Some may suggest this is a silly or trivial question. For those that attempt to answer, the variety of responses will likely be as numerous as people responding. Many consider life meaningless (and by implication hopeless). Others focus their answers on themselves, e.g., their purpose is to survive whether in a primitive society (kill or be killed) or the modern (the 8 to 5 so-called rat race of working to provide the necessities of life). But these answers are inadequate and do not speak to the fundamental question that every one of us must answer.
Man is a special being, if for no reason other than he is the only creature to ask why he is here. That very question presupposes his denial that he owes his existence to some fantastically improbable celestial and biological crap shoot. Man senses his specialness and cannot abide nothingness as the reason for his existence. He looks at himself and sees faint images of something far greater, and he is compelled to search for answers as to the meaning and purpose of his life. He yearns to be something above what he sees in the natural world. Unique to the earth and its living creatures, man thinks, verbalizes, and symbolizes his quest for connection to some greater purpose. [Ye shall be as gods, p. 401.]
Alexis de Tocqueville words of 180 years ago confirm these sentiments when he wrote: “…the imperfect joys of this world will never satisfy his heart. Man alone of all created beings shows a natural disgust for existence and an immense longing to exist; he despises life and fears annihilation.” [Ye shall be as gods, pp. 172-173.] Tocqueville’s words elevate man’s quest for purpose from the mundane level of survival and the minutia of life. Man must seek answers to that fundamental question of life…what is our purpose?
Each individual’s quest for purpose will be profoundly affected by his or her worldview. Worldview deals with basic beliefs about things—ultimate questions with which we are confronted; matters of general principle; an overall perspective or perception of reality or truth from which one sees, understands, and interprets the universe and humanity’s relation to it. Simply put, a worldview is a person’s beliefs about the world that directs his or her decisions and actions. [Ye shall be as gods, p. 70.] And it is these beliefs (worldview) from which we answer the question, “What is our purpose?”
But not all worldviews are created equal. The beliefs one holds tend to create a pattern, design, or structure that fit together in a particular way. This structure or order (worldview) generally must have a coherence or consistency which is necessary to give orientation and direction for living life. If a person’s decisions, actions or outcomes are not consistent with their beliefs, the conflict must be resolved or over a period of time that person’s integrity and mental health will be diminished. Therefore, a person must discover what is true and live a life compatible with that truth. Also, if one has a false worldview that does not align with objective reality, then that person’s answer to our purpose of life question will not be correct, and they climb the ladder of life with the ladder leaning against the wrong wall.
In America, there are two competing worldviews which give differing views on man’s purpose in life. One is the biblical worldview of Christianity upon whose principles the nation was founded and governed for 150 years. The other is what an acquaintance of mine calls the official religion of America—humanism. So how do these competing worldviews define man’s purpose?
Humanists hold that the preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value in which individuals should be encouraged to realize their own creative talents and desires and exercise maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility. As to the individual, humanists promise a freedom from the mores, norms, tradition, and distant voices of the past. The freedom espoused by the humanists gives unbridled control to the self and senses. However, one must read the fine print in the humanists’ promises, i.e., individual autonomy must be consonant with social responsibility. Therefore, humanists harness an individual’s dignity, worth, and freedom to the principle of the greatest-happiness-for-the greatest-number which is hitched to the humanist belief that the highest moral obligation is to humanity as a whole. The obligations of the individual are subservient to his obligations to the larger society, and those obligations are determined and defined by the humanist intellectual elite, i.e., God is replaced by man as the authority.
In the Christian worldview, each individual was created for a personal and loving relationship with God and each other. Because man is born with the mark of sin that was transmitted to him down through history from his first ancestor, the relationship remains broken. The Christian worldview recognizes the fallen condition of humankind and that God has provided a means whereby man can return to Him through repentance and living in a proper orientation to His laws and plan. A personal (individual) relationship with God is possible only through recognition of who God is and obedience to his precepts. That relationship is restored through the acceptance of God’s son, Jesus Christ, as the individual’s Lord and Savior.
From these two descriptions of worldviews we see a fundamental difference in the purpose of man that form one of the bases for the culture wars in America. One is based on exaltation of the individual and the other is based on relationships. One is inward looking and the other is outward looking. As America has moved from the biblical to the humanistic worldview, the pathologies in American society have exploded as the false worldview of humanism contradicts the innate God-given nature of man. In Part II we will take a closer look at these differences.
Larry G. Johnson
Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 70, 172-173, 40l.
