Title: The Illusion of Ultimate Happiness through Naturalism: A Critique from Theistic Perspective

Introduction

In contemporary society, there’s a widespread belief that human beings can achieve ultimate happiness and fulfillment through naturalistic means, dismissing any need for a divine moral framework. This article seeks to critically analyze this notion, contending that it neglects the inherent limitations of human nature and the essential role of a higher power in providing moral guidance. Furthermore, we will argue that pride often drives individuals to assert their independence and reject the idea of a divine creator.

Literature Review

The belief in naturalism as a path to ultimate happiness is rooted in Enlightenment-era thought, which emphasized reason and empirical evidence over religious dogma. This approach has been further bolstered by advancements in science and technology, which have led some to view humanity as capable of overcoming its limitations through rational means (Dawkins, 2006; Hitchens, 2007).

However, critics argue that this perspective overlooks the moral compass provided by religious traditions. For example, philosopher Alvin Plantinga contends that belief in God is a properly basic belief, formed through evolved cognitive mechanisms designed to detect the presence of an all-powerful being (Plantinga, 2011). If so, dismissing the idea of a divine creator may be counterproductive to achieving true happiness and fulfillment.

Discussion

The limitations of human nature are evident in various aspects of life. Firstly, while scientific progress has brought about many benefits, it also poses significant ethical challenges, such as genetic engineering or artificial intelligence development (Harris, 2016). Without a guiding moral framework grounded in divine principles, humanity risks crossing boundaries that could have detrimental consequences.

Secondly, the human capacity for evil cannot be ignored. Despite advances in education and social welfare, acts of violence, prejudice, and exploitation persist throughout the world. This suggests that without a higher power to hold individuals accountable for their actions, there is little incentive for people to act morally (Lewis, 1952).

Moreover, naturalism fails to account for the deep-seated desire for meaning and purpose in life, which religious traditions often provide. As psychiatrist Viktor Frankl observed after surviving Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II, “The last of human freedoms is to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances” (Frankl, 1984). For many, this freedom finds its highest expression within a relationship with God.

Counterarguments and Rebuttals

Some may argue that secular morality can adequately address ethical concerns without appealing to divine authority. However, this perspective often relies on subjective interpretations of right and wrong, leading to moral relativism (Kreeft, 2016). Moreover, historical examples such as Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany demonstrate the potential dangers when societies abandon religious values altogether.

Another rebuttal might assert that human progress in fields like medicine, technology, and social justice is evidence of our ability to achieve happiness through naturalistic means. While these advancements are commendable, they do not necessarily equate to ultimate fulfillment – especially if they come at the expense of moral decay or neglect of spiritual needs (Eliot, 1948).

Conclusion

The idea that human beings can attain ultimate happiness and fulfillment solely through naturalistic means is flawed, as it overlooks both the limitations inherent in our nature and the essential role of divine guidance. Moreover, this perspective often stems from prideful desires to assert independence from a higher power. By reexamining these assumptions, individuals may find greater satisfaction in embracing their roles within a larger cosmic order guided by an all-powerful Creator.

References

Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Hitchens, C. (2007). god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Twelve.

Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford University Press.

Harris, S. (2016). The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. W.W. Norton & Company.

Lewis, C.S. (1952). Mere Christianity. HarperOne.

Frankl, V.E. (1984). Man’s Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy. Beacon Press.

Kreeft, P. (2016). Making Sense Out of Suffering. Ignatius Press.

Eliot, T.S. (1948). Notes Towards the Definition of Culture. Faber & Faber.