Whether or not your worldview hinges upon Theonomy (The Law of God) or even a secular concept of Natural Law, you, like the majority of individuals throughout human history understand that there are forces outside of ourselves that have a direct influence on our lives.
There are both philosophical and theological, ultimately, non-material (empirical) Principles such as Divine Providence, The Law of Logic, The Law of Causality, etc, that universally shape the world around us. Ignoring one or more of these Principles leads one to existential and intellectual suicide.
Yet, in our day and age cognitive dissonance is an epidemic. Due to the illogical presuppositions of autonomy, one can argue in our post-modern climate that a man can existentially be a woman, a woman be a man, and yet that gender binaries do not exist at all whatsoever.
However we know that not only biologically and anatomically but logically and existentially these propositions cannot all be true. Truth and Natural Law are neither relative nor subjective. If we based reality on our ever fleeting far too irrational feelings and emotions our society would be damned to the depths of Sheol, and yet, that is precisely the consequences of autonomy.
Autonomy v. Liberty
Autonomy etymologically breaks down from the Greek ‘autos’ meaning ‘self’, and ‘nomos’ meaning ‘law’, so ultimately, autonomy is a ‘law onto one’s self’ or a Self Law.
Autonomous beings proclaim their independence, sort of. Autonomy is self-governing, self-sovereign, or a self-rule (not to be mistaken with free choice, a political Libertarian philosophy, or individualism as a whole).
Free Choice or creaturely freedom is the endowed will of man to choose freely, yet, not apart from their given nature or that of GOD’s will. Theologian R.C. Sproul puts it this way “autonomy is the illegitimate, illicit, reach of creatures made in the image of a Sovereign God [paraphrased].” (If God is Sovereign, How Can Man Be Free? —R.C. Sproul) Dr. Sproul is correct, and later on we’ll break down why autonomy is illogical. But first, let’s be sure to correct some other conflations.
There is a mistake that both scholars and laymen make alike in conflating Autonomous Free Will with a Libertarian Free Will. As a Christian Libertarian I’m often surprised by this error and the lack of distinction and understanding, yet not entirely shocked, as in this revisionist day and age most are quick to conflate terminologies in order to fit their own agendas. Intersectionality screams this in the streets. If one expresses a notion, another will run rampantly with it. So I feel it’s important to distinguish between the two.
Autonomy proclaims an absolute freedom whereas Libertarianism claims that we are free insofar that we do not trample another’s liberty or property in the process. Under Libertarianism I have the freedom to lead the life I choose until it directly effects the freedom of another. If my liberties undermine another’s I have failed to live accordingly to my own philosophy. Within Libertarianism, under the non-aggression principle, I know, as a fellow being that I am never to use force to coerce anyone.
Yet, under autonomy, the autonomous is free to do whatever they see fit within the confines of their worldview. History speaks when concepts fail. Stalin, Hitler, and others sought autonomy to the ends being that of deity. Individuals became means to their demonic ends ultimately desecrating their humanity in the process. Thus we see one philosophy is limited while the other remains unhinged.
Lastly, I’d like to look at Individualism apart from autonomy. Individualism at its core is the ability to act freely, not from existential principles, but freely from direct collectivist and governmental forces. I am an individual with specific preferences, passions, and behaviors. I should be free to choose peace over war. Whereas the collectivist powers that be may prefer war over peace. Now, as an individual I am not responsible for the collectivist notion, but I am however responsible for my own choices, existentially and realistically. I am not a law onto myself, but I am free to act within the Laws that govern my universe.
The individual follows logic, epistemology, and doctrine yet it is not forced to. One can choose to lead an illogical or even a heretical life, but one cannot defy such Laws despite their personal logical failures.
Foundations
Let’s go back to the definition of autonomy in order to suss out it’s shortcomings and ultimate logical downfall. Autonomy declares each and every being is sovereign, self-ruling, and a law onto one’s self. But how can one presuppose this and what is their epistemic foundation in doing so?
Within philosophy we have the study of epistemology, or simply put, it is the study of knowledge, how we know what we know, and how we justify such knowledge. Epistemic foundations (or Foundationalism) is how one structures their justified beliefs much in the manner of building from the ground up.
Take a house for example: one must start with constructing a solid foundation in order to support itself. Scripture addresses it like this: “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash” (—Matthew 7:24-27 NIV).
Both Scripture and epistemology are clear, what you build your worldview upon will determine how justifiable or logical it actually is.
Autonomy Breaks Down
After looking at epistemic foundations, we can see precisely where autonomy as a philosophy begins to break down. If all beings are autonomous then each individual being must begin with their own epistemic foundation. Thus each and every autonomous being has a justifiable and logical foundation from which they understand their individual worldview. But as I digress, I hope we can all see the ultimate and underlying problem.
Those who claim to be autonomous do not in fact, as their philosophy states, create their own self-laws, self-rule, or self-sovereignty. If that were the actual case we’d be living in a state of absolute existential anarchy. No, instead, those who claim autonomy as a worldview must in fact borrow from Natural Law in order to justify their worldview. Blatantly this undercuts all autonomy as a result. If I am an absolutely free being then it does not matter how absurd or illogical my foundations are. However, in order to have a justifiably logical foundation I could not start from scratch, but instead must borrow from Laws that precisely effect my universe. The end results are not mere conflations to other above stated philosophies, but instead, as a result autonomy is altogether unfathomable. To declare a self-Law you must have a Law that agrees with reality on a universal level but autonomy proclaims the exact opposite. Unless those who hold to the autonomous philosophy can create a logical foundation from scratch, they have no foundation of their own at all.
Reality cannot simply be constructed based on either social or emotional premises. One must look past empiricism towards the theological and philosophical principles that govern our universe. May we remember to seek wisdom and logic as we live out our lives. Lest we fall into totalitarian absurdism as the result of a lack of thought.
This post first appeared on my blog: https://thewesleyanreformer.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/natural-law-v-autonomy/