The word “social” has generally been considered a rather innocent and inoffensive word. The dictionary gives three different definitions, and each of them simply describe some kind of community relationship.
1. Relating to society, its organization, or hierarchy.
2. Needing companionship; suited to living in communities.
3. Relating to or designed for activities in which people meet each other for pleasure.
However, in recent times this word has come to be attached to other words in a way that reflects a specifically Marxist connotation. In this usage, rather than merely expressing a simple community relationship, it is asserting some expression of political collectivism or the beliefs underlying it. Let’s look at some examples:
Social Darwinism – Social Darwinists believe in the concept of the “survival of the fittest,” where the “fittest” rise to the top of the social ladder. It specifically expresses the idea that certain people become powerful in society because they were born with better genes than the people they come to dominate. Additionally, it sees human beings as nothing more than natural animals, and acknowledges no moral imperative for “the fittest” to show any kind of deference or respect to those who are “lesser creatures.”
Social philosophy – Social philosophy is the philosophical study of the social world. It uses the social sciences to study and interpret the various elements of society and its social institutions in terms of ethical values. It attempts to answer such questions as:
1. How should we live together in a society?
2. How do we come to know about each other, and to know about things together?
3. How do our social practices work to create categories of people, and why does this matter?
While most social philosophers like to think that they begin from a neutral foundation, nothing could be further from the truth. When they try to answer the above questions, the various social philosophers have to make their evaluations based on some predetermined set of values – and the values used by virtually all of them are naturalistic (atheistic) values. For them, there is no such thing as values based on an objective foundation. It is a completely relativistic approach based on the particular preferences of individual philosophers.
Now the two examples above certainly have real world manifestations, but are mostly philosophical expressions. The next two have the same worldview underpinning, but the expressions tend to play out more in real life.
Social compassion – Social compassion begins with the belief that individuals have an internal drive that compels them to seek accurate self-evaluations. The idea is that people attempt to do this evaluation by comparing themselves to others. This theory recognizes two basic types of social comparison. The first is upward comparison, where people compare themselves to others that they consider better than themselves. With this, they end up with a rather negative view of self. The second type is downward comparison, where people compare themselves to others that they consider lower than themselves. In this case, they end up with a positive view of self in comparison to others.
Like the other “social” concepts mentioned above, this one is also based purely on a subjective evaluation of people’s relative standing in society. There is no objective criteria for determining who is better or lesser than oneself. Those doing the evaluating determine this for themselves based on their own personal preferences and prejudices. Once again, it is a purely subjective naturalistic approach to understanding and valuing people.
Social justice – In a nutshell, social justice is the belief that there should be equal rights and equitable opportunities for all. It is based on three core beliefs:
1. Equal rights
2. Equal opportunity
3. Equal treatment
The only problem is, social justice warriors don’t make their evaluations concerning who should receive this “equal” treatment based on any kind of objective criteria. Rather, they identify, in advance, some “oppressed” groups that they believe are not getting equal treatment, and the “privileged” groups that they believe receive more than they deserve – and they make these evaluations based on their own personal value preferences.
Once the various groups are identified, the social justice warriors advocate for and promote political and economic policies to “even out” the disparities by redistributing wealth. They take from the “privileged” and give it to the “oppressed” – mostly through government edicts. Once again we are dealing, here, with a purely subjective naturalistic approach to addressing social issues.
Naturalistic Social Policies Are Corrupt
Of course, the people who believe in a naturalistic worldview will object to my evaluation. After all, in their thinking, who could be opposed to helping those who are in need? And the legitimate reply is that no one objects to helping those in need. The objection is in an entirely different place. It has to do with helping people based on a corrupt system that picks winners and losers based on subjective criteria, and doing it using a methodology that steals from one group and transfers that wealth to another. While that particular characterization may seem a little harsh by some people’s evaluation, it is entirely accurate. Naturalistic social policies are prejudiced.
Those same people might also object to me calling the redistributive model corrupt. After all, isn’t it “fair” to even out the economic pie?
And the answer to that is a firm NO! What makes that “fair? In order for something to be “fair,” there has to be some objective criteria for defining fairness. Based on a naturalistic worldview, that kind of definition is impossible. There is no objective basis for declaring anything fair or moral. For Naturalists, fair and moral is nothing more than the personal preferences or opinions of those who hold power. Again, why is it fair to steal one person’s resources to give it to another? The entire concept is corrupt.
Once again, though, those same people will certainly ask why they should not be permitted to characterize biblical beliefs as unfair or corrupt. With this, we get down to the bottom line. What is it that makes one set of beliefs okay and another set corrupt? And the answer is found using worldview concepts.
What is true and good and right is that which corresponds to reality. So we must ask: Does God really exist? Did He create material reality in a particular way? And has He revealed Himself and His ways to mankind so that we can know, objectively, what is true, good, and right? If the answer to those questions is “yes,” then anything that goes against that does not reflect objective reality, and is corrupt.
The fact that those who follow naturalistic beliefs do not believe or accept biblical beliefs is actually rather meaningless. Even if they can gain power and force their beliefs on other people, and perhaps even come to dominate society, it does not change the fact that their beliefs are not true.
The Bottom Line
Essentially, when Naturalists declare certain things to be good and right, all they have done is to borrow the Christian concepts of compassion and justice, and redefine the terms using collectivist principles over individualist ones. Even borrowing Christian concepts, though, does not make their evaluations right. Attempting to do good using evil motivations and methods is contrary to biblical teachings. When Naturalists add the word “social” to compassion or justice, they take these things completely out of the arena of Christianity, and illegitimately insert them into the arena of naturalistic belief.
So, exactly what is the difference? In a nutshell, the difference is purpose. What is the purpose of helping out those who are in need?
In Naturalism, the purpose is nothing more than to promote the survival of the species. Since Naturalists believe that the natural universe is all that exists, survival becomes the ultimate value. Helping people out in various ways is only a means for accomplishing a material end – the survival of the species. They see social compassion and social justice purely in terms of earthly political and economic outcomes. And for them, the best way to achieve proper outcomes is to create a collectivist utopia by evening out what is seen to be uneven.
In Christianity, on the other hand, the purpose of helping people is to accomplish “God’s will on earth as it is in heaven” – or to express it more directly, to bring people into relationship with God. This world, and the actions that go on in the world, are not the bottom line. God has made human beings to be his stewards in this world, and we should do all we can to express compassion and justice toward others in the process of managing God’s earth well. But the means for doing it must be based upon notions revealed to us by God in Scripture, not on the personal opinions and preferences of people who want to create their own definitions of right and good.
Thus, compassion and justice are for the purpose of pointing people to a personal, eternal relationship with God. The kind of utopian order envisioned by Naturalists does not reflect reality and will never work. Order in this world created by knowing God, on the other hand, reflects the dynamics that do represent reality, and does it in a way that accomplishes God’s purpose for His creation.
© 2022 Freddy Davis