredients. As the psalmist refreshingly captures it this way, “For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.”[x] Augustine so perfectly adds, “Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.”

Preliminary Considerations of Humanism, Becoming, & Conquering
How great is the temptation of every generation to manage the affairs of its decedents. How absurd it is that in an age of scientific achievement, technological brilliance, and star trek like capabilities, we decide to reject objectivism. Up until the dawn of the Enlightenment, despite our human condition, past generations yielded objectivism to the next generations. In our current age, rather than having received the inheritance of tradition, objectivism, and solid religion, we received a weaker inheritance. One filling our current world with dismay, trouble, and fear. We see this in our inherited international nuclear threats, Islamic faith ‘tolerance’, and wayward professors who poison millions of students daily behind the pulpit of ‘peace’ and ‘freedom.’ This is the inheritance of lost value by power collecting. How brilliantly subtle is the force pulling our unsustainable, dehumanizing, inherited human condition.

But our species is and always has been trying to re-make itself, not with our minor improvements of ourselves but with major transcendent ones. To enhance the quality of life with infrastructure and nation-building, to dignify the mentally ill, and to bring water, food, and clothing to the destitute are noble, moral, and appropriate goals of every human. However, our continuous state of affairs is to eventually become something we are not, that is, humans becoming un-human. While trying to be human gods we un-will our humanness to that which we seize power from. This power is definitely not of God but a perverted power of man which can easily be influenced by Satan. The absurdity is we use our self power to undo ourselves, making us unrecognizable creatures of immorality, lust, and greed. But this is our destiny in a world of ruled by humans.

Without getting into ethics, ethical philosophy, or even Christian theology, one can easily see dehumanizing affects of our technological modifications of ourselves and progressive re-creation of our super un-human-like selves.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization) Bioethics group declares, “Genetic research, in particular the sequencing of the human genome, has opened the way for far-reaching medical research and biomedical applications. The number of genetic databanks is rising, with some containing more than a million records…contain samples from virtually entire national populations. In this rapidly developing field, many people fear that human genetic data will be used for purposes contrary to human rights and freedom.”[xi]

One website bluntly reports, “The current mapping of the human genome has produced many tools that will become quite useful in future eugenics work.”[xii] Additionally,

“Current experimentation includes hybrid biological/electronic devices, biological computer memories and research leading to the minimum molecular complexity for life. Creation of new life forms directly from biological raw (non-living) materials are quite possible in the near future.”[xiii]

Are we considering at all the greed for power over ourselves that is taking place when we actually begin to fulfill the destiny of man?

Similarly, are we contemplating that getting new teeth, leg, or heart is one thing. But getting a new face is not something totally different? Want a new organ? Sure. But want an enhanced new body feature? Why? Why do we need plastic surgery to modify to our looks?

We think that these improvements will change who we are and make us immune to criticism. We think we can alleviate suffering. We think it gives us the power of choice and the capability of redefining ourselves to be renewable beings. It’s being born again: regenerate by “divine” scientific grace.

Playing God in these areas is only the beginning. Becoming God is totally different.

Seizing our destiny as an individual and as humanity is not new. It’s just that now we have the knowledge and power to actually do it.

Syntopical Discussion: Man’s ultimate destiny as becoming a being of his choice in existential humanism or who God’s creation
To help us understand this oiling of the human super machine driving of the cliff edge, let us turn to those whose thoughts on the issue are second to none. We would then be looking back about 75 years to some of the last centuries most brilliant secular thinkers, who finally articulated humanism’s ideas on the destiny of man with perfect clarity in the existential movement. This movement in philosophy is also known as ‘continental philosophy.’ Thinkers such as Ortega, Jaspers, Heideggar, Satre, Camus and others (Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and Nietzsche – existentialist forerunners of the 19th century) spelled out our human condition without restraint. Let us consider 3 select views from Spain, Germany, and France.

In this article, we will not attempt to treat Heideggar’s views, for we have enough to cover as it is. “In general terms, existentialism can be divided between philosophers, such as Jean-Paul Sartre (as well as Ortega and Jaspers), who defined existentialism as a humanism, and those, such as Heidegger, who saw the organization of philosophy around the analysis of human determinacy as a metaphysical corruption of philosophy.”[xiv] Thus, we will stick to an understanding that existentialism is a type of humanism that clarifies the human condition by way of appealing to concepts freedom, dread, anxiety, absurdity, etc, whereby one can choose to reinvent, redefine, recreate himself and humanity. Let us begin.

Ortega: Man’s destiny is to “make itself” since “man has no nature."
The Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega (1883-1955) thought that humans are not like things whose potentiality is already actualized in reality. Human life is a project to prove existence. Man starts as a ‘not yet’ but aspires to be. Conquering non-existence to earn life. “But man must not only make himself: the weightiest thing he has to do is to determine what he is going to be.”[xv] For Ortega, man seeks and finds concepts that God tried to formulate.

Ortega goes as far to say that “Man has no nature.” Man is capable of being anything because he has no nature and is limitless except for the one limit of the past which narrow man’s future so there is only one pre-established course. To be free means that man is forced by his nature to not have “constitutive identity.” To be unstable and undetermined. All this will accumulate in being and man will make himself through these series of experiments. Finally, he states that “Man is the entity that makes itself, an entity which traditional ontology only stumbled upon precisely as its course was drawing to a close.” Man must develop a second program. The first (objectivism, traditional ontology, theism, etc.) had “inadequacy”. “One aims at avoiding in the new project the drawbacks of the old.”[xvi]

So we see in Ortega a very certain humanistic idea of becoming a being by a new project of de-traditionalizing human identity.

Jaspers: Man’s destiny is to “gain mastery over all Being without yet Being anything himself.”
Karl Jaspers (1883-1969), the German psychologist who converted to a humanist philosopher, knew that science itself will fail the ‘Being question’ for man. For Jaspers,

“True humanity is thus a condition of free self-possession and transcendent authenticity. The argument runs through all his early works that human beings are distinguished by the fact that they have authentic attributes of existence and transcendence—that is, by their ability to raise questions about themselves and their freedoms which cannot be posed in material or scientific terms, and by their resultant capacity for decisive reversal, self-transformation and transcendence.”[xvii]

Here Jaspers spells out that man has a transcendent connection to the divine, but nowadays “Man is less certain of himself than ever.”[xviii] His philosophy employs a 2 fold presupposition 1) man is autonomous and 2) man is a datum of transcendence. While he states that decisional obedience to the Transcendence (Deity as an impersonal force) leads to man’s own ‘Being’, he further presses that man in his wealth of knowledge “could gain mastery over all Being without yet Being anything himself.”[xix]

Moreover, he thought that reflective existential philosophy would help man have and become the being he can be. At this point in history Jaspers says that “man is reduced to a condition of perplexity by confusing the knowledge that he can prove with the convictions by which he lives.”[xx] He says that “to fail to be human would mean to slip into nothingness. What man is and can become is a fundamental question for man…Man always becomes man by devoting himself to this other (Transcendence).”[xxi] In that, Jasper’s contends that our aboutness towards becoming ‘something’ makes us human.

For Jaspers, by philosophizing about Existenz (similar to Kierkegaard and Socrates), Man can arrive at free self-being, decisional truth, and a becoming reality. Truth is “founded in the Existenz that we become.” He boldly states that “What matters is that our life is guided by something unconditional which can only spring from the decision. Decision makes Existenz real, forms life, and changes it in inner action…which keeps us soaring upward.” In other words, truth and reality must be based on our decisions or our existence is not one of becoming and being.

Interestingly, he admits that “if he makes himself the immediate object of his efforts he is on his last and perilous path.” (pg 168) In doing so man will lose the Transcendence and while grasping himself will not understand himself. Man will become clear as the “greatest potentiality and the greatest danger in the world.”[xxii] I think he nailed it here.

But, Jaspers further contrasts his somewhat Eastern views of transcendence with the cult religion (Christianity). Although, Jaspers grounds Man in his original Being (the Deity), Jaspers doesn’t really follow through on giving an approach to connect to the Transcendence while engaging in existential thinking towards being and becoming. So by following the general direction which he points, man still is left to himself to decide how to maintain openness to some higher power but push the limits of his own becoming forward to wherever it takes him. This is a scary path and a bad religion.

Furthermore, it is interesting that Jaspers understood man’s origins from and dependence to such a God this well, but still leads towards such an open ended future of Man as becoming ‘Being’. This is because there is more subjectivism and humanism in Jaspers than there is spiritualism. He states, “for us the Deity, if it exists, is only as it appears to us in the world, as it speaks to us in the language of man and the world.” (pg 169) Clearly we see that Jaspers maintains such openness that he won’t state in certain terms that the Deity even exists. But more importantly, Jaspers, in the end of his writings, espouses such a strong commitment to the openness of Being itself, that there is rarely talk of Deity or even ‘Transcendence’, just ‘Being’ and ‘Encompassing’.

It seems then, that Jaspers goal is to push man towards Man’s ultimate destiny by starting with his derived god-like nature and leading to his existential becoming “unlimited ranges of Being.” He invites his readers “to grasp the whole spaciousness of Being without losing oneself in the void of the mere universal…”[xxiii]

What does this ‘whole spaciousness of Being’ lead Man to? We see here a very clear expression of the man’s inevitable losing oneself while becoming “unlimited being.” Man becoming a god.

Sartre: Man’s destiny is “to be God”
The French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) bluntly stated in his famous “Existentialism is Humanism” 1945 lecture that “man is the being who wants to be God.”[xxiv]

The following is considered Sartre at his best. No straw man is presented here as this is his most recognized lecture summarizing his beliefs and philosophy of existentialism. The quotes indicated in the following paragraphs are from this lecture, thus specific citations aren’t necessary.

Sartre 1st responds to Christian attacks on the existentialist’s loss of values. He states that existentialism has been attacked as an ideology of quietism in despair. Gloomy and harsh people are the ones that attack it as gloomy.[xxv] Sartre contends that it’s the optimism of existentialism and the possibility of choice that confronts such people.

Sartre’s existential destiny of man
Sartre’s describes existentialism as an optimistic view that makes life possible where truth and action are subjective. In the existentialist view, existence precedes essence and one begins from the subjective: as opposed to the classical view. In the classical view, man is the realization of the concept god has in his mind and human nature is the universal that we all instantiate. That is, God has a concept of man in his mind then designs then creates; it starts in his understanding then in the will. This classical view holds that essence precedes - is prior to chronologically and more importantly, higher in worth - existence.

Whereas, Sartre’s atheistic existentialism presupposes that God does not exist. That with no God and with man existing prior to any conception of himself, man is not predefined and therefore not predetermined. Man first exists, then encounters himself, then defines himself. Man is that which he wills to be and makes of himself. This is existence preceding essence, in that there is not a human essence that he must adhere to, rather, he is a subjective being that propels himself toward the future of his own choosing. Sartre urges, “Man will only attain true existence when he is what he purposes to be.” Man possesses himself in that he possesses ultimate freedom and the ultimate responsibility that comes with such a radical freedom.

In every other system man is an object and is predetermined. So the existentialist is in fact optimistic, gives dignity to man, encouraging man to action since there is no hope except in action; this is “what permits him to have life;” it is the “ethic of action and self-commitment.” He vividly clarifies that “The destiny of man is within himself.”

For Sartre, in subjectivism there is first the freedom of the subject, and second, man is a being which can’t get past his subjectivity. But, man chooses himself means that man creates himself as he wills to be and chooses to for all men. The future of all is based in my will & created image for myself and for all men. He states,

"Existence precedes essence and we will to exist at the same time as we fashion our image, that image is valid for all and for the entire epoch in which we find ourselves. Our responsibility is much greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole…I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man."[xxvi]

This sounds to me like 1 person to control them all – great responsibility for all men – which makes sense in light of Sartre’s Marxism.

Sartre’s qualification & defense of subjectivism.
Sartre thinks that we give value to something when we choose it. He advocates taking action and not living inaction. There is no determinism if there are no objective values. We don’t need God for the objective values. “For if indeed existence precedes essence one will never be able to explain one’s action by reference to a given and specific human nature, there is no determinism - man is free, man is freedom. Man is condemned to be free.” That is man is condemned (fated in a sense) to invent man as he wants. Man was thrown into this world not by his own choice but carries radical freedom to choose himself and is entirely alone in his responsibility to decide what to be.

He quotes Dostoevsky, “If God did not exist, everything would be permitted.” This is the starting point for existentialism. This is radical freedom. For Sartre, concerning man’s choices, there are no excuses, no prepared road maps, and no help anywhere. In an ethical dilemma that he presents, the Christian morality doesn’t even help or address what to do. There is no a priori answer or ethical guideline. Additionally, impulse and instinct cannot be relied upon to help in answering the dilemma. Also, a professor or priest aren’t helpful because their answer is known to the questioner before the person goes to ask them and thus invalidates the advice because he is only going to them already knowing what they would say. Sartre’s advice: “You are free, therefore choose – that is to say, invent.”[xxvii]

People who make excuses in life are their own jury, pronouncing themselves as unfulfilled with deceptive dreams and abortive hopes. Man is the sum of his actions. People hate the optimism of the existentialist because he allows someone weak and base to be someone special. Many people think that a coward and a hero are born that way and are resigned to think that nothing can be done. But the existentialist would say that we make ourselves to be cowards and heroes. We can make ourselves heroes even when society thinks we are born that way. We can redefine ourselves in spite of them. For Sartre, this is a more appealing life than what Christianity offers.

People condemn the existentialist for his subjectivity, to which the existentialist Sartre replies that “we seek to base our teaching upon the truth, and not upon a collection of fine theories (like objectivism), full of hope but lacking real foundations.” The base foundation of the existentialists truth is Descartes “I think, therefore I am.” Somehow Sartre thinks that this Cartesian cogito is objective absolute common sense truth that starts with one self awareness. All other subjective truths comes from this truth.

But, he further explains that there is “inter-subjectivity” where there is a need for others to confirm our subjective truth. “It is in this world that man has to decide what he is and what others are.” Although there is no universal human nature as an essence (a universal), there is a universal human condition. This is both subjective and objective.[xxviii]

Sartre is truly a subjectivist and is not a postmodern relativist, as he believes that we can understand other cultures and realize that we all go through the struggles of life similarly. In every culture, we perpetually make ourselves. He says, “What is at the very heart and center of existentialism is the absolute character of free commitment, by which every man realizes himself in realizing a type of humanity – a commitment always understandable, to no matter whom in no matter what epoch.”

At the center of existentialism is man’s free choice to realize himself and humanity in all times and in all cultures.

Sartre responds to attacks on subjectivism
Attack 1: “It does not matter what you do”…so any choice is morally acceptable even evil choices.

Sartre’s response to 1: Man always chooses even by not choosing. But moral choices are comparable to a work of art. Art is creative and innovative like morality, in which “We cannot decide a priori what should be done.” Man invents the law for himself. “Man makes himself; he is not found ready made; he makes himself by the choice of his morality, and he cannot but choose a morality.”

Attack 2: “You cannot judge others for there is no reason for preferring one purpose to another”

Sartre’s response to 2: we do not believe in progress…but freedom. Freedom is the foundation and goal of all values in willing with others. Sartre believes though that we cannot will the freedom of others just will that others have freedom. Those who hide from the freedom or those who believe that their existence is necessary and determined, Sartre calls “cowards” and “scum.” Also, those who are self-deceived are in error. So he can make moral judgments on others because certain people “hide from themselves the wholly volunteer nature of their existence and its complete freedom.”

Attack 3: “Everything being merely voluntary in this choice of yours, you give away with one hand what you pretend to gain with the other.” Meaning that, you choose your own values so they are not serious.

Sartre’s response to 3: God is not the author of values, they come from us inventing them. “If I have excluded God the Father, there must be somebody to invent values…there is no sense in life a priori. Life is nothing until it is lived; but it is yours to make sense of, and the value of it is nothing else but the sense that you choose.”

The humanism that Sartre despises is one that has man as the goal, which “upholds man as the end-in-itself and as the supreme value.” That humanism essentially declares that man is magnificent, which is absurd to Sartre because it judges men so he dismisses it. It tries to ascribe value to men according to their deeds. Man is defining himself so he can never be the goal. “An existentialist would never take man as the end, since man is still to be determined.” This is the ‘cult of humanity’ humanism, so Sartre rejects it.

Sartre’s Existential Humanism
In regards to existential humanism, Sartre is truly a man of the cloth. Sartre describes his view of humanism with man as the legislator of his destiny. “Man is all the time outside of himself: it is in projecting and losing himself beyond himself that he makes man to exist.” In that man is the center of his self-surpassing transcendence and the center of his subjective universe. Existential humanism is that there is no other legislator than man so he must decide for himself; that man seeking liberation can realize himself as truly human.

Sartre just draws the conclusion from the atheistic perspective, which is not a despairing or pessimistic view, but optimistic and one of action. Existentialism is not necessarily an atheist system for “even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view.” For Sartre, theism or atheism doesn’t matter. “Man needs to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God.” It is the Christians who are self-deceived and confuse their own despair with the existentialist so as to describe the existentialist as someone without hope.

So that is Sartre at his best. Again, no straw man is presented here. Instead of attempting to rebuttal Sartre’s views myself. I will implore one far better mind.

The Christian response: C.S. Lewis: Man destiny is to destroy itself
C.S. Lewis’ book The Abolition of Man takes on all of these existential and becoming themes and delivers a crushing blow in one of the best books in the last 100 years. The National Review ranked the book #7 in its 100 Best Non-Fiction Books of the 20th Century list. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute ranked the book as the #2 best book of the 20th century. Not bad at all as the book is actually a transcript of 3 lectures.[xxix]

The following is my attempt to summarize Lewis’ adamant message to show the peculiarities of the danger of subjectivism, liberalism, existentialism, and humanism. The quotes indicated in the following paragraphs are from this lecture, thus specific citations aren’t necessary. To those who espouse such dangerous views, Lewis refers to as “Men Without Chests.” That is, they used to be men, but have given themselves over to power and have lost what makes them real humans, thus they are “without chests.” These are those who are actually setting out to destroy the real nature and future of mankind.

Rebuttal to existential humanistic subjectivism
For Lewis, if a society follows subjectivism it will destroy itself. But, the subjectivists write as if they have a purpose to write. They take a position that is practical and that some state of affairs they desire is good and ought to obtain. They are trying to convince someone to take their side. They are trying to rid society of objectivism, “in order that ‘real’ or ‘basic’ values may emerge.” They try to ground real or base values in something other than what is objective. The subjectivists good is altruism. But why ought one be altruistic?

The subjectivists attempt to ground values (e.g. heroic acts like self-sacrifice for the good of the other) in altruism. They know that the preservation of man is man’s goal, so altruism is reasonable. But for Lewis, what is rational doesn’t lead to “do this.” He states, “From propositions about fact alone no practical conclusion can ever be drawn.” This is similar to the notion in philosophy that distinguishes an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’ That is, you cannot get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’ Additionally, being altruistic is not more rational then another being altruistic to preserve society by laying down his life rather than mine.

Another, subjectivists attempt at grounding values is Instinct. They say we have an instinctive urge to preserve our species. Humanism’s goal is the preservation and advance of man But for Lewis, all justice and morality is swept away when it conflicts with the preservation of mankind or man as an individual. Before sex was taboo outside of marriage because of the consequences. After contraceptives sex is ok as long as it doesn’t conflict with the preservation of man. The subjectivists say that instinct must be obeyed. Happiness and satisfaction will be the result of such obedience. But altruistic death brings no satisfaction – because you’re dead. Plus, instinct has to be obeyed so there is no ought or satisfaction. The subjectivists say that we ought to obey instinct – not that we have to obey it; which instinct then ought we to obey? Which instinct do we control to free the other?

The subjectivists say that we ought to obey instinct that preserves the species. But what rule gives precedence to obey the instinct that preserves society over another instinct. That judgment is itself not instinctive. “The judge cannot be one of the parties judged.” So then why preserve oneself? Why preserve the species instead of enjoying pleasure?

They will decide with their reasons what kind of motives and values they want. They are really motivated by the ‘I want’ and their own pleasure and impulse. They stand outside value judgments and cannot ground a preference of one impulse to another. When it comes down to it, they choose by the strength of the impulse to the point which the words ‘corruption’ and ‘degenerated’ will not even have meaning to them.

For Lewis, one instinct or impulse is not deeper than another. There is no way to know that from instinct. Plus, this is merely a descriptor which are not ‘oughts’ or conclusions for practical choices. It is instinctive that parents sacrifice for their babies. Then comes rational planning which is by choice and reflection which is less obligatory than instinct. Care for our future lineage (in that sense is preservation of species) is human but this is not justified in instinct.

The result is that the subjectivists attempt at grounding values of altruism in reason and instinct – which both fail. If values are rational or grounded in rationality than they are so obvious that they don’t demand proof. They are self-evident objective truths. Lewis urges, “If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all.” Certain ‘oughts’ are just as self evident. An ‘is’ can’t produce an ‘ought’ – but that doesn’t mean re-derive the ‘ought’ out of man’s self-preservation or master his own destiny because he has the freedom to. The derivation of any transcendent human ‘ought’ simple by necessity or it allows for easy confusion of the source and consequential ethical action.

Furthermore, Lewis grasps the subjectivism of the existentialism at its roots: they start with objectivism and use it in order to attack it. If they really started with objectivism they wouldn’t get anywhere. He throws out justice to reach his goals of preserving his own species. Tao (Lewis’ term for objectivism) is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. No other new system of value can exist. Lewis states it graphically,

"The rebellion of new ideologies against the Tao is a rebellion of the branches against the tree: if the rebels could succeed they would find that they had destroyed themselves. The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary color, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in."

Additionally he writes, “Outside of the Tao there is no grounds for criticizing either the Tao or anything else.” Also, “If you (the subjectivist) persist in that kind of trial you will destroy all values, and so destroy the bases of your own criticism as well as the thing criticized.” They say (this quote is Lewis referring to their thoughts) “Let us decide for ourselves what man is to be and make him into that: not on any ground of imagined value, but because we want him to be such. Having mastered our environment, let us now master ourselves and choose our own destiny.” To this Lewis rightly says, “This is the rejection of the concept of value altogether.” Thus, man is delivered from value keepers and other destiny controlling powers. There is nothing hidden anymore. The existentialists have revealed all unsaid notions of human salvation of humans. For by baptizing ourselves in our purified subjectivism, the subjectivists claim that man can finally attain ‘progress.’

Lewis adamantly expresses that it is painfully obvious that man’s real conquest is ultimately to control all of itself and everything not itself. Man’s power is increasing in specific localized collections. This is power possessed and exercised by some men over other men with nature as the instrument.

On that note, he expresses that each generation limits the power of the next generation and that new generation rebels against the former. The new is weaker than the former – because the former can say that “though we have put wonderful machines in their hands we have pre-ordained how they are to use them.” Man wants to rule man in every way, particularly the descendent generations. Lewis warns, “But the man moulders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irresistible scientific technique: we shall get at last a race of conditioners who really can cut out all prosterity in what shape they please.” Here, Lewis prophecies the consequences of our god-human tendencies, progressive generational curses, and radical all consuming imperial nature. We fit into the concoctions of the previous generation and lack understanding how to break free because we have the same evil tendencies.

As the existentialist articulated best, the power to choose the destiny of himself will result in power to choose the destiny of anyone else. In that, he cautions, “They know how to produce conscience and decide what kind of conscience they will produce…For we are assuming the last stage of Man’s struggle with Nature. Human nature has been conquered – and, of course, has conquered…” Man will finally conquer himself by re-making the species whatever he wants.

These natural processes and tools which created them, will in turn conquer recreated man. It’s not that their men will be bad men, they will not be men at all. They became conditioning animals to condition others. They are not even now men without chests as they eventually become ‘not man’ to redefine man – to make us all into their image. But we don’t want this image that they will make for us. Their reasons and motives for duty to preserve the species won’t cut it. Lewis nails it here: “Stepping outside the Tao, they have stepped into the void. There subjects aren’t men at all: they are artifacts. Man’s final conquest has proved to be the abolition of Man.”

Thus, the re-making of man, the destiny of man, is the destruction of man. Man’s conquest at its final moment will turn to become his abolition.

Lewis concludes that the reality is that Nature rules the ‘Conditioners’ and all humanity. Nature wins. “Man’s conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man.” Additionally, “If the eugenics are sufficient enough there will be no second revolt, but all snug beneath the conditioners, and the conditioners beneath her (Nature), till the moon falls or the sun grows cold.” We reduce our world, each other, animals, phenomena to mere nature in order to conquer it. The language we use dehumanizes people. Man’s conquest of himself is the Conditioners making raw human material out of souls.

As we conquer nature, Lewis stresses, we bring that aspect of Nature into a bigger set - redefining it so nature actually increases all around us. This is the price we pay – we give it power. He says, “We thought we were beating her back when she was luring us on. What looked to us like hands held up in surrender was really the opening of arms to enfold us forever.” It’s the magician giving his soul to get power. They give up their souls to get power give up our souls. Our humanism tries to have it both ways, “to lay down our human prerogative and yet at the same time retain it.” It is all going to a world of post-humanity.

The ancients taught how to conform the soul to reality, through knowledge, self discipline, and virtue. Magic & Science teaches how to conform reality to the wish of the soul through techniques and experience. To this Lewis notes, “Analytical understanding…kill what it sees and only sees by killing.” The one step that is fatal in all of the steps toward this is reducing the Tao to explain it away. This will explain away even explanation itself. He finalizes,

"You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to ‘see through’ first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see through’ all things is the same as not to see."

C.S. Lewis has taken on the powerful force of humanism, subjectivism, and existentialism. He understands the moral intensity of such a philosophy to the common man. He has expressed a striking refutation to it. But let’s prone deeper, what would be the end result of these views? What does they look like hashed out in say bioethics?

Implications of Humanism
The atheist and the theist would both agree that Nietzsche’s nihilism was right. That when objective moral values are diminished or withdrawn from society, God is dead and it is the end of Christianity. If there is no God, are our moral values objective? No.

But Objective moral values do exist (this is the second premise for the moral argument for the existence of God). Even western post-modern college students, although more relativistic than their professors, will admit to this very quickly when pushed. Many have thought that most philosophy professors are relativists, but in fact the opposite is true. Surveys have shown that philosophy departments around the country are filled with mostly objectivists Ph.D.’s.

Shallowly, the moral subjectivism that people loudly profess is inconsistent with certain aspects of their lifestyle, where objectivism must be utilized. Moreover, the humanism that is of our fallen nature is not expressed at all in our communities or day to day experiences like moral subjectivism is. Additionally, many sociologists or Christian thinkers express that we are living in a post-modern culture. However, I would contend that postmodernism may just be a convenient overarching term as it seems our culture is still eating up and digesting expressions of humanism, subjectivism, and existentialism.

So we our left with our honest thinkers like Ortega, Jaspers, Sartre, who express what would come out of every fallen human honestly describing our condition and cure. Taking these views to their absurdity, recent thinkers such as Peter Singer, Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and others, accept and express the result wherever it takes them.

Peter Singer thinks that we can kill newborns up to 30 days. He is brutally consistent in his subjectivist approach and conclusions. Singer’s utilitarianism says that we need to kill the valueless to give strength to the broader value population. For him, there is no difference between newborn and fetus. Personhood is capacity of pleasure and pain because we are self-conscious beings - animals have this too. His contention is all about having an immediate right to pleasure or pain. This is the impulse that Lewis foresaw.

Singer wants to get rid of God but will have nothing to appeal to for grounding his moral claims and right to life claims. Additionally, you can’t use utilitarianism to get to utilitarianism as a view on ethics. It just doesn’t work.

Moreover, Steven Pinker thinks that the substance view of human nature and identity through change is stupid, useless, and needs to be replaced. It ought to be based on consent and personal autonomy. He argues that because scientific materialism is correct, personal freedom and autonomy can do the work of bioethics.

But this is not a neutral worldview when Pinker gets on us for having a metaphysical commitment. How does he ground his metaphysical basis? He doesn’t.

Richard Dawkins says that “We are machines for propagating DNA….It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”[xxx] The subjectivist Dawkins even offers 10 commandments for moral living.

Although claiming objective morality is out of the limits of rationality, he offers us 10 objective moral truths to hold to. Not a wise alternative if he is trying to be consistent.

Conclusion
So, humanism, subjectivism, and existentialism are the revealed articulate expressions of our inheritance to filter through – handed down from past generations to our current one. We received man as being without boundaries, with knowledge that is violently dangerous, and power without morality. Our inheritance is set up for more slavery to our dreams of manifest destiny and now imperialists of the future man; all haunting us now – even without our recognition.

In that, these culturally pervasive intellectual barricades, combined with scientific advances, deliver a platter of never ending self-deceptive freedom - enabling an addiction of imperialist gluttony. We as Christians partake as well by either misunderstanding, ignorance, or participation. But as Guinness warned, we can even use these very underlying philosophical systems of rubbish to resist.

Much more can be said on the failures of subjectivism, existentialism, and humanism. This is by no means a full treatment of such topics. However, the intent was to show that the depths of the human struggle to become God is in us today. Even when we truly have made moral progress in most if not all cultures, our human condition will not quit. However civilized we think we are now has no bearing on the extent and intensity of our core depravity. Our technology is advanced beyond our moral maturity, but we can never expect to be creatures of pure moral responsibility. When we consider our history, our constant failures to exhibit premier moral behavior concerning the value of human nature become obvious.

While we have seemingly noble technological advances in bio-engineering, they all point to the engineering of life that the human condition has long thirsted for. But now ours is the generation that contains power to modify the next without boundary.

We will always become that which we carnally want to be, however, such becoming is not morally pure. Why? Because our intentions to conquer, colonize, and exploit for our own greatness, is embedded in the fabric of the substance that we have chosen to become.

It is not that we can ‘choose our destiny without exception to accommodate ourselves,’ but we cannot choose a destiny that frees us from that exact slavery.

Without the immunity, the human condition remains inept to glorify anything other than itself. This has and will always been our anguish.

Where is the cure? Could it be that objectivism is not the cure but also points to the original purest state of what we were? Is it possible to drink of a fountain of life that restores the body and soul to its initial state of true freedom?

If such a remedy exists, and such a state of existence was and is still possible, our goal must be to recover the path. Mankind’s most diligent thinking, white-knuckled answers, and self-prescribed placebos have only re-engineered our own slavery.

Recommendations & Inspiration to the Only Cure – the Christian cure
Such a remedy does exist! This is the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is efficient and effective to cure all our fallenness. It restores us to become more of a person with pure intentions, motives, and thoughts. Where we have squandered our history in trying to create and procreate a world without disease, decay, and death, Jesus redeems all that was lost back to himself. The power of such a gospel and the beauty of this Jesus is that he is the ultimate embodiment of freedom and destiny – for only he has the ‘genetic’ makeup (so to speak) of a being whose destiny is an expression of his freedom. Whereas our ‘genetic’ makeup has become one of slavery to a system of death and destruction – proven imperfect freedom only reigns.

Ours can be like his though, where we choose to embrace the original manifestation of his image, the pseudo-clones that we are. When he made us, he fashioned us with his fingerprints. The concept that like beings create like things, is not only true, it is us. Except that we grasped ourselves to tight from the very beginning. Thus, choosing our own destiny in the garden – and still choosing it – not the one he designed for us.

Whereas, Christianity offers human dignity by means of one simple human nature derived from the God who created us. We are the image of God with inherent dignity, value, and worth. Additionally, our human nature is one to be cherished but transformed. If we cannot be transformed into his image, our result will be the struggle to become God, rather than to be like him.

Christians need to show ourselves revealing God’s destiny for humans by actually fulfilling ours. We must not accept a status quo life of consumerism and pleasure seeking. Our hearts were made too dependent on his. Why walk down the same path that human history puts us on and be reduced to narcissistic beasts. Is it possible to reorient ourselves to choosing our own predestined destiny? We must find our destiny that God has created us to fulfill and reject all other human notions.

Scripture teaches that we are predestined and called to conform to the image of him.

Romans 8:29 & 30 says,
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Ephesians 1:4, 5, & 11 teach,
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will…In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.

It is clear, not just in these verses but throughout Scripture (Jn 15:16, Jer. 1:5, Ps. 139, etc), that God has a purpose for our lives. This purpose is based in his goodness and pleasure. By accepting ourselves as we are made to be, as we were created to be, as we were pre-destined to be, only then can we appreciate fullness of this life in the here and now.

When we let go of our destiny, we can grasp his (Mt 10:39, Mt 16:25). Jesus said, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10) This will bring God the most glory and will satisfy ourselves forever and with perfect peace. It is our optimum mode of being, it is our truest advancement, and it is our only pure form of progress.

Our offspring can still be born with what are now thought of as deficiencies; but in God’s eyes – and hopefully ours as well – we will understand the words destiny and imperfection.


End Notes
[i] “Don’t turn Against Science, Blair Warns Protesters,” London Daily Telegraph, November 18, 2000. This was provided by Scott Klusendorf in his Advanced Pro-Life Apologetics notes. See www.prolifetraining.com / & www.caseforlife.com.

[iii] Most of the time, the parents of the leftover embryos do not know that there are any leftover embryos. Clinics will keep the embryos for 5 years and then will throw them out. (One embryo was once adopted after being frozen for several years and that embryo is now a 13 year old boy.) So for the parents that do know, the clinic will try to push the parents to make a decision to release the embryo for stem cell research or release the embryo for adoption. But, this kills the embryo when we take the cells and implant them in another person with bad cells.
[iv] This aids in the replacement and anti-rejection of organs should they become deficient. All cloning is reproductive in the sense that the embryo is reproduced. The problem is that embryos don’t come from stem cells, they have them and have to be killed to get the stem cells.
[v] http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/what/future.html; “Our research in Human Genetics will harness the power of our improving sequencing and genotyping infrastructure in order to gain a better understanding of the diversity of the human species and how this diversity influences our health and disease.”
[vi] http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration#science & http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=affirmations
[vii] Jean Paul Sartre, “Existentialism is Humanism,” (Lecture, Club Maintenant, St. Paris, France, October 29, 1945).
[viii] http://plato.stanford.edu/
[ix] Os Guinness, source unknown.
[x] Psalm 36:9
[xi] “To address these concerns, the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data was adopted unanimously and by acclamation at UNESCO's 32nd General Conference on 16 October 2003. This Declaration and the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights are the only international points of reference in the field of bioethics.” http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/ethics-of-science-and-technology/bioethics/human-genetic-data/
[xii] http://www.onelife.com/ethics/eugenics.html
[xiii] ibid
[xiv] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/jaspers/
[xv] Jose Ortega, Man Has No Nature, trans. Walter Kaufman (New York, NY: Meridian Publishing Company/Plume Penguin Books, 2004), 155.
[xvi] Ibid, page 152-157.
[xvii] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/jaspers/
[xviii] Ibid, pg 168.
[xix] Ibid, pg 168.
[xx] Karl Jaspers, On My Philosophy, trans. Walter Kaufman (New York, NY: Meridian Publishing Company/Plume Penguin Books, 2004), 171.
[xxi] Ibid, pg 168.
[xxii] Ibid, pg 158-185.
[xxiii] Ibid, pg 231-232.
[xxiv] Jean Paul Sartre, “Existentialism is Humanism,” (Lecture, Club Maintenant, St. Paris, France, October 29, 1945).
[xxv] Existential themes such as anguish, abandonment, and despair are defined by Sartre with notions of purpose, optimism, and action. When we consider the responsibility we can’t escape from, we are in anguish. Man is in anguish with responsibility like military leaders are when they send soldiers to war to die. Abandonment is the fact that man alone bears all responsibility for his life and that we ourselves define and decide our being. Despair is the limit of ourselves and actions to our wills; to act without hope & as Descartes said, “Conquer yourself rather than the world.” Despair does not mean quietism but acting on commitment, this does not need hope. He is against quietism. There really is no reality but action.
[xxvi] Jean Paul Sartre, “Existentialism is Humanism,” (Lecture, Club Maintenant, St. Paris, France, October 29, 1945).
[xxvii] Moreover, Sartre’s followers may not take up his work and carry it because they are free to decide what man is to be. A man is and only exists as he does, not how he hopes. At the end of a man’s life is not what he wished or hoped to be, it is what he actually made of himself that counts. A man is only what he realizes himself to be in reality by his actions.
[xxviii] The Dutch philosopher Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), often called the Father of Modern Existentialism, said out right that “Truth is subjectivity.”
[xxix] C.S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man,” (Lecture, Kings College, University of Durham, Durham, Britain, February 24-26, 1943).
[xxx] Richard Dawkins, The Ultraviolent Garden, Lecture 4 of 7, Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (1992)

“Bent creatures are full of fears.” – C.S. Lewis Out of the Silent Planet

“For God gave us not a spirit of fearfulness; but of power and love and discipline.” – 2 Timothy 1:7

Introduction

Could it be that our biggest problem is and has always been not knowing what our most important problem is?

Ever tried to fix a car without knowing where the problem is or that there was a problem at all? Often times, the misdiagnoses or a lack of one altogether, leads to further damage of a vehicles in an already impaired condition. Perhaps you have experienced this when getting the mind-boggling bill from the mechanic shop.

I once drove a Jeep Wrangler around for 3 years. . It was incredibly fun to drive but not fun to keep fixing. Little did I know that my misdiagnoses of a battery problem would lead to the engine catastrophe!

One weekend I performed some amateur mechanic upgrades to the entire electrical system of the vehicle. What I didn’t realize at the time was how aged the battery mount & straps had become. The main support for the car battery, already torn and weakening, did not receive the same treatment that I gave the electrical system. The structural support of the energy of the vehicle had not been reinforced, rebuilt, or replaced. I continued to drive like a mad man with a jeep without knowing that the battery became loose and the stems were now touching all of the new stereo wires, which I harnessed to the jeeps main engine power. After a few minutes of smelling burning wire rubber, I pulled over. I opened the hood to find the entire fuse box, wire harness, and many other combustible parts to be on fire!

There I was, helplessly watching my sweet baby jeep burn away to oblivion. The fire department showed up later to put the dying flames out. What a disappointment! It was my fault! All from missing the point! All this from simply looking over a necessary condition to the vehicles electrical system. What was also needed was a new battery mount and straps to re-secure the batteries.

The lack of the structural security of the system led to catastrophic failure of the entire vehicle. The energy meant to be transferred elsewhere somehow - during the bumpy drive - connected to combustible parts destroying the engine and thus keeping the vehicle from being operational.

Security itself was never a part of the diagnoses and therefore not a part of the restoration.

Similarly, when contemplating humankind, the story is the same. The structural system of our condition has been overlooked, misdiagnosed, and left forgotten. Now, umpteen-thousand years after Adam, the bumpy drive is yielding results unthinkable during the diagnoses: the human race in catastrophic absurdity.

Only after wrongly insulting the field of sociology over the last 10 years, has it become clear that most if not all people pretend to be professional sociologists, including myself. Educated and especially non-educated types tend to make up theories about this issue, that cause, and this resulting effect regarding our friends, family, and world. But us layman sociologists have perhaps at times done a better job as ‘voices crying out in the wilderness’ than the Politicians, Sociologists, and Economists. Overall, while mankind have laid done thousands of years of our socioeconomic theories, our political overtures, and our mega-doctrines of man from the East to the West, we have forgotten the most important part of the human condition, fear.

That said – there is no side stepping, this article makes no apologies; for while deliberating on the ‘existential’ condition of man, the powerful portrait of structural fear has rendered itself ridiculously vivid. While wearing the hat of sociologist, philosopher, and theologian simultaneously, this is an attempt to show how fear has been forgotten when considering man’s condition. Perhaps by re-diagnosing ourselves we can stop wasting our time with placebo exterior upgrades to our soul’s facade, when it needs a structural retrofit.

Much like the structural mount & straps secured the batter of my car, fearlessness, was the structural system that once empowered Adam and Eve to be secure in the manifest presence of Almighty God. That is, their security, the structural system of the soul was sound. This God given security enabled fearless existence. Security was the structural system of the entire system of the soul which failed in Adam and Eve’s fall. A building would cease to be a building without the structural system (beam, columns, foundations, etc.), so man ceases to be man without security. Which when security is lost, fear becomes our state of structureless existence, and our very essence is in shambles.

But for some reason this structural system of fearless existence, true security, is not thought to need rebuilding in humankind. Fear has secretly eaten up entire inward and outward lives. Fear drives mankind to a form of false reasoning that pales in comparison to that which God endowed. Fear, then, is the most important and still missing element of man’s condition which must be examined now more than ever to avoid catastrophic failure of the entire purpose of humanity.

In this article, the following questions are addressed:

1)       Does fear exist in man?

2)      What is the nature of fear in man?

3)      How does fear manifest itself?

4)     What is the consequence of our fear?

5)      Is there anything that can be done?

To the 1^st question we shall now turn.

Does fear exist in man?

Max Lucado is a very popular Christian author. He prolifically writes a chapter a day for the beloved & booming Evangelical genre of Christian Inspiration books. As much as these books are not intellectual masterpieces, they are spiritually and devotionally stimulating. The soul may be revived again  and again by Lucado’s work and his genre. Thus they are priceless aids to the faith much like hymnals were to our ancesters. His recent book Fearless, describes for us the following internal fears that many humans face, perhaps worldwide:

1)       Fear of not mattering

2)      Fear of disappointing God

3)      Fear of running out

4)     Fear of not protecting my kids

5)      Fear of overwhelming challenges

6)      Fear of worst-case scenarios

7)      Fear of violence

8)      Fear of the coming winter

9)     Fear of life’s final moments

10)   Fear of what’s next

11)    Fear that God is not real

12)   Fear of global calamity

13)   Fear of God getting out of my box

Lucado is very insightful here. He accurately describes the fears that plagues us. Perhaps we have conquered one fear on this list but are now plagued by another. Or several at one time. Without knowing, we often make decisions concerning practical matters and lifestyle manners by the guiding voice of fear in our subconscious. Due to this, our daily lives may be ordered in such a way that we redefine conservatism and cautiousness. Some of these subconscious fears even drive our overall life plans, emotions, finances, lifestyles, and worldview.

Max Lucado says that our deepest fear is failing God.

Dr. Calvin Ray Evans says that our biggest fear is unfounded fear. It is the internal fears based in unreality that the devil perpetuates and feeds.

Dr. John Piper says that the biggest fear of the evangelical Christians is being labeled. Whether its being called “politically incorrect”, “mindless followers of charismatic preachers”, or “radicals”, Piper says that this fear prevents us the most and is exactly what the enemy keeps us at home watching TV instead of being radicals.

Surely if these sorts of fears inhibit regenerate believers, they most likely also inhibit the unregenerate.

It is no wonder why. The current state of the world could be categorized as the technological age, media age, i-age. But our advances in technology and the securities of yesteryear have only caused perplexity when we consider all the following untamable powers hunting us all.

Apparently, global warming is the pinnacle threat of our current moment in history. Even the globally adopted International Building Code has been revised to require architects and engineers to design facilities and improve existing ones based principles of sustainability. This is a good thing actually but it is just the beginning of a new wave of laws that will mandate reduced energy consumption. As evident in the funny superbowl commercial, green police will eventually enforce a new global law that mandates public policy based on global energy consumption & supply. This is not a laughing manner but a mere prediction of the regulations that will change how we live. All in the name of global warming fear.

Threats of terrorism, not to mention nuclear and chemical war, is at an all time high at every corner of the world.

Wars, genocide, famines, earthquakes, floods, disease, malnutrition, starvation, are at an all time high.

The fallen economy only reveals the frailty and instability of our money. But our most trusted asset isn’t money, it’s the ground we live on. We need our very earth that we walk on to be stable and secure. But the earth itself is so unstable that in certain regions that at any moment, an entire country can be in shambles. The death-toll and damage in Haiti and Chile alone is eye-opening but many do not know that just earthquakes in the last century have killed at least 2 million people worldwide.

The world itself, our very planet we live on cannot be trusted. Our journey on this planet constantly spinning around the sun is marked by forces. One happens to be purely physical whereby a centrifugal force of our planetary rotation is resisted only by the force of gravity. Without which we are all looking for something to cling to lest we are thrown off the surface into the oblivion of space.

Not to mention the harsher, unlivable climates billions of us face daily, wrought with death traps, hooks, and snares caused by our blessed “mother nature.” Catastrophic hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, are becoming more frequent. Few would disagree with the notion that our planet is in peril, not just due to global warming (pending the evidence, etc.), but due to sheer naturalistic forces that we can do almost nothing about.

On top of all of that, may we mention the all time highs in perversity, abuse, dysfunction, depression, and ignorance our technologically sound & ethically advanced population endures daily. The global fears are only further exacerbated by our own interpersonal ‘relationship’ threats. Perhaps this is a point to expound upon another time, but again, not too many would argue that our interpersonal and family interactions are free from failure & neglect.

The human being is in peril due to naturalistic forces and the challenges brought upon us all by the imperfect human condition. There is no doubt that the last century or two can compete for the gold medal of the worst century in history. Never have we been closer to ultimate catastrophe on so many fronts. If there was any time to experience an eye opening diagnoses & prognosis of the human race it is now.

It is clear that fear exists globally and is manifested thoroughly as our world is full of internal and external threats that challenge our inward and collective security.

So to answer our 1^st question: Yes. Fear exists in man.

But what exactly do we mean when we say “exists in?” Is it merely a temporal state of anxiety and worry that can be remedied with Max Lucado books? Or is it something structural to the unregenerate soul? Or both?

Before we move forward to answer this question (What is the nature of fear in man?) and our next questions (How does fear manifest itself? & What is the consequence of our fear?), let us dig deeper in understanding the notion of ‘anthropological’ or perhaps ‘existential’ fear, let us consider first some preliminary items for clarity. Then we will be fit for a syntopical analysis into this forgotten state of man’s condition.

Preliminary Considerations

Within the vast field of apologetics, we ultimately would like to show that Christianity ought to be appropriated for each and every individual. Or, at best show why people ought to become Christians and at the least show how one’s current worldview, evidence, philosophy, etc is in need of improvement. In doing so, we need to be able to represent the need for a personal Savior. What the rich man held on to, Jesus demanded to be forfeited. Correspondingly, what we don’t think we need, we won’t require a sacrifice for. If humankind continues to direct himself with humanism (basically, the study of humankind’s progress by means of human effort), there will never be a need for a Savior because time and human ingenuity will allegedly yield progress. But if humankind recognizes frailty, instability, and impairing weaknesses in the inherited human condition, Christianity’s answer shines. Thus, the need for appropriate anthropology in apologetics.

Anthropology, within Systematic Theology, is the study of what man (humankind – see below) is with regard to his existence and state of being. It covers topics such as creation, the primitive holy state, human will, probation, and original sin. These subtopics are extremely deep and profound fields of study to which the most brilliant Christian theologians of the last 2 millennia have written volumes on. Human will alone kept Augustine busy for at least 3 decades when responding to Palagius and his followers. To be realistic, each subtopic may not deserve a lifetime of study but surely each deserves chapter after chapter for concepts to be explained and terms defined appropriately. The reader, than ought to consult very thoroughly a systematic theology text for a more appropriate background in these deeper subtopics.

Of the finest systematic theologians of the past 2 centuries, W.G.T Shedd (1820-1894) ranks possibly in the top 5. He is extremely long winded but thorough, philosophical yet devotional, and above all extremely knowledgeable. He defines Anthropology this way, “Anthropology comprises only what man is and becomes under the ordinary arrangements of the Creator: what he is by creation and what he makes himself by self-determination.”[1] This is a great definition and it sheds (no pun intended) light on our specific study.

Interestingly, some systematicians refer to Anthropology as “the doctrine of man.” Moreover, some would not include Hamartiology (the doctrine of sin) within anthropology as Shedd does. In this article, Hamartiology is included within Anthropology. However, our focus is to only investigate fear in man with respect to his fallen state of being – this is a subtopic to the subtopic of the fallen existential state within the broader umbrella of Anthropology.

Lastly, Shedd follows Augustine’s theology of the anthropological state of Adam before and after the fall (posse non mori and posse non peccare; non posse non mori and non posse non peccare). A view to which the author of this article also subscribes. Here, Shedd does not include Soteriology as that follows logically and historically from Christology. Keeping with Shedd, this article will follow the same categorizing. That is, we will only consider the remedy of man’s existential fearful condition after we can consider the condition first.

Concerning fear, Shedd states that “physical death as a mortal principle befell Adam immediately…The description of the consequences of apostasy discloses mental characteristics that belong to spiritual death, namely, terror and shame before God.”[2]

When considering fear, one usually thinks of a temporarily afraid state of existence. Such as hearing bear noises while camping in the woods, hearing the bear creep up on the camp site, running from the tent while being chased by the bear, etc. Or some Christians perhaps reference to the ancient Biblical proverb “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge…”[3]

Mirriam-Webster’s dictionary provides us with the following: “1a: an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger; 1b (1): an instance of this emotion (2): a state marked by this emotion; 2: anxious concern : solicitude; 3: profound reverence and awe especially toward God; 4: reason for alarm : danger.” This article refers to definition 1.b.2.

Lucado defines the center of fear as “a perceived loss of control.”[4]

Fear can be thought of as the structural system of the entire system that failed in Adam and Eve. Fear is that state of structureless existence due to the absence of real and true safety and security. More or less, this article refers to fear as a condition of the human being in a pre-regenerate existential state of being for every individual human that has ever existed except Jesus. Again, the deeper notion of fear that is being conveyed in this article could be understood to be a global anthropological (existential) state of being.

Rather than repeat what has already been recently written, perhaps it would be more beneficial to refer the reader to previous articles written by this author on topics such courage, hope, existentialism, meaning, wonder to have more of a background in the word existentialism. Existentialism is such a broad and diverse topic in and of itself, pages would be necessary to define it, express it, and clarify it. In short, I have offered that already to give context to this existential fear of man such that fear as anthropological state of being could be more appropriately understood.

Lastly by way of disclaimer, for our purposes here, “man” is considered a term to refer to all of humanity; all entities within the category of humankind; men and women; homo sapiens. That is, man is that which is made in the image of God and is a bi-gender species, unlike angels, male and female as it is written in Genesis 1:27.

We are now looking to answer the following questions:

2)      What is the nature of fear in man?

3)      How does fear manifest itself?

4)     What is the consequence of our fear?

Let us now consider a few pertinent pieces of modern literature written during 1850 to 1950 as this important 100 years of Western history produced great works of literature on the post-Enlightenment nature of man and the anti-philosophy of existentialism. We will examine & analyze a range of views from varying significant figures of the time to help us answer our next few questions. The following important and influential author’s relevant works contribute greatly to our study: C.S. Lewis’ Out of the Silent Planet – (Space Trilogy Book 1), Fyodor Dostoevsky’s (1821-1881) Notes from Underground (1864), Friedrich Nietzsche: some selected works, and C.S. Lewis’ Perelandra (Space Trilogy Book 2).

1. C.S. Lewis characters in Out of the Silent Planet espouse that the nature and manifestation of man’s anthropological fear is concerning the Annihilation of the Human Race
2. Fyodor Dostoevsky character in Notes from Underground espouses that the nature and manifestation of man’s anthropological fear is concerning the Attainment, Free Will, & Aliveness.
3. Friedrich Nietzsche in some selected works holds that the nature and manifestation of man’s anthropological fear is concerning the Individualism
4. C.S. Lewis characters in Perelandra espouses that the nature and manifestation of man’s anthropological fear is concerning The Original Image & The Lack of Provision

Now, the unfolding of our syntopical discussion. Let us begin.

Syntopical Discussion

Anthropological Fear: Annihilation of the Human Race

Among the many books by the brilliant thinker and author C.S. Lewis, the space trilogy is a must read. The fictional account of Dr. Ransom’s journey to other planets is ridiculously fascinating. Most are very familiar with Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia series but miss out on being intrigued for life at the gripping detail and energizing richness in his portraits of Mars and Venus. But more importantly Lewis miraculously conveys truths deeper than anything analogized in The Chronicles of Narnia. Truths that punch the reader in the face with style, brilliance, and honesty. These deeper notions of reality are not limited to Perelandra (Venus) and Malcandra (Mars) but are our own. In that, Lewis adjusts the reader to life on another planet while still championing universals and objective reality.

On the other hand, the powers that be there are unlike the forces of earth, in that the planets are ruled by the Oyarsa of the planet. The Oyarsa are spiritual beings in which “light is instead of blood for them.” (page 118)[5] Although they are made of light, Oyarsa and Eldil are more real and visible to the un-“bent” eye than humans. Let us, listen in on the unprecedented but delayed meeting between Dr. Ransom and the Oyarsa Malecandra on Mars.

“What are you so afraid of, Ransom of Thulcandra?” it said.

“Of you, Oyarsa, because you are unlike me and I cannot see you.”

 “Those are not great reasons,” said the voice. “You are also unlike me, and though I see you, I see you very faintly. But do not think we are utterly unlike. We are both copies of Maledil.”…

“Many thousands of thousands of years before this, when nothing yet lived on your world, the cold death was coming on my (planet). Then I was in deep trouble, not chiefly for the death of my (people) – Malelidil (God) does not make them long-livers – but for the things which the lord of your world, who was not yet bound, put into their minds. He would have made them as your people are now – wise enough to see the death of their kind approaching but not wise enough to endure it…but one thing we left behind on the planet: fear. And with fear, murder and rebellion. The weakest of my people do not fear death. It is the Bent One, the lord of your world, who wastes your lives and befouls them with flying from what you know will overtake you in the end. If you were subjects of Maledil (God) you would have peace.”

This brilliant exchange describes perfectly our fear not just in light of Ransom’s being in the presence of greatness, but the part of the core nature of Ransom and that of all of unregenerate humanity: fear. The Oyarsa points it out with accuracy and precision. Isn’t it incredible that Lewis would depict our condition this way – incredible because it is true. Poignantly, human fear is pervasive; peace and security are lacking. And the deepest type of fear is that of oblivion. That our entire human race, from the first human to the last, is obliterated from the history of the cosmos. The Annihilation, death with no afterlife, Lewis advocates, is our fear. At the end of the duration of human existence, nothing results. This end of our race, or end of our existence, is the inevitable conclusion we fight against rather than the fear of it.

Let us now turn to another anthropological fear.

Anthropological Fear: Attainment, Free Will, & Aliveness

“I invented adventures for myself and made up a life, so as at least to live in some way.” – Fyodor Dostoevsky’s (1821-1881) Notes from Underground (1864)

The themes and tones of the famous Russian fiction writer Fyodor Dostoevsky’s were echoed through the next century of existentialist writers. He wrote to combat the enlightenment project and rationalism that had stricken Europe and Russia with a profound strained protest. He emphasized individuality against the traditional Greek, Christian, and 18^th century secular dogmas of original sin, the good and the beautiful, scientism, humanism, and rationalism. Should man be forced to live under such a fine tuned rubric of logic and such technological advantages?

No, says Dostoevsky’s underground man who believes in a form of individuality & free will. For scientism, humanism, and rationalism twisted individuality & free will in the contrived schemes of man for colonial advantages. Ironically thought, the free will is foolish in itself and therefore it’s better than reason! He explains,

“Here I for instance, quite naturally want to live, in order to satisfy all my capacities for life and not simply my capacity for reasoning, that is, not simply one twentieth of my capacity for life…Reason only knows what it has succeeded in learning…and human nature acts as a whole…consciously or unconsciously, and, even if it goes wrong, it lives.”

For Dostoevsky’s character, if science can explain every choice, man will stop desiring and will cease to be human! That is, the implication of scientism is that life is calculated and the future known. But it would seem that the will is prior to reason when we consider the faculties of the soul. Free will is better than a mind drowning by science and rationalism. Free will leads to personality which leads to individuality. For science and rationalism lead to no advantage whatsoever – although humanity teaches it as the true teacher of man. The very notion of the lack of free will is absurd!  Free will must by necessity be original and triumphant because this is true life which is a better life even with heart-wrenching, back-breaking, mind-boggling blunders.

All and every man that has ever been is immoral. History is not rational for any human. In a perfect world of bliss and prosperity, man will still stink it up. He will still try to change it all with his own fatal fantasy because man needs to prove to himself that he is alive and he is not controlled. As everyone knows that being controlled is as good as death itself. Thus, man sins continually within his engineered control to avoid the very death that he has already thrust himself into. The underground man assures that “he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point!”

Man’s whole work, goal, and all of human drive is to prove that he is alive and not dead.

A later existentialist author, Albert Camus put it this way, “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart.”

Man maintains an innate drive to engineer but never finally attain and embrace. He is creative & predestined to engineer and build new roads to wherever - doesn’t matter where - just keep engineering. But civilizations come and go. Because man may attain the object he is building and as such destroys it only to start all over again.

“But man is a frivolous and incongruous creature, and perhaps, like a chess player, loves the process of the game, not the end of it. And who knows (there is no saying with certainty), perhaps the only goal on earth to which mankind is striving lies in this incessant process of attaining, in other words, in life itself, and not in the thing to be attained, which must always be expressed as a formula, as positive as twice two makes four, and such positiveness is not life, gentlemen, but the beginning of death.”

Thus, due to man’s fear of finding, engineering and development despair in destruction eventually. He says, “man has always been afraid of this mathematical certainty, he traverses oceans, sacrifices his life in the quest, but to succeed, really to find it, he dreads.” Man explores through science but dreads what he would find…thus, he loves attaining but fears attainment.

Why? Because there may in actuality be nothing left to attain…. “He feels that when he has found it there will be nothing for him to look for…Once you have mathematical certainty there is nothing left to do or understand.”

Idleness…the lack of aliveness. This is the fear of man.

Let us now turn to another anthropological fear.

Anthropological Fear: Individualism

Nietzsche influence upon the existential movement - as well as various other cultural thought patterns and social movements - cannot be understated. But rather than be considered an existentialist, he is more of a pre-thinker or father to the movement. What Aristotle is to Thomism, Nietzsche is to Existentialism. Nietzsche is famous for his style, prose, and incredible existential synopsis of how his present European Enlightened culture would inevitably lead to a society that “killed” God. He has often been misunderstood in light of the his famous quote, “God’s too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”[6] Many preachers and social reformers have misjudged and misinterpreted Nietzsche upon this quote as it fits within a broader story of a man who wakes up early one morning to scream in the town square that he seeks God. Upon getting laughed at and mocked he cries all the more. “Whither is God?...We have killed him – you and I…Who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves?”[7] The man in the story was a mere prophet – to which Nietzsche was trying to be for Europe – A mere messenger rather than the advocate of the “advent of Nihilism.”

For Nietzsche, Nihilism is the necessary implication of Europe’s values. It was the skepticism, relativism, and despair of truth caused by Kant’s moral philosophy - where society ends up with subjectivism as their guide as there is no way to decide between truth and appearances of truth. In that, the grounding of truth becomes uncertain and as a result, Kant’s views render life futile and meaningless. Thus, says Nietzsche, “Nihilism is the radical rejection of value, meaning, and desirability.”[8] It is the conclusion that all of the universe and the happenings wherein lack meaning. So Nihilism is the meaninglessness or nothingness of human existence – that which skepticism birthed.

Additional dangers of Kant’s view could lead to isolation, solitude, and loneliness for the philosopher and people. But it could lead to individualism. This is the goal of Nietzsche. To rise against the institutions, governments, society, and religion. But people fear this independence – according to Nietzsche – so they stick to convention and tradition. This is the comfortable life that Nietzsche despises. Nietzsche wants us to have “a firm grasp of the over-all picture of life and existence” that allows for the image of all life.[9] This is what constitutes a great philosophy as understood in the lines of Schopenhauer. Then, from this overarching worldview, learn the meaning of your own life. For striving for individual achievement, riches, honor, and degrees doesn’t raise the individual out of worthlessness of his existence or improve society. It merely maintains convention, tradition, and the status quo. So rather than encounter a great philosophy and “receive meaning” that can change the individual and thus his society, people remain subdued by their fear of independence and individualism. People move in herds and are slaves to society too are afraid to break out of the pack. They just follow what is expected of them by their peers.

Nietzsche’s remedy was a call to heroism, where the “uber”-man can “live dangerously” in his great individualism.[10] Where one stands up with dialiectical courage to die fighting for victory rather than living in cowardice. Dialectical courage – a ‘dialectical’ ability that operates in passionate tension. Man must act in courage. If man does exercise this, it is actually meaningless - but man ought to do it anyway. Because the only thing you have left is individuality. This also will be one that is meaningless and runs against reason because it is all futile and meaningless. Thus we need courage to be the individual uberman. So man must act against fate – against the blind impersonal forces of nature - and live by his own will and create his own meaning. The Nietzsche hero is kind of an anti-hero of society – it goes against conventional culture.[11]

Thus, Nietzsche’s characterizes society as people who ride along the convention for fear of their peers, fear of being oneself, and fear of standing up to the industrial machine.

Let us now turn to yet another anthropological fear.

Anthropological Fear: The Original Image & The Lack of Provision

In Perelandra, Lewis further elaborates on the existential condition of fear in man. The protagonist Dr. Ransom finds himself on Perelandra (Venus) which has 1 fixed land and the rest of the lands are floating on the water in such a way that they follow the contours of the waves. That is, the floating lands could be thought of as thin plastic sheets that surf the water but never are sunk. When Ransom tasted the delicious fruit of the floating lands he was incredibly satisfied – to the point where he never felt it necessary to eat more than the original amount provided….to choose the new good fruit over an old would render the old not good. But to be satisfied with the old and not need the new was to perpetuate the good indefinitely. There is not a need on Perelandra to take the fruit given today and try to store it for tomorrow. Nor is there a need to eat more than was necessary, even though it was possible to be a gluten.

In a similar day-to-day motif, the King described his and the Queen’s desire to maintain the living on the floating lands rather than on the 1 fixed land. He says,

“And why should I desire the Fixed except to make sure – to be able on one day to command where I should be the next and what should happen to me? It was to reject the wave-to draw my hands out of Maleldil’s, to say to Him, ‘Not thus, but thus’ – to put in our own power what times should roll towards us…as if you gathered fruits together  to-day for to-morrow’s eating instead of taking what came. That would have been cold love and feeble trust. And out of it how could we ever have climbed back into love and trust again.”

Here the King of Venus (like our Adam) explains that the waves and the fruits are daily norms that do not need regulating or rationing. He later says to Ransom, “Always one must throw oneself into the wave.” (page 210)

It seems that fear of tomorrow is the struggle that humans have had since Adam’s sin. In Perelandra, there was not an original sin and thus the purity and innocence of the King and Queen allowed them to live by Maleldil’s hand of daily provision. In our world, that is just not the case. In their world, there is no fear but perfect fiery love: “Pure, spiritual, intellectual love shot from their faces like barbed lightning. It was so unlike the love we experience that its expression could easily be mistaken for ferocity.”

The King was unfallen, untarnished, and unchanged. Lewis describes his face as the artistic brilliance of God’s self-portraiture. “It was that face which no man can say he does not know.” This is the designed and detailed image of every man. The image that we all once had and it embraced us with dignity and honor. It is this image that man has tried to swallow with engineering, philosophy, science, and time. Our original image is our self made enemy to which we all will by destiny encounter. It is this image that man fears.

Having discussed these notions of fear. Let us analyze & conclude on the state of man’s condition and his overall existence.

Analysis

Could we concur that what is discussed here is in fact appropriate when describing our unregenerate human race? These seem to be very reasonable and accurate descriptions of the forgotten element to our condition.

Let us summarize the aforementioned for clarity:

i.            Annihilation of the Human Race

ii.            Attainment, Free Will, Aliveness

iii.            Individualism

iv.            The Original Image & The Lack of Provision

It seems obvious that all of these characterizations of the phenomena are accurate. Common sense and everyday experience indicate that these characterizations are very reasonable indeed. As noted before, our world is in peril and our inner state of peace and security are constantly missing.

Regarding Lewis’s notion of anthropological fear: As we approach the end of our world as we know it, which will come as the Bible predicts, which will continue to be avoided by the non-Christians, will we continue to live in fear and try to stop it? Or will we embrace the facts – our time is almost up and we have lived frantically trying to avoid the inevitable conclusion.

As Lewis wrote, we are “wise enough to see the death of their kind approaching but not wise enough to endure it” so we waste our lives and befoul them with “flying from what you know will overtake you in the end. If you were subjects of Maledil you would have peace.” The human condition without God is bleak and grim. It is one of tragic fear. All who accept this notion know that annihilation results in meaninglessness. That not just one life is meaningless, but the entire existence of any conscious life is meaningless.

We happened to be creatures that are wise enough to know that death is all around us and is a certain future for every life. Now we understand that with global warming and with nuclear energy we can destroy ourselves faster than the forces of mother nature. But, Lewis shouts out, we aren’t that smart after all because we do everything to avoid the inevitable eschatological comings. Including ignoring the state of fear in us that is doing the screaming- a weakness that leads to one worthless pursuit and self-misdiagnoses further exacerbating the human condition inaugurating utter catastrophe.

Arrogantly, we strive ahead instead of embrace our future. Why? Because we know that after death there is either nothing or badness. And we have an overcoming spirit. Don’t we? We as humans are resilient creatures, resolute with hope…but could our green trends and techniques keep us alive forever? Could the US Green Building Council think of great ideas that will prolong the conclusion. Why not let global warming destroy us all. What is wrong with annihilation?

Annihilation is feared. Why? After the initial pain during the dying process. There is nothing. One ceases to exist. So if there is no experience, why do non-regenerate humans fear it?

Because man has a hard time understanding purpose in the here and now if there is no overarching purpose to man’s existence. Thus, the existential philosophers emerged to deliver the message to mankind that we can have a purpose in purposelessness and meaning in meaninglessness. Their idea, stemming from author’s like Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, is based on a categorical philosophical mistake: that the world is in fact from nowhere special and is heading nowhere special.

Regarding Dostoevsky’s notion of anthropological fear: While Dostoevsky is inspirational to read, his notion seems imbalanced. His emphasis is on purifying the free will of man from the contraptions and pull of the world. Yes man can be an engineer, scientist, and philosopher, but is it the best career for man? Yes there is a world to explore, expoit, and conquer, but is that what is honorable for man? Where then is the drive coming from when what is natural seems to be the embracing of the wild self.

Samuel  C. Florman in The Existential Pleasures of Engineering remarks,

“If most people are fooled into desiring things they do not really desire, tricked into thinking they are free when they are really enslaved, mesmerized into feeling happy when true happiness forever eludes them, then clearly we are in a sorry state” …But we are beginning to realize that for mankind there will never be a time to rest at the top of the mountain. There will be no arcadian age. There will always be burdens, new problems, new failures, new beginnings. And the (alleged) glory of man is to respond to his harsh fate with zest and ever-renewed effort.”

This is the truly the goal of the humanists and existentialists. To live a life of conquering fear by virture of development, human effort, and self-will. This has always been the answer by humans for the human condition since the tower of Babel. However, as history has shown, the forces of the human condition and the forces of nature, have not been harnessed, resisted, or changed.

Regarding Nietzsche’s notion of anthropological fear: Individualism. Nietzsche placed the root of Nihilism in interpretation of Christian morality and Christian truth. The end of Christianity was by this interpretation. Christian developments in intellectual history and the clutch of Christianity on culture, was being replaced. Truth “is nauseated by falseness” and “‘God is the truth’ is turns to ‘All is false.’”[12] The negative influences of religion, conventions, customs, are against the individual who wants to be free and advance to human greatness.

Even Nietzsche knew that his views were being misinterpreted at his time and tried to refute the misinterpretations. In his Ecce Homo he tried to clear up the “uber”-man word. But to know avail as later Hitler took Nietzsche’s works and distributed them to the Nazi’s. Scholars debate as to whether Hitler interpreted Nietzsche correctly. It is clear, that Nietzsche completely mischaracterizes Jesus, Christianity, and Christian morality. However, our point here is merely just to emphasize Nietzsche’s characterization of society as people who ride along the convention for fear of individualism: fear of their peers, fear of being oneself, and fear of standing up to the industrial machine.

Regarding Lewis’ notion of anthropological fear in Perelandra: To reclaim our original image, is that a worse goal for the human race? Or ought we to stick with humanism and engineer our existence into eternity? Would it not be best to renovate the within to yield the without rather than forcing function on a form. Surely ‘form follows function’ and that very architectural principle has shaped the development of great infrastructure and architecture in many civilizations. Contrarily, the soul is that which must be restored to its original likeness, a predetermined form which yields function. That is, our soul’s very form, set apart before the creation of the world in God’s original master planned and carefully architected universe, produces a functional life as He ordered it.

But what is more astounding is that our form was made like His form. Our personhood like His. This is the fearful thing…that once we see our true selves…the face of the man we cannot say we don’t know…we see unseen glory…the truest eternal form that time, nature, and utility has not altered…yet we fear. Fear the becoming of ourselves becoming ourselves... Fear the being and not the doing. Fear the form and not the function. Fear the longing for reality. Fear the destined meeting that fate cannot negotiate. Fear the man. Fear the humanity.

To summarize, the overarching anthem here is that we fear facing our anthropological fears in addition to our temporary fears. Of course FDR said “The only thing to fear is fear itself.” But what does that mean when considering the aforementioned? Is it that simple or easy?

Fear is the forgotten and defining element of not who we are but what we are. Due to Adam’s fall, man has become creatures of anthropological fear. It is his entire existential state of being. Worse, fear is in fact the most deceiving anthropological element of our entire human existence. As a result, the nature, manifestation, and consequence of it is mind-boggling to our history.

Implications

To our last question we shall now turn.

4)     Is there anything that can be done?

Yes. There is hope to regain the life lost due to fear.

It starts with learning more about fear.

Fear is illogical. It corrupts logic. It does not yield fruitful thoughts or thinking. It is obvious that to love God with all our minds when we are worried about “what tomorrow holds” is impossible. And how illogical can we be when we trust our own hand over God’s. In general, what is illogical is not of God, for Satan is the father of all lies and most often times is the author of confusion.

Moreover, confusion itself causes fear whereas fear itself fosters confusion while trying to avoid it. It is no wonder that we use words like “so-and-so” acted out of fear when they committed this crime or performed an unthinkable act. The racing brain mulls over past & future images, dreams, desires, etc. without considering consequences. The frantic desperate person is actually circling in unreality to find reality while striving to enforce reality on the unreal. Fear thrusts down the human brain into the slippery slope of nothingness. It propels the creation of a fantasy that is normalized culturally but regulated by anthropological brokenness.

Specifically, apologetics is impossible with fear.  Fear cannot yield objective results. Apologetics requires objective thinking to shield from cultural influences from without and to filter heretical or inconsistent tendencies from within. So the need for fearlessness in our thinking cannot be understated. Otherwise, we will easily make fear driven arguments and follow erroneous conclusions.

But interestingly, fear cannot be defeated without logic and reality articulated. A mind left to fight fear without fresh and clear thinking is like someone punching the air in the dark. Not even knowing where the opponent is. Ironically, fear comes from deception and fear continues deception until it has defeated the victim.

Fear then will always win when fighting a person unable to articulate truthful thoughts, discern reality, or choose an alternative future.

This is evident and obvious in our nightmares. Often times while sleeping, we find ourselves stuck in some ungodly situation and our only means of escape is waking up. The problem is that our dreams are describing to us a believable reality by painting a picture of a plausible scenario. So, we negotiate our way through our own subconscious processing (usually coming from unprocessed emotions) until we awake. Some of us who have these dreams often learn to force the wake up during the dream or even change the dream based on a cognitive direct choice.

In some of my own mild dreams I have learned to wake myself up by cognitively choosing to recognize that the reality in front of me is not in fact how it has to be. That is, the subconscious processing is not necessary to current actual reality or a plausible future reality. If I can realize this in the dream (which is not always the case), I can choose an alternative ending or at the least wake up in a frantic rage of wrestling with the blankets. The waking up part may only occur when I am able to open my mouth and say an actual word. By speaking out a forced word in the middle of a dream, I can stop sleeping.

Either way, when awake or when in control of the dream, fear is not able to haunt me like a demon. Thus, the ability to understand reality, truth, and whether a future scenario is necessary is the crucial to fighting fear.

Now again, the dream may be pointing to unprocessed emotions that needs to be dealt with. But it is better to deal with emotional pains and past trauma awake – when we are on the better battleground to think clearly and articulate – than in the deep unchartered waters of our subconscious. Being able to speak out emotions with friends and/or a counselor is crucial for fighting fear. we cannot fight wordless darkness. We must as humans pull back the curtains and bring light to our the darkness we are fighting. The noises in a silent house in the middle of the night maybe the same noises that occur in the silent house in the middle of the day but it’s just not as scary when we can see things.

This is exactly what the devil wants to do to us. He is the author of lies and uses his skills to deceive unbelievers and believers alike by not working against their direct cognitive abilities in day lit paths, but he comes in the dark places - along side our own weak fearful anthropological state of being and agrees with what we already are anxious about. He then ushers us down a darkening street with illogical semi-plausible street signs, tempting feel better philosophies of night walkers, and temporary satisfactions of the alley dumpster. Before we know it, we subconsciously have given over our major life decisions to an enemy we never knew was counseling us. Many of us have been left helpless and defeated in life due to the attacks of satanic influences on our anthropological fears. We have never truly fought the opponent who defeated us.

Furthermore, fear is also like anger, in that it awakens us to a deeper pain. It is not a sin to be fearful of something, but it can lead to sinful living when mismanaged. Lucado states “When fear shapes our lives, safety becomes our god. When safety becomes our god, we worship the risk-free life…the worship of safety emasculates greatness.” He elaborates further, “The fear-filled cannot love deeply. Love is risky…The fear filled cannot dream wildly.” It is truly a devastating thing to live a life full of fears as incapacitates us from our destiny.

Along these lines, back in Ancient Greece, Plato once wrote, “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” – Plato

Recommendations

Without security found in God alone, we are structureless. Thus, fear becomes our structural system of survival. Much like a child shuts down to enter an out of touch imaginary world in a case of child abuse to protect himself from further harm, so the adult attaches a new system of security to cope with future harm. Systems of careers, children, finances, etc. The cycle of missing the point continues. We tend towards wasting our time, lives, and entire history.

Concerning our tendencies, Shedd enlightens, “The mere possibility of death for Adam was not the same as a tendency to death.” But because we inherited Adam’s nature after the fall, we do tend toward death, physically and spiritually. The negative tendencies we have we fear because we know their fruition is inevitable. The positive tendencies that we don’t have we fear because we know their attainment is marked with self-struggle. Unregenerate people fear the negative things that we all tend towards, like death and future pain. On the other hand, the unregenerate fear the positive things we don’t all tend towards like, integrity and objective truth. The unregenerate is stuck.

Get saved. The unregenerate must become regenerate. To face our anthropological state of fear we must only face ourselves in God’s light. Then, in peering in on our state of utter dreadfulness, we will be compelled cry out to Jesus who can show us our fearless whole self. 2^nd Timothy 1:7 says, “For God gave us not a spirit of fearfulness; but of power and love and discipline.” The fear we inherited from Adam is not of God. God created us whole and fearless. We need a regenerated security system of fearlessness. We need our structural system back. Like a building, we cannot perform the functions that we were designed for without structural system. We must be willing see and reject our sinful fearful selves for God to regenerate our entire being.

We must die to our sinful fearful selves and take on the fearless self that he originally designed for us to have. We must follow Christ’s example in the Garden of Gethsemene. There he chose to tackle the fear that he was born to face. When the timing became right, he turned to face the oncoming opposition. He knew there could be no alternative ending. This future was necessary for him, not because he chose foreordained it before time began, but because he chose it. As Jesus turn to walk toward Judas and his religious thugs, Judas walked towards Jesus with the puckered lips of that every deceiving betrayer. Jesus took on the anxiety, dread, and fear when he turned to the Father in prayer. From that prayer, he went on to grave, fearlessly embracing the persecution, interrogating, beatings, and murdering.

The answer to our anthropological fearful condition is Jesus. He is the fearless champion of our man’s tragic state of being.

God enable those reading this who are not saved to accept your son’s act of fearless obedience so they may embrace their fearless original state of existence.

God stir up the Christian reading this to live fearlessly as he is already able.

Inspiration

Perhaps your anthropological fear has been forgotten or misunderstood. Perhaps you are going through a very fear filled time in life. We must use Scripture to help us begin a journey of an accurate thought life and fearless existence. Scripture is not silent on this. On the contrary, the Bible is full of powerful stories of God honoring Holy Spirit filled boldness, passion, and fearlessness. The book of Psalm is filled with fearless resolve in the midst of the battle and the face of tragedy. Job, despite his devastation and deceiving logic of his friends, turned to God, and overcame despair. Paul teaches us: “Set your mind on things above, not on earthly things.” (Colossians 3:2, NIV) We are taught here to look to God to shed our fearfulness and adopt our fearlessness. Strikingly, while Scripture is actually teaching us to take our fears to God it also teaches us to fear God – the very one bring our fearful state to!

On this note, Max Lucado says “Nothing fosters fear like an ignorance of mercy.” We must adopt his mercy on our lives, however torn and bruised, let us reach for it in the midst of our fear. We must bring our fearful state to the only one we ought to fear. Our fear will then be transformed to courage! From courage, we can have true life and true love.

David shares his heart with us: “The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell. Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident….Wait on the LORD: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the LORD.” (Psalm 27:1-3, 141)

Solomon teaches us: “Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.” (Proverbs 29:25, NIV) “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.”

John teaches us: “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.” (1 John 4:13, KJV)

Lastly, Jesus teaches us: “I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him! Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? Yet not one of them is forgotten before God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.” (Luke 12:5-8, NASB)

I pray that our only fear would be the fear of the LORD.

Unto the King,

Jeremy David Livermore

[1] W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, page 429

[2] W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, page 542

[3] Proverbs 1:7

[4] Max Lucado, Fearless

[5] Maledil (the being analogous to Jesus, who is the governor of the universe) has ordered that each planet has a governing lord of which it is also the character or god of that planet (think also greek gods).

[6] Friedrich Nietzsche The Gay Science

[7] Friedrich Nietzsche The Gay Science

[8] Friedrich Nietzsche The Will to Power Book 1

[9] Friedrich Nietzsche Schopenhauer as Educator

[10] Friedrich Nietzsche Ecce Homo

[11] R.C. Sproul Lecture: “The Consequence of Ideas”

[12] Friedrich Nietzsche The Will to Power