Welcome back to the Fourth Wave podcast. Today, we are continuing our season on discussing the means and the ends. We have laid quite a foundation for this discussion so far. Our season on consequentialism is very much about means and ends, and the first three episodes of this season discuss John Howard Yoder's book, The Politics of Jesus, which is all about our faithfulness to God's means as we trust him to bring about the perfect ends. This episode is going to be a bridge episode, an extension of sorts to connect the future episode with the previous episodes and ideas.

So as you listen, you might find yourself wondering what the connection is, but hang in there and I think you'll see it in the next episode. Also, this episode is going to be a bit more dense in terms of the discussion and material covered. This episode is based on an article I wrote a while back, so you might find that the written form is a bit easier to follow and chew on. I'll definitely be saying things in this podcast which aren't said in the article, but they'll be close enough for you to be able to get the gist. I'll put the article in the show notes below.

So let's dive in. A lot of people in our society today are all about creating our own purpose. You hear things like, be who you are or define yourself or you can become whatever you want. But I wanna argue that the creation of your own purpose, this idea of self purposing, is actually impossible. In fact, it makes no logical sense, and it just can't be done.

Why? Well, first of all, we have to understand that purpose is imported. So I want you to think of an axe right now. I want you to think, what is the purpose of an axe? Well, that's gonna depend on who you ask because an axe in and of itself does not have a purpose.

If you ask a lumberjack what the purpose of an axe is, you'll get one answer, but if you were to ask Lizzie Borden, you'd get a different answer. The purpose of an axe and any object really is not inherent to the object, but it's rather infused into the object from the outside. An object only obtains its purpose when something outside of itself, like its maker, a lumberjack, Lizzie, whatever, imports purpose to it. Now that might be a little bit hard to see with an axe because it's fashioned with a purpose in mind. An axe would not be very good used as a pillow.

So the range of purposing we usually see is is pretty limited. So let's take a look at another example. Most of us would agree that a rock we find in the middle of the desert is purposeless. It's just a hard object which formed over a long period of time through natural and impersonal processes and ended up residing in a desert by chance. Laws of nature, sure, but, I mean, ultimately, by chance.

Rocks have no purpose in and of themselves. But if there's a snake under that rock, that snake might believe that the rock has great purpose. To the snake, this rock's purpose is to provide shelter and life. Or to a wayward adventurer wandering to the desert, a rock may be purposed as a seat upon which she can rest. A rock has no purpose other than the purpose with which it is infused.

And that's because purpose is prescriptive, it's not descriptive as we're going to take a look at in our next point. I'm going to argue in this point that purpose is going to require three entities. Let's think a little bit more deeply about the rock in the desert and identify the components of purpose. First, we have an object. We have a rock just sitting in the desert.

It's neutral. It's un purposed. It's just a plain old object sitting there. Second, we have a purpose or a goal. A traveler comes across the rock or a snake lives under the rock.

The traveler is able to import purpose into this rock by deciding to use it as a seat for rest. At the point the traveler imports purpose into the rock, the rock is no longer an object, but it becomes an object with a specific name, and we give that name, give it the name of an instrument. An instrument is an object which is purposed for something. A rock is transformed into an instrument when the traveler sits on it, which, is is just it being purposed by an outside force. So after we have the object and we have a purpose, we have a oh, I'm sorry, an object and a purposer, and finally, we have a goal.

In this case, the traveler's goal is rest. So notice that our goals are generally, if not always, intangible concepts. The traveler physically sits down on a rock, but her goal is not to touch the rock with her posterior, but rather to rest. One who uses the rock for physical shelter is seeking safety or comfort. Though goals might be represented in physical objects with physical components, they're usually more intangible concepts at their core.

So to make things a little bit simpler, I'm going to kind of give this in a little bit of an equation where you're gonna be able to see all three things come together. So first, you have a purposer who infuses into an object a purpose, and that object becomes an instrument, and that instrument leads to, used in a particular action which produces or achieves some goal. So purposer, instrument, goal. Alright? Purposer infuses purpose, creating an instrument.

Instruments helps with an action which leads to the achieving of a goal, and I'll put that equation in the the show notes. So you'll notice how we have three separate components here, and this is extremely important to understand to make sense of our future discussion. We'll expand on this concept a little bit more before we move on. Let's imagine that we just had a rock with no other sentient creatures around. Would it be possible for the rock to have a purpose?

Of course not. The rock would just sit in the desert until it eroded away into absolutely nothing. Admittedly, that example seems a little bit simple. It seems kind of stupid. Rocks can't think.

For the sake of argument then, let's extend the example by giving the rock a mind and some volition. So we have a rock in the desert with a mind and a will, but it doesn't have any legs. It's not going anywhere. It's just sitting there. On materialism, the thoughts this rock has are really just physical processes occurring in cause and effect succession.

The rock couldn't think other than what it thinks. This isn't even a a controversial, controversial point at all for most intellectual materialists. It's the largely understood belief that they hold about cognition itself. You know, the mainstream materialist view on cognition is that, the mind, and and in our hypothetical example, the mind of this rock provides us with with two thoughts that nature could possibly impart to the rock. This rock could have thoughts which correspond to reality or it could have thoughts which don't correspond to reality.

Let's take the first route. Let's say this rock is just sitting in the desert. You have these mechanistic processes acting on it, including its own thoughts, which are mechanistic, and, these thoughts that nature gives to the rock correspond with reality. So the first path for the rock would be for nature to impart true thoughts to the rock. The rock might think to itself, I desire to sit here, a bastion in this barren landscape to impart beauty and rest for any weary traveler who may pass by before I weather and erode becoming one with the earth again.

And so the rock does just that. It sits there in the desert adding to the desert's landscape and eventually dissolves back into the earth. The rock's desires correspond with reality. The desires are aimed towards that which will likely happen given the nature of what the rock is. The rock desires only those things of which it is capable, and the rock desires things which nature will inevitably make happen.

Now, nature rewarded the rock with good feelings because its beliefs corresponded with reality. In the end though, the rock's true thoughts weren't prescriptive, though the rock may have perceived them as such. As the rock neared its demise, it might have reflected back upon its life and thought about how accomplished it was for pursuing the purpose it identified as purposes it identified as those worthy of pursuit. But ultimately, we observers who understand geology and physics know that the rocks simply underwent inevitable processes which could have explicitly described which we could have explicitly described and predicted with our knowledge of how our mechanistic world works. The rock's perception that it was purposing or prescribing for self then was really simple descriptions of what actually occurred and what could not have occurred in any other way.

Nature was just kind enough to let the rock in on its ultimate fate ahead of time. Nature gave the rock desires which corresponded with the reality to which nature would inevitably lead the rock. The second mental path for the rock on materialism is to have thoughts and volitions which don't correspond with future reality. Maybe the rock believes that one day he'll be a star. He'll traverse the rugged terrain, cross vast distances, and join some band of like minded rocks.

With this rock band, our rock star would change the rock world. But though this immovable rock may have had lofty aspirations, those aspirations never had the possibility of being achieved. Poor rock. Nature is no concern for truth, and so this rock could have spent a lifetime pursuing the impossible while achieving only the inevitable. To our rock, he may look back on his life and identify his failed purpose as misfortune or missed opportunities, or he may thank the rock gods for unanswered prayers because he loved his life and he realized that his dreams would have really made his life a nightmare.

But all that is really irrelevant. Nature did what it did and it couldn't have been any other way. The feelings and beliefs of the rock are irrelevant. Regardless of the rock's thoughts and whether or not those thoughts correspond to reality, notice that in both examples, the rock accomplished nothing. In a materialistic universe, both the rock's ultimate fate and the rock's course of actions, including its mental actions, like its own thoughts, were determined.

No matter what the rock thought whatever thought's nature dictated to the rock, his destiny was to sit in the desert and be eroded into dust. The laws of physics could not have had it any other way. Well, that's easy to understand with an immovable rock. The same is really true of we humans on materialism. Though we're more complex than rocks, we are just mere matter in motion, set on an unavoidable course, A determined course which includes even our own thoughts.

And this is exactly where materialists start to go very wrong in their assumptions that we can purpose ourselves. As I explained above, purpose requires three things: a purposer, an instrument, and a goal To get those three components, materialists unwittingly smuggle immaterialist notions in their assumption that we can purpose ourselves. Materialists import an immaterial self or soul into their equation. Materialists act as though I purpose my physical body to accomplish some goal. But there's a huge problem with that.

There is no distinct I on materialism. They're borrowing a concept that only dualism can give them, something only possible if humanity is composed of a body and soul, some immaterial third party distinct from the body. On materialism, there is no self separate from the body and physical processes. We might perceive that we are distinct entities from our corporeal bodies or that we have a self, but this concept is really just a chemical fiction told in our brains. Like our rock star friend, the failure of our beliefs to comport with reality has no bearing on our ultimate end.

It only serves to placate and delude us into a life which tends towards survival until we, like the rock, return to dust. So what happens when we remove a third entity, the purposer, from our equation? What we used to have was purposer, instrument, goal. Well, prescription, without intentionality and without this third party, we're left with a far different equation because we take out the purposer essentially. We end up with cause and effect or action reaction.

Causes are impersonal and so are effects. A cause only becomes an instrument when it is purposed. An axe is an object and an axe was the cause of Lizzie's parents' death. But the axe, purposed as a weapon in the hands of a third party purposer, becomes more than a mere cause. It actually transformed into an instrument in the hands of Lizzie.

The same cannot be true without a purposer. An axe could not have transformed into an instrument in the hands of something impersonal, like the wind. The wind has no intentionality, and were it to blow an axe onto the heads of Lizzie's parents, only an unblameable natural disaster would have occurred, not a murder. Likewise, Lizzie's parents dropping dead from something impersonal like cancer would simply be an effect. But when they dropped dead at their daughter's hands, their deaths were more than a mere effect of some impersonal process.

Their deaths were a realized goal from Lizzie's perspective. On materialism, the deaths of Lizzie's parents are no real tragedy, but rather were an unavoidable outcome of materialistic cause and effect processes. A coherent world of materialism removes the possibility of purposers. Everything is an object, therefore only cause and effect, action, and reaction exist. Without purposers, despite what your mechanistic brain may tell you, you are purposeless.

And without a distinct I or self, there's nothing you can do to add purpose to your own life. You're just part of the universe. You are simply an object formed by cause and causes and heading towards unavoidable effects. While you may hope the effects of your life are not similar to those of Lizzie's parents, only time will tell. There's nothing you can do about it.

You are simply matter emotion. Let's talk about some rebuttals to this. So some materialists are going to argue that while we may not purpose ourselves without an immaterial soul, we could certainly be purposed by another being, a third party. Just as the axe was infused with purpose by Lizzie, so perhaps I could be infused with purpose by another, like a lover, a friend, whatever. There are two major problems with this.

The first problem is that on materialism, there are no third parties. We're in a closed system. All that exists is matter and the laws of this universe or multiverse. While we humans may create words and terms to differentiate unique formations of matter throughout the universe, really, there's nothing in the universe which demands that these things be distinguished. Let me give you an example.

So my kids listen or have listened to the song entitled Finger Family. Now, Finger Family is a song named as such because it goes through all of the fingers on your hand and it names them. Now I can go around and name all of the parts of my body, big and small, from every quirk in my body to every large structure. However, we all understand that it would be ludicrous of me to believe that when you're talking to me, my finger, head, or any other part of me is distinct from me. Myself is composed of all of me, and you don't have to address every part of me.

You simply address me. Everything that you are composed of is a part of you, While we can distinguish different formations and compositions at different parts in your body, and while you can assign different vocabulary for different features, all parts of your body, being in the same system, are still just you. So I failed to see how a materialistic universe would be any different. Sure, there might be a lump of flesh over there which I identify as Tom, and one over there that I identify as Sally. But each human, like me, is just going through the mechanistic cause and effect processes I'm going through.

We're all part of this one universe. We compose the universe's body with no distinguishing otherness that demands I identify one person or object as one thing and another as a separate entity since we are all working as one in this system which overarchingly governs us. Distinguishing different parts of the universe is a useful speech fabrication, not an observation of genuine otherness. While we can acknowledge distinct features, features are very different than distinct identities, volitions, etcetera. If the universe dictates everything and we are all part of this one universe, then we have no reason to think that there is any legitimate party.

Any party beyond this one universe or any party beyond this one universe which is an intentional being. Because of the universe's laws, everyone wills wills what the universe mechanistically has it willing. That sort of action is descriptive of what is. It isn't anyone purposing and making prescriptions, which is what is needed for purposing. Well, this first response undermines the logical coherence of believing a third party can purpose us in a materialistic universe since there are no clearly distinct third parties in a materialistic world.

The second rebuttal lies in this idea that others purposing us is is really better. But the second problem seems to me to be to create this intuitively moral incoherence. So if materialists want to argue that the only way they can maintain purpose is by saying that we receive our purpose from others, from outside ourselves, we have some major disconnects here. What could the materialists say about the rights of African slaves in The Americas, Even if the materialist pretends that such things weren't inevitabilities in a mechanistic world, and even if they pretended like there are legitimate identity differences which could allow distinct human beings to purpose others, they'd still have no grounds to say that such travesty as slavery was wrong. If we receive our purpose from others, then surely others can ascribe whatever purpose they desire to us.

So long as one group is stronger and more domineering than another, they can purpose whatever purposes they desire and win. Now try telling that to the sex trafficked girls or the victims of barbaric despots. For as angry as Dawkins and Hitchens get at a god who dictates our purpose and value, how could they not be more put off by other ignorant mortals being the determiners of their value? Certainly, we may be living in such a hopeless world where the powerful can purpose as they wish without transgressing any objective morality. But if we do live in such a world, our speech about human rights needs to shift from one which implements absolute truth language to one which uses preferential language.

I don't like slavery, but if someone wants to do it and can, that's their prerogative. If you don't like that option, the alternative is to just keep living inconsistently in self delusion about the incoherence of such a system and the nonexistence of objective morality and purpose. But that's on materialism. What about purpose on immaterialism? The big question for me then is, does Christian immaterialism get us something better?

On Christianity, God, an immaterial being, creates and sold humanity. Humanity has one choice before them, the choice to submit to the purposes of their purposer, God, or the choice to attempt to create their own purpose. Notice how Adam and Eve have a soul and in theory can purpose themselves because they are dualistic creatures. Their souls, their selves, are able to use their bodies as instruments for the purpose they fashion unto certain ends. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve attempted to create their own purpose rather than submit to being instruments of their creator God.

While it was possible for them to form their own desired purpose, God's warning that such an action would be devastating came true. You can use a hammer to hit nails as the maker intended, but you can also use it to smash tight lids off glass jars. The hammers were made for one thing by their maker and to use them otherwise will often lead to damage and ineffectiveness. Adam and Eve, in pursuit of their own fashion purposes, threw off their maker's design and purpose, and as Lizzie and her misuse of the axe, have wreaked havoc on the human family. A big question, however, is whether ensouled creatures are truly able to create their own purpose.

When Adam and Eve rebelled, did they at least lead a successful rebellion? Did they at least create some momentary pleasure in self purposing as they raised their fist to God? In the end, it seems that to me they failed. Their self purposing failed not only because it threw off the maker's intent, but also because it ended up, reorganizing our equation. So take a look at God's equation versus Adam and Eve's self purposing equation in the show notes.

So the original equation that we talked about, there's a purposer who is God, he infuses an object which is humanity with purpose and they become an instrument. And with that instrument, there there is accomplished through action a goal, which is glorifying God and loving community. Now take the self purposing equation, the the one that Adam and Eve tried to use. You have a purposer, which now instead of God becomes humanity. We're going to decide our own good and evil.

So humanity is a purposer. We infuse an instrument with purpose. The goal is almost always self fulfillment and pleasure. So here's what's intriguing about our fallenness and self purposing. Only instruments have purpose.

As humble instruments in the hand of God, we could recognize our purpose, submit, and end up living in love, fellowship, peace, and fulfillment. But when we self purpose, we when when we try to self purpose, we deceive ourselves into thinking that we are infusing purpose into ourselves when we're really infusing purpose into objects. What do we call this? We call this idolatry in Christianity, to infuse purpose into objects in order for fulfillment. So take for example farming.

If I toss God to the side and say, I'm going to create my own purpose and I I feel called to be a farmer. I'm calling myself to be a farmer, I guess, because I wouldn't feel called to be it. I will be fulfilled by living off the land and producing crops to provide for my loved ones and community. Notice that I am actually infusing purpose into the act of farming rather than into myself. Me, the purposer, infuses farming with purpose and through that action, I forget self fulfillment.

Now when we attempt to create purpose rather than recognize our purpose, we end up infusing purpose into objects that we use for ourselves. On such a system where we attempt to create our own purpose, we still end up being purposeless ourselves not because we don't have a purpose, but because we fail to recognize our purpose as instrumented by God. Self purposing not only fails on materialism, it fell falls short of doing what we want it to do on the Christian view of humanity. God has created a beautiful world. In this world, fulfillment comes through our submission to God's design, being instruments for service and love.

How ironic is it that true fulfillment calls us to be willing instruments who serve others? When you think about it, how awesome would a world be where you never had to question someone else's motives or your own for that matter? What would it be like to live in a world where you never had to question whether every other human being had your best interest in mind because they were instruments of love rather than purposers seeking to objectify others for themselves? Everyone would be at your service and would be looking out for your best interest knowing that you were likewise not seeking to manipulate or objectify them. I think such world would be awesome.

I think it'd be a lot like Eden. We worshipers of individualism may think that being an instrument sounds terrible and condescending, but such is not the case when your maker is love. By foregoing this intended submission to God and neighbor and world, we not only sin by creating idols and worshiping self, but we lose any chance at having true, lasting purpose and fulfillment. That is the end of that esoteric argument for today, discussing purpose and where it comes from and means and ends and goals and all that stuff. That is going to be, like I said, hopefully a bridge to the next episode getting us from Yoder's The Politics of Jesus to, an argument that I find pretty compelling, for nonviolence.

So come back next week and and hear more. And I think it'll be it'll be a bit less, less esoteric than than this one. Well, that's all for now. So peace because I'm a pacifist. When I say it, I mean it.