August 2011
Moreland states in the book that progress, not wisdom, is what matters to the current age.1 Progress is not measured in the moral sense, or a wisdom sense, or even a purposeful sense, but merely in the increase in technology and the freedom from natural restraints. Hopefully, this raises a tension in our minds. What is the value of progress if there is no purpose to it? What if there is nothing solid directing our society or the individual lives of quite many of its members? Why would people not pursue how to live well, and be resigned to drifting through life? Moreland asserts that these things have been caused by the changing definition of knowledge. He outlines two massively popular worldviews, scientific naturalism and postmodernism, and shows how they have substantially contributed to the state we are in.
He defines scientific naturalism as, "the view that the physical cosmos studied by science is all there is."2 This has two central pieces. The first is that reality consists only of matter and what emerges out of matter (e.g. there is no spiritual world, God, demons, angels, or life after death). Second, "physical science is the only, or at least vastly superior, way of gaining knowledge."3 This definition fits well with how I have seen naturalism defined elsewhere and with my experience with talking to naturalists. Note that atheism does not presuppose naturalism; it is possible to be an atheist who believes in life after death but that there is no God. But this view would be very difficult to justify. Most atheists justify their atheism because they believe the naturalist worldview is correct. There can be no God (or souls or angels) in the naturalist view so atheism is a logical conclusion of believing this view.
Postmodernism is defined as the view that "there is no such thing as objective reality, truth, value, reason, and meaning to life. All of these are social constructions, creations of linguistic practices, and as such are relative not to individuals but to social groups that share a narrative."4 No one can actually know truth outside of how they have been raised or outside the context of culture because things such as values are culturally defined. Different narratives such as Marxism, atheism, or Christianity compete for dominance but only as they are embedded in their proponents language and society.5 In practice, this means that no one has a right to hold someone accountable to their view of reality, as it is a social construct not applicable to others. It also means there is no right way of doing things or certainty.
Moreland argues that the crisis hits as, "under the influence of naturalist and postmodern ideas, many people no longer believe that there is any ultimate meaning to life that can be known."6 People have given up on meaning and live to pursue happiness instead. This view is what Moreland defines as a "thin world", one with "no objective value, purpose or meaning."7 Both naturalism and postmodernism eventually lead one to the thin world perspective. Under this framework, what we do and how we live does not really matter at the end of the day. I believe this conclusion is most often ignored and rationalized due to the amount of crushing despair that would accompany it. The perceived freedom that these views bring in the way that we live our lives is immense (there is no reason to go against anything we think will make us happy). So it has a strong appeal in terms of "freedom". However, these views deny reality, as Moreland argues later, and are unfulfilling as he argues in the first four chapters. Only the worldview of ethical monotheism, such as the one proposed by Jesus of Nazareth, can lead us into a "thick world", one with objective purpose and meaning that is true and knowable.
Moreland states that scientific naturalism includes three key elements:
These build upon one another. First, naturalists assume that scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge, or at least an overwhelmingly superior kind of knowledge (a theory of knowledge called scientism).8 Since scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge one can have, how everything came into existence should be explainable in scientific terms. Moreland notes the relationship, how point two flows from point one. "Most naturalists believe that the physical cosmos is all there is, was, or ever will be because their creation story is allegedly the only one that claims the backing of science."9 Views such as this can be confirmed when listening to debates such as the one I reviewed between William Lane Craig and Sam Harris.10 Finally, the first two points determine the third. When deciding whether something exists, the naturalist claims that it must be knowable within the limits of point one, its origin should be explainable in the terms of point two, and it must be describable in the natural (scientific) languages.11 Since scientism allows only the scientist the right to define reality and speak with authority, actual knowledge of spiritual things is unattainable.12 The naturalist concludes that no spiritual realm exists since it cannot be known, cannot be explained, and does not match with their view of reality. We see later that there are issues with all three of these points.
Moreland criticizes this worldview as an inadequate account for reality as it is. He lists four things that exist but cannot be accounted for in naturalism. First, it does not explain consciousness, as this is a non-physical property.13 The origin of secondary properties, such as color, smell, taste, or sounds, from matter without these properties is not explained. In a theistic worldview, these qualities make the world beautiful and fun, so there is an excellent explanation for their existence. Third, normative properties, such as ethical or aesthetic, cannot be reduced to a naturalist view. Things such as ethics and aesthetics are not explainable as naturalism accounts for how things are, not for how they should be. Finally, it does not explain the grand story itself. Why is there a physical universe at all or why did the conditions of the universe take place? If the universe had a beginning, and there is almost consensus that it did, it is impossible for science to find the answer as science can only work after space-time and matter can be measured and studied.14
Moreland then outlines six negative implications of embracing naturalism:
His treatment goes into greater detail but a brief sketch is as follows. Since naturalism is deterministic, people are not actually free in their actions. The concept that people are choosing to be good or bad is illusory. Hence, punishing or praising them makes little sense. We can act as if their actions are their responsibility but this is not justified. Similarly, intrinsic value of humans or our actions cannot be known. Not only are our actions already determined, there is no basis for them being valuable or not. Merely, they advance our continued existence. When it comes to how things are in the world or how we live, naturalism only describes what is, not what should be. It shows us how things react due to natural principles. Things are not evil, they just are what the various chemical, physical, and time-bound processes have made them. That being the case, since only ‘what is’ can be described and there is no outside ‘what ought,’ there are no justified reasons to be moral. As other theists have argued, but is not gone into depth here, it is not that naturalists live as if there is no value, purpose, or morality (usually they do), but that they are not justified by their premises for these views.15
While the naturalist concludes that no spiritual realm exists, the postmodernist concludes that it does not matter what we believe. I was struck in the book how both arrive at different conclusions while accepting very similar premises (namely scientism as a framework for knowledge). For many, "feelings, image, and likeability" guide their actions more than "ideas and substance."16 This is due to the reasoning that outside science, other areas of knowledge cannot be known. Moreland argues that in such an environment, "tolerance and pluralism must prevail and rhetoric, image, and their kin trump reason, ideas, and knowledge". Since questions of values cannot be answered in an objective sense, all we are left with are cultural norms and those with the power to change them. This is a dangerous situation for us to be in, image is everything and reality does not matter.
Moreland briefly points out this shift towards postmodernism in the church, with the Emerging churches, and in academia, with the huge shift in focus in universities. In the university setting, limiting truth to the scientific left most liberal arts fields without any basis of knowledge. Instead of teaching students how to live well and giving them the tools to do so, there is no longer consensus on how to live. Now it has been left to extracurricular activities.17 Knowledge of religion and ethics, and hence moral guidance, is so subjective that it is better left to others. Imparting moral and spiritual knowledge to students was replaced by providing a rich student life (morale, sports, and school spirit). With no moral guidance, Moreland finds it unsurprising the universities now embrace the "widespread celebration and addiction to sexual perversion and pornography in Western culture".18 As someone who has spent the last ten years on a major American campus, I am a witness that this statement is true. While the celebration of women wearing few clothes on campus is mildly criticized by some, it is heartily endorsed by most and accepted as a cultural norm. Off campus it is even worse where "Girls Gone Wild" videos are filmed and debauched parties are considered the only true way to party.
The Emerging churches, and others, have merely applied the postmodern sentiment of knowledge and methodology to the bible and Christian tradition. They deny objective knowledge and objective truth in the spiritual realm. Moreland shows that psychological objectivity (are we biased or not) does not imply a lack of rational objectivity (do we have accurate experiential or cognitive access to something). Our biases do not make it impossible for us to determine whether we believe something on good versus bad evidence. This is evidenced by the correspondence theory of truth, which he upholds in two ways.
Correspondence theory advances that the world has things that are true or false (truth-bearer) and facts (truth-makers). Moreland says, "evidence allows one to tell whether or not a thought is true, but the relevant fact is what makes it true."19 The first way he defends it is by example. Consider getting a call that a book is in for you at the store. When you arrive there and see the book, your thought that the book is there (truth-bearer) based on your sight (evidence) corresponds to the fact that it is there (truth-maker). Your proposition, "the book is there," is true, whether or not you go view the book, based on the fact that it is there. If the book were not there, then your thought would be false. The claim that "the book is there" corresponds to reality or not to the same degree regardless of one’s certainty on it being there or not. It is objective and outside the perspective of the one having the thought.
Second, he shows that alternative theories of truth actually presuppose the correspondence theory in their assertions. Take the dilemma: "those who reject the correspondence theory either take their own utterances to be truth in the correspondence sense or they do not. If the former, then those utterances are self-defeating. If the latter, there is no reason to accept them, because one cannot take their utterances to be true."20 Even those who content that the correspondence theory is false smuggle it in in their assumptions without realizing. If they take their statements to match reality in some other sense, they are in fact affirming correspondence theory, that it matches reality, and so have defeated their own argument. If they do not take their utterances to match reality in any sense, there is no reason to accept what they say. The assertion is not based in reality so one should not believe it.
While postmodernism seems very appealing in some areas, Moreland argues it is harmful far beyond any of its advantages and "whatever those advantages are, they do not require postmodernism for their justification."21 Postmodernism undermines our ability to operate with knowledge of the truth and to have confidence in what we are called to do. It typically slides into relativism and I agree with Moreland that it represents a form of intellectual pacifism towards culture and the problems of our day.22 There is no point in defending or promoting any causes if they are meaningless and if we cannot know reality.
In chapter four, Moreland summarizes how the worldview struggle has expressed itself. With the embrace of the idea that there is no nonempirical knowledge and no objective immaterial world23, five significant shifts have happened. First, believers have retreated from a confidence in knowledge to a vague impression that we only have faith. This is an implicit acceptance of the secular take on knowledge. Second, we have begun to focus on the idea of happiness as the fulfillment of desire instead of living the wise life (since no knowledge of the wise life is possible). Third, morality is viewed in a minimalist sense instead of the rich idea of virtue. We attempt to follow customs limited only by not doing harm to others rather than doing ‘what’s right’.24 Fourth, the understanding of freedom has shifted from being the power to do what one ought to do to be the power to do what one wants to do. Finally, the understanding of tolerance has transformed from a call to respect all persons to a call to respect all ideas. Moreland points out the issues with moral relativism.
These huge cultural issues are barely noticed since they are so widespread they have entered into the presuppositions of people’s thoughts. The redefinition of knowledge is not explicit and has worked its way into people’s thinking, probably without serious consideration. Moreland does a good job of exposing, tying together, and refuting the line of thinking that has taken place. This gives one a way out of the logical progression of living a life this way, which is precisely where Moreland goes in the book.
Moreland points out that in the New Testament, and the first four centuries of the church, appeals to reason for why we should believe in Jesus were quite common. This is because spiritual and ethical knowledge exist.26 Since "knowledge is the ability to represent things as they are on an appropriate basis of thought and experience," one can represent God based on our thoughts and experience of him. We have been left with a history of God’s actions, and ability to think about the world around us (including the spiritual and moral realms), and to experience God ourselves.
Moreland qualifies that knowledge does not require certainty.27 True, we may not be certain of the things we know but this does not mean we have no knowledge. Similarly, one may know something without knowing how one knows it. This, Moreland argues helps us out of what could be a deep skepticism. Instead of the skeptic’s position that we must be certain of how we know something before we assert knowledge, we put forth that we may know some things and hold onto them unless it can be shown that there is a reasonable case to reject them.28
Moreland expounds briefly on three kinds of knowledge: knowledge by acquaintance, propositional knowledge, and know-how. The first is being directly aware of something, whether it is an apple or a sense of morality. The second is belief in a truth based on adequate grounds. The third is the ability to do something. Since the definition of knowledge is the presupposition being so hotly debated, it is reasonable that so much of the book is spent on knowledge and the mind. In both critiquing naturalism and in this chapter, we see the obviousness and evidence for nonempirical knowledge.
In chapter six, the discussion moves forward from the mind to the soul, or the heart of a person. It is widely recognized that most Westerners are individualistic, infantile, narcissistic, and passive.29 Jesus’ answer to this problem is that one should "deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me."30 In essence, one’s goal "is to find out God’s purposes for one’s life and to fulfill those purposes in a Christ-honoring way."31 This is a goal that is impossible under the naturalistic or postmodern outlooks as these views portray a world with no ultimate meaning or value.
While a life of denial seems difficult for those unaccustomed to it, Moreland states "as one gets good at self-denial for the Kingdom, life gets progressively easier."32 I agree. As one sacrifices career and entertainment to be surrounded by meaningful friendships and meaningful work, life is less dull, problems can be figured out with the help of others, and loneliness disappears. As one embraces Jesus’ wisdom for living, one gets increasingly masterful at going through life well.
In breaking down the soul into four concepts: habit, character, flesh, and body, Moreland begins to go in a direction that is difficult to understand and seems strange. It is readily apparent that our repeated actions (good and bad) become habits that are then difficult to change, though some of them need to be changed for our own good. The bible certainly uses the word ‘flesh’ to refer the sum of these bad habits in a persons’ life and Paul speaks of this struggle in several places.33
However, Moreland takes the idea of presenting your members to mean that bad habits reside "in specific body parts/members as ingrained tendencies." He makes it clear that he means this literally, not figuratively. The book left me very incredulous of this point and did not do a good job in making this obvious or believable. In his lectures, Moreland’s argument for presenting your members became clearer. Sinful habits reside in your body, including the brain (a key point lost to me before). As one’s will is exerted repeatedly, the mind imprints neurological pathways into the brain that make it easier and more automatic to perform the same action again. This physical storage place in the brain is a lot more reasonable than habits being in your hand, or some such place, as the book seemed to indicate. One is still responsible for their actions as our free will is involved each time we choose to do the actions that form the habit. Then, Moreland argues, we must use the renewing of our mind to retrain our bodies, such as imprinting or reconfiguring the pathways in our brains so that our habits are good ones instead of bad. One could debate whether habits ever become completely automatic or whether one’s free will is involved in every instance (I tend towards the latter34).
This literalism is extended in his view of the heart. While all agree that in the biblical sense, the heart refers to the core of the person, Moreland cites current research on the heart’s nervous system to conclude that the heart "thinks for itself". This leads him to recommend heart-based exercises involving the literal heart as much as emotional memories. This material is based directly on Dallas Willard’s Renovation of the Heart as mentioned on page 157.
I consider this the low point of the book and was disappointed that when talking about heart renewal one was left with a couple very odd exercises and the recommendation towards emotional intelligence and Christian counseling. Here is where the idea of strong fellowship, which I know Moreland believes, would have been extremely useful. Nothing renews our hearts more than reflecting on God’s overwhelming grace and love for us. This is only truly understood when we are immersed both in a community of dedicated believers and personally pursuing serving others as God is calling us. This was closer to what was emphasized in the lectures (where his two practical recommendations were actually disciplines of the mind and how it should lead the heart).35
The last section focuses on the Spirit’s power. Given Moreland’s recent change towards charismatic gifts, I was curious what he would say. He cites a couple miracle stories and the evidence of the church’s growth around the world. He argues that since "western Christians have absorbed more of a secular worldview than we may like to admit," we should be open to embracing the Third World perspective that "God intervenes daily in everyday life."36 The strong emphasis is that Evangelicals have been too quick to dismiss the Spirit’s power, particularly in healings, miracles, prophetic words, and exorcisms. Moreland walks through his own journey from Cessationism to a Third Wave view.37
Moreland’s critiques of each extreme view on the Spirit’s power are good. We should worry if "too much of your church’s accomplishments can be explained without there needing to be a God."38 If dependence on the Spirit has been replaced by pragmatism, then one is left with only naturalistic results that are hardly different from what secular culture can achieve under scientific naturalism. This would rightly lead one to wonder the need for God in the first place. Alternatively, movements that emphasize power are often anti-intellectual and their members become addicted to experiences, using them as a substitute for other disciplines (such as the Word and discipleship).
His call is moderate. He encourages everyone to read more in this area with an open mind. Moreland recommends several books on the topic. Second, he challenges one to take spiritual risks. Try praying for the sick with the expectation something may happen. Allow people to share stories in a small group setting about answers to prayer or other miracles.
It would not be surprising if the Western church has absorbed too much of the naturalism around us (after all much of the church has absorbed the culture’s view of materialism, individualism, and suffering). Leaning towards dependence on God is certainly necessary. Have we fallen captive to the world’s assertion of what knowledge is and what we can have confidence in? If so, it would be found in our weakening expectation of God’s power. This section was a cue for me to increase my boldness in prayer and to perhaps do a bit of reading on miracles today.
Overall, this was an excellent book. Moreland’s analysis of the direction of culture based on its understanding of knowledge is concise and penetrating. Both naturalism and postmodernism reject all authority of knowledge outside the empirical. This leaves them woefully inadequate to explain the meaning or purpose of life including where we came from and why we are here. No objectively knowable morality or purpose is possible under those views. Yet, everyone thirsts for purpose and drama of the sort that only a biblical understanding of knowledge can provide. The last third of the book was not as strong as the first two thirds. The section on the renovation of the heart was a bit troubling and I do not think it even gives justice to Moreland’s own view. The content on the Spirit’s power seemed sparse. These are newer areas for Moreland so this is not surprising. However, the book would have been strengthened by either 1) focusing only on the mind piece as a narrower treatment, leaving the other subjects for another day or 2) giving the crucial main practices, such as fellowship and willingness under grace, on how to renew one’s heart in a biblical way and some guidelines on using or integrating the Spirit’s power. As the title of the book and the illustration of the triangle emphasize that all three areas are key, I suppose the latter would be best.39
