The mindless universe

While I doubt the idea of a multiverse in a physical sense, we do have a mulitverse in a philosophical sense. We have the personal universe of the Bible and we have the impersonal universe of Naturalism.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'The mindless nature of the post-Darwinian world is anti-rational. Mind is a late-comer in the universe and thus 'animal instincts' have a deeper roots and greater vitality. [1.]

- It's important to note that ancient Humanists saw nature as infused with reason, or a spirit of reason. The world presented to us by the Darwins is mindless; not only is God gone, but the reason that infused the universe and all things is gone as well.

The biblical view of the universe is that it was the creation of God, a creation of Mind. This means that man lives within a created order. This order is undergoing the effects of entropy to be sure, but it nontheless remains the work of an intelligent being. ("In Him we live and move and have our being.'') Mind then is no late-comer, but in fact preceded matter. The Christian who believes in the historicity of Genesis believes that mind existed from the very beginning.

The naturalist (or materialist) vision is very nearly the opposite to the Christian. It presents us with an impersonal universe, where mind is a very recent development, and an alien in an otherwise mindless environment. The universe was not created, it was not the product of a mind; it is thus alien to the mind of man. (It's often called a mere epiphenomenon.) Who knows if it's not a 'will-of-the-wisp' here today, gone tomorrow; a brief flower in a dead universe.
The implication is that feelings are deeper and more powerful than mind; and that instincts trump ethics. Man is not responsible in this model because he's a slave to his animal heritage.

The idea that mind is a late-comer has had enormous influence on intellectual thought; especially on the arts.
Romanticism replaced reason with feelings; especially sexual feelings. The emphasis was not on the rational but on the emotional. i.e. the inspiration came not from reasoning and logic, but from feelings and passion; even from the irrational, the ugly, the frightful, anything that could provoke intense, powerful feelings. The idea of a mindless universe had consequences, and we see them around us in abundance.

I see Darwinism as an example of Romanticism; i.e. of Romantic literature. There is the same appeal to the primitive, to the animal, to instinct and passion. The idea nature is a struggle, and the survival of the fittest is a kind of Gothic vision. The terrors of the castle are replaced by the terrors of the jungle and the horrors of the stone age past.

2. Eric Newton said of the Romantics, ''they can never rejoice in the normal.'' [2.]

- What do we see in Charles Darwin? A delight in the abnormal. (e.g. his love of parasites) What is the idea all human behavior has its origin in animal activity but a delight in the abnormal? e.g. music has its origin in the mating calls of birds we're told by the Darwins; love is simply the animal instinct to reproduce; politics is simply hens involved in creating a pecking order; etc.

We can see that he was a Romantic in that he shared no enthusiasm for people like Marx and the desire to rebel (and for revolution) but rather a desire to escape, a desire to retire within his estate and to dream. The 'Origins' was his ghoulish masterpiece; a tale of the forbidden, the frightening, the ugly and the grotesque.

- M. Johnson

Notes;
1. The death of meaning - R. J. Rushdoony p.58
- available to read online at Chalcedon.edu [must register]
2. " p.59
3. We note that naturalists have gone from denying the existence of God to denying the existence of mind.
4. As Rushdoony says in his book; for the materialist, supernatural inspiration (i.e. the Bible) must be replaced with natural inspiration. If God didn't create the universe, the mind of man must create it. (He can't do this in reality, but he replaces the creation model of Genesis with a model of his own devising.)