Rolling Blind?
Robert Frost wrote a poem called Accidentally on Purpose. An excerpt of this piece follows:
They mean to tell us all was rolling blind
Till accidentally it hit on mind
Frost had conflicting things to say about design and purpose in the universe. In this poem however, he seems to argue that there must be purpose and design in the universe. He exhorts his readers to “never believe” the story that we are accidental to the universe. Reading the entire poem, it is not clear to me that Frost was convinced there must be purpose, only that one cannot live with the naturalistic conclusion that there is no purpose if Darwinism is true. Robert B. Thompson, of Southwestern State University, said this:
Frost has compensated his realization of the accidental nature of the universe with a simple statement of disbelief. That disbelief represents a darkly romantic response to an ontological point of view which would, if sustained, elevate the individual to the role of creator, while at the same time destroying the essential meaning of his creation. More than this, the disbelief provides the basis for an uncertainty which signalizes the poet’s move from romanticism towards existentialism.
The most important point about this discussion is that one cannot live consistently with a naturalistic worldview. People may claim that naturalism is the case, that there is no such thing as mind apart from physical processes, but when they live their lives they must live as if naturalism is not true. It is asserted, and I agree, that one important test of a worldview is whether one can live consistently with his worldview. Naturalism fails this test. We all live as if our lives have purpose.
Darwin expressed his own “horrid doubt” about his doctrine:
With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.
If Darwinism is true, that there is no designer, no purpose behind the universe, then we cannot even trust our thoughts. In fact, we can’t trust Darwin’s thought. Darwinism is in effect, self-refuting. As Nancy Pearcey pointed out, Darwin’s own theory was one of those “convictions”. Prior to Darwin’s influence on philosophy, the dominant theory of knowledge was based on the biblical doctrine of man being made in God’s image. Because human reason reflects divine reason, we can trust human knowledge to be reliable.
Without God, we have no basis for knowledge or morality. We have no basis for thinking anything has purpose or meaning. Frost could not live with this realization. I am no expert on Robert Frost, but it seems rather than choose between meaning and purpose with a designer and no purpose with naturalism, he took the common leap of faith to create his own meaning and purpose for life. It seems to me the more rational choice is to believe that which gives one’s life coherence - that there is a Designer who designed man and the universe for a purpose.