The detective walked into the kitchen.  Looking around, he sighed and began making mental notes.  Two bodies lay on the floor—a man and a woman.  The woman was a blond, appeared to be in her late twenties, had a fake tan, wore a bright sundress with flowers on it and had a ring on her finger.  The man was middle aged, white, receding black hairline, goatee and he wore outdoor gloves on both hands.  A gun lay between them.  The woman had a bullet hole in her forehead and the man had a bullet hole through his chin.  Dried blood was splattered on the wall and cabinets behind the woman and on the ceiling above the man.  The detective shook his head.  As he walked around the crime scene, he heard a noise—a small whimper.  The detective bent down and opened a cabinet.  A little girl sat, hugging her knees and staring wide-eyed with fear as he put out his hand toward her.  She shook her head.  With a little persistence, the detective was able to pick her up.  She must have only been nine years old.  She hugged him, then leaned back and pointed at the pantry.  The detective walked over and opened the door.  A little boy that looked like an identical twin of the little girl stood petrified among the boxes of cereal and snacks.  The detective took him out of the pantry.  The twin children’s faces glossed over when they caught sight of the dead bodies.  The detective quickly escorted them out of the house to safety.

In the case of a mystery, it is the job of the detective to investigate the facts within a specific context and accurately uncover the narrative which will explain and describe the “why” behind the crime.  Although the narrative—which is “a spoken or written account of connected events”—is obscured from the detective, the facts of this story are quite apparent: a man and a woman are dead.[1]  The woman was shot in the forehead.  The man was shot through the chin.  Two children, a little boy and little girl that appeared to be twins were hiding in the kitchen.  From simple observation, the narrative was that a husband shot his wife and then committed suicide while their twin children watched.  Is that narrative in accordance with facts or reality—in other words, is it true?

In a similar manner to the detective, metanarratives which attempt to reveal truth are under investigation by philosophers, theologians and scientists who arrive at various alternative explanations for the context of existence and the interpretation of significance.  The activity of interpreting narratives is a search for “meaning.”  However, since the linguistic diversity of English allows for different words to indicate “meaning,” such as “purpose” or “value,” the term “significance” can be used to encapsulate “meaning,” “purpose” and “value.”  The dictionary definition of “significance” is “the quality of being worthy of attention; and the meaning to be found in words or events.”[2]  Because a narrative is an account of events, significance is the appropriate term to attribute meaning to be found in the account.  In life, significance is derived from an overarching narrative—called a “metanarrative”—that provides purpose and value to the individual.  Without significance, life becomes lifeless.  Yet, in different fields significance is found through different mediums.  Philosophers postulate significance in speculation about ideas and facts.  Theologians obtain significance with religious codes.  Scientists discover significance in patterns observed in the natural world.  For all their differences, each has a common base: belief, which is “an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.”[3]  Thus, each field must accept that some things are true and exist.

Acceptance of truth— belief—results from the collision of metanarratives and facts hailing an individual who responds by filtering the narrative and facts through systems of thought.  In turn, that process produces systems of belief about metanarratives.  Similar to the crime scene, facts are splayed before humanity to observe, but determining the metanarrative behind the facts is a tricky matter.  Metanarratives can be approached in two ways: facts from which a conclusion is deduced by logical reasoning or from an account given by witnesses that observed the event under speculation.  Yet, both positions require belief by the individual.  Regardless of the chosen method, individuals that observed the same facts or heard the same account might arrive at different metanarratives.  Thus individuals come against each other because the “narratives” which grant significance are in opposition.  When human nature is broken down to its most basic component, belief is the requirement for making decisions which impact, and even dictate, one’s worldview that becomes the lens to emphasize particular facts and ideas in reality; this lens is then used by the individual to project a metanarrative that contains a fragment moral law which explains their “significance” in life.

In this examination of metanarratives, there are several spheres of influence that need to be examined: the role of belief, the Moral Law and the limited perspective of humanity.  These three spheres do not interact in a linear manner, but are in a continual fluctuation of varying influence.  To limit the complexity of the issue, each sphere will be examined individually with minor incursions of the remaining two spheres.  The order shall be: first, the examination of belief; second, the Moral Law; and third, the various narratives derived from human invention.

In response to the interpellation of narrative, belief acts as the hinge and bookends of human decision.  In Simon Sinek’s book Start With Why, he used the “Golden Circle” model to explain the importance of belief.[4]  The “Golden Circle” is a diagram of three rings, each getting smaller like a target sign.  The innermost ring is “Why,” the middle ring is “How” and the outer ring is “What.”  By using the “Golden Circle,” it is clear that belief and purpose—in our terms, significance—are intimately connected.  While Sinek used it in the context of sales, business and leadership, the “Golden Circle” can be applied to many more fields.  In relation to Apple Inc., he pointed out that Apple’s sales pitch was directed at the “why” of a buyer’s reasoning.[5]  Apple sold their products by saying “we believe in challenging the status quo.  We believe in thinking differently.  The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user-friendly.”[6]  Apple Inc. used a narrative that connected with buyers that held the same or similar beliefs.  By appealing to beliefs, Apple Inc. created a strong sense of loyalty in their customers.[7]  It was not the actual product, but rather that “Those people who share Apple’s WHY believe that Apple’s products are objectively better.”[8]  The narrative linked Apple’s products—technological gadgets like computers—to consumer’s beliefs.

Biologically, the activity behind loyalty, trust and belief is found in the limbic brain.[9]  While it is tempting to assume that the neocortex which controls language and rational and analytical thought would control decisions, that assumption is incorrect. [10]  Rather, the limbic brain which is behind feelings and human behavior, controls decision-making.[11]  It is the limbic brain, not the neocortex, that is used by individuals to make decisions.  Decisions can be informed by facts, but not founded on facts.  It is the WHY, the belief behind the choice that greatly dictates the direction the individual will turn.  In the business world, narratives that appeal to belief have been utilized to gain a following and loyal customer base.  In the intellectual realm, a similar phenomenon has happened.  It is not the facts, evidence or analysis but belief which dictates the individual’s response to metanarratives.

Across the wide varieties of cultures that people originate from, most individuals still share similar beliefs.  When comparing the beliefs of the Biblical account and the secular world, one finds they are nearly the same.  In Genesis, Adam was told to name all the animals.[12]  In science, men are still naming previously unknown organisms and materials of the world.  In Ecclesiastes, Solomon said that work brought man satisfaction.[13]  The motivating story told to college students today is “work in a career you love.”  In Genesis, Adam and Eve were given care over the Garden of Eden and told to populate the earth.[14]  Today there is a big push to take care of earth and the enjoyment of sex is still around.  Finally, in general, many people believe life has significance.  The real conflict arises when discussing the source of “why” to believe a specific narrative, the “how” to live it and “what” to do about it.  This crisis is where narratives help the individual solidify their “why,” “how” and “what.”

In the children’s tale, Haroun and the Sea of Stories by Salman Rushdie, the protagonist Haroun sought for the purpose of stories.  The conflict began when the question “What’s the use of stories that aren’t even true?” was asked by Haroun.[15]  Shortly after, Haroun’s father, Rashid—who was a great storyteller—had lost his desire to tell stories.  Then, one night Haroun met the Water Genie Iff who explained that stories came from the Great Story Sea, got transmitted through the Story Tap so that storytellers had access to Story Water and could produce great stories; and this progression was labeled the “Process Too Complicated To Explain.”[16]  Salman Rushdie, through this children’s story, brought up two good and complicated questions: “How” are stories made and “Why” are stories told?  These two questions were not answered but are shown in Haroun and the Sea of Stories by emphasizing the ability of stories to provide individuals with significance by appealing to a moral law.  Through the Process Nearly Too Complicated To Explain, stories convey significance and describe “how” to behave.  Stories are told to describe “how” one is to act out their “why.”

Throughout history, stories are a widely used method to convey narratives ranging from oral tradition, written texts, stage performances and films.  The narratives are produced with different intents: to entertain, teach or speculate; and sometimes narratives act in all three manners.  Regardless of the intent, stories created significance.  In The Cry for Myth by the psychiatrist Rollo May, he suggested that myths contributed to the individual’s “sense of community,” “sense of personal identify,” “moral values” and the understanding of the “mystery of creation.”[17]   These narratives in the form of “myths” aid the individual in “how” to function in their “why.”  In the West Michigan culture, the sense of community often revolves around Christian church fellowship.  The narrative of the Biblical text, in May’s terms, the “myth” of the Bible provides a bond between individuals with a common belief.  In an article by Bettleheim, he came to a similar conclusion as Rollo May.  His conclusion was that stories played a vital role in childhood development.  Bettleheim said that “To find deeper meaning, one must become able to transcend the narrow confines of a self-centered existence and believe that one will make a significant contribution to life”[18]  While his article specifically dealt with children’s development, stories themselves, whether children’s literature, adult fiction, religious texts or cultural tales, are an extremely effective form of communicating significance.  Even though May and Bettleheim used different terms like “myth” and “story,” they are both forms narratives.

The search for significance can be summed up in the “existential crisis” but dips into other systems of thought and intellectual fields such as philosophy and religion.  The existential crisis laid out by Rollo May were birth, the Oedipal longing for the parent of the opposite sex, adolescent assertion of independence, the crisis of love and marriage, the crisis of work and lastly, death.[19]  These existential crisis identified the need for inward contemplation and inward significance. While different perspectives, Ayn Rand and James W. Sire came up with questions that relate to Rollo May’s existential crisis.  Ayn Rand proposed that all men ask three basic questions: Where am I?  How can I know?  What am I to do?[20]  Rand’s questions search for understanding the relations between the individual and context.  In his book The Universe Next Door, James W. Sire asked similar questions: 1) What is prime reality—the really real?  2) What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?  3)  What is a human being?  4)  What happens to a person at death?  5)  Why is it possible to know anything at all?  6)  How do we know what is right and wrong?  7)  What is the meaning of human history?[21]  Sire’s questions linked May and Rand’s existential crisis and questions together.  The seven questions attempted to define the individual, social and natural world relations and the origins behind existence.  While asking and examining reality from different perspectives, these three scholars were examining the search for significance through narrative.  The manner in which these questions and crisis were faced and answered created the individual’s ideology which maintained a metanarrative that granted significance.  The conclusion of the previous process is generally called “worldview.”

Whether acknowledged or not, every individual has a metanarrative that supports the worldview that grew out of their ideology.  In The Theory Toolbox by Jeffrey Nealon and Susan Giroux, they define several “senses” of ideology.[22]  One sense of ideology is a “group of intertwining beliefs that make possible certain kinds of cultural consensus or knowledge” and tends to disappear “into” the things that make it possible.”[23]  Another sense of ideology is “the metaphysical “airy abstraction” that is simultaneously a kind of concrete “common sense.”[24]  Here, a split from their definition must be addressed.  Nealon and Giroux presume the context must be “cultural.”  It was an adequate way to explain and demonstrate ideology, but failed to deeply analyze the origins of ideology.  Their final definition of ideology is acceptable if one removes the word “cultural.”[25]  The reason for eliminating the “cultural” aspect of their definition is to indicate that culture itself is the result of the collective “ideology” that culture ought to exist.  Nealon and Giroux accept that culture produced “ideology.”  Rather, ideology produced culture.  When examining their definition of the first sense that said “Ideology tends to disappear…”into” the things that make it possible.”[26]  It becomes apparent that ideology is disguised under what appears to be natural human tendencies, which obscure the “idea” or “belief” behind the action.  If the definition is adjusted so that ideology is the “group of intertwining beliefs that make possible certain kinds of [contextual] consensus or knowledge,” we come must closer to actually understanding the “intertwining beliefs” themselves.  Indeed, cultural characteristics are the result of previous ideologies of similar stance collecting together.  These intertwining beliefs are what compose the individual’s worldview.

In The Abolition of Man C.S. Lewis cleared the air of confusion between ideology and cultural influence by suggesting that ideologies are fragments of the Moral Law which he considered to be the inherent “ought/ought not” rule that prevailed over humanity.  Lewis stated that “There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgement of value in the history of the world.  What purport to be new systems or (as they now call them) ‘ideologies,’ all consist of fragments from the [Moral Law] itself.”[27]  The Moral Law is an overarching system of how humans ought to behave.  Ideologies are the limited version of human interpretation of the Moral Law.  Here some eyebrows might be raised at the suggestion of a “Moral Law” that exists outside of culture or human nature.  While it seems unrelated, the Moral Law is extremely important to “why” narratives are so influential in humanity.

Before diving into the Moral Law, there are three criteria for analyzing and believing the Moral Law exists inherently.  The first is that human ideologies are “tainted” and thus give an obscured understanding of reality.  Even the bias of this paper is “tainted” with my own background, training and ideologies and thus an unreliable source until tested.  In this context, the word “tainted” means: the conclusive thoughts of individuals that are influenced by the context surrounding the thinker.[28]  As an example of “taint” in his article “Bulverism,” C.S. Lewis stated that the “Freudian will tell you” after analyzing a hundred people that “they all think Elizabeth [I] a great queen because they all have a mother-complex” which makes the “hundred people’s” thoughts “psychologically tainted at the source.”[29]  This problem of “taint” makes the examination of “true” narrative extremely difficult to decipher.  For example, if the two children gave different accounts of what happened at the crime scene because of their perspectives, the “truth” of the event would be obscured.  This leaves us with a dilemma.  If all thoughts were tainted, then Freudian, Marxist, Christian theology and philosophical idealism are unreliable and then no solution would ever be found.  Therefore, it must be concluded that some systems of thought “are tainted and others are not.”[30]  Even Nealon and Giroux in their definition of ideology prescribe to the idea that an ideology is a “notion of how things ought to be.”[31]  Which means ideology is prescriptive in nature and tries to shake off “the mystification of false ideas.”[32]  These “false ideas” are the same as the “taint” described by C.S. Lewis.  If a thought was “tainted,” then it produced “false ideas.”  In this sense, “ideology” seeks truth but is usually spoiled by limited perspectives.[33]

Secondly, since systems of thought such as Christian theology and philosophical idealism are tainted by the context surrounding the individual, the system of thought must be tested against a reliable standard.  While separating belief from expression is nearly impossible, it is vital to disclaim this discussion by attempting to approach it with as few assumptions as possible.  In the work First and Second Things, C.S. Lewis depicted a school of thought which he called “Bulverism,” which is “to assume without discussion that [an individual] is wrong and then distract his attention from [that assumption] …by busily explaining how [the individual] became so silly.”[34]  This means before discrediting any system of thought, there must be a standard by which to analyze them.[35]

Thirdly, although logical reasoning is a system of thought, it must be accepted that logical reasoning is “valid” as a building block for argumentation and examination of other systems of thought.  Logical reasoning’s validity can be tested through logical reasoning.  Logical reasoning is self-evident because it is used in the process of “proving” its own validity.  Therefore, logical reasoning can be relied upon as a valid source of judgement.  In the use of “reasoning,” there are two distinct types that need to be defined: casual reasoning and logical reasoning.  Since culture provides a great example, let’s examine how culture can be viewed in light of casual reasoning by using the logical formula, “x entails y.”[36]  On one hand, the statement “Culture ought to exist entails culture provides protection for individuals” is a connection made with “casual reasoning.”[37]  Similar to the statement “He’s been traveling for seven hours, so he’ll be tired.”[38]  Both of those sentences indicate connections that are not “logical or linguistic,” but “suggest connexions between different things in the world,” that are “discovered by experience.”[39]  On the other hand, logical reasoning can be demonstrated in the sentence “He is a younger son entails he has an older sibling.”[40]  These sentences demonstrate that reasoning comes in two forms: that which observes experience and makes conclusions (casual reasoning) and that which analyzes phenomenon and then deduces conclusions (logical reasoning).  While each has merits, it is important to recognize which type— “casual reasoning” or “logical reasoning”—was used in forming a conclusion.

The way to examine the Moral Law and culture is by addressing context.  According to Nealon and Giroux, “There is no “escape”…where we are…no longer subject to our surroundings.”[41]  This makes context crucial because an “objective” perspective does not exist.  Everything and everyone is “subjective” to its context.[42]  According to Nealon and Giroux, the individual is not a pure “self,” but “our identity only takes shape in response to already given codes, to the “hailing” of the law.”[43]  While many have proposed that the phenomenon of “interpellation” is related to culture alone, it is already clear in this discussion that “culture” is a product, rather than manufacturer.[44]  Cultures themselves are “constructed” as the result of interpellation by the Moral Law.  This means that culture is “subject” to the Moral Law.  Those that create culture are in agreement about which portions of the Moral Law to accept.  While popular philosophy propose that culture is the context by which all individuals are subject; culture and individuals are both subject to Moral Law.  In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis defined the Moral Law as the rule of fair play, decent behavior or morality which humanity used as a standard for each other.[45]

The Moral Law can be confirmed through logical reasoning as a standard which exists outside of culture.  Using the prevailing premise that collective groups of humans “ought” to exist, one can deduce that culture does not create the Moral Law.  Recall the previous example of casual reasoning: connections made by experience.[46]  In Fredrick Hayak’s position, culture first existed as a form of protection for individuals.[47]  Therefore, in his reasoning, “Culture ought to exist entails culture ought to provide protection,” but that is a “casual” connection.[48]  There is no indication, logically or linguistically, that suggests the existence of culture mandates protection.  Rather, “culture ought to exist entails a rule of “ought/ought not” exists.”  If culture produced the Moral Law, a culture without a Moral Law would have a high probability of existing.  Yet, that is not the case.  Even a hierarchical culture acts under the assumption that some “ought” to be in power and others “ought not” to be in power.  The strongest argument against an inherent Moral Law is the family unit.  The family is a society with culture on a miniature scale.  This means that the Moral Law could be derived from the smallest unit of society: family.  However, in the story at the beginning, most readers would accept that killing another human and oneself ought not to happen.  The Moral Law mandates that “murder is bad.”  When this is applied to an individual alone, one finds that “murder of self”—which is called “suicide”—is still considered “bad” as in the case of the man that killed himself after killing the woman.  The concept of “death” is negative because it is the antithesis of existence.  Which means that “suicide” or “murder” is not necessarily “bad,” but rather “death” is “bad” because it is the opposite of existence.  Death ought not to be since it is the opposite of existence.  The way some worldviews justify “death,” such as Naturalism, is by altering the meaning from “non-existence” to a “transformation of existence.”[49]  Even worldviews that do not oppose death, still oppose non-existence.  Therefore, the Moral Law provides rules for conduct between people but also applies to circumstances outside of culture and society.

Another opposing position to an inherent Moral Law is that the Natural World has ingrained the “ought/ought not” into our subconscious as an instinct.[50]  The dictionary definition of “instinct” is “[an] inborn tendency to behave in a way characteristic of a species.”[51]  The very definition of “instinct” causes problems.  Instinct simply says a creature shall act like itself; which really gets us nowhere.[52]  But suppose instincts are the source of morals.  It begs the question: which instincts are we to follow?[53]  All instincts clash with each other, so there must be a standard by which to determine the correct instinct to follow.  The same reason the “judge cannot be one of the parties judged,” is the reason that an instinct cannot prefer one instinct over another.[54]  Which means that an instinct cannot be the determining measurement between two instincts.  If instinct was the judge of morals, then whichever was the strongest instinct would always be correct to follow.  Yet, this is not true.  Stories of heroism are often the very opposite.  It is the individual that defies instincts—such as the need to survive—who is praised as a hero.  In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Aslan, who died in Edmund’s place, was a hero that defied instinct.  C.S. Lewis summarized the relationship between the Moral Law and instincts very well by saying that the “Moral Law…is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.”[55]  The ability to choose one instinct over another is evidence that our conscious is appealing to a higher authority: Moral Law.  That means that the Moral Law must exist outside of our own instincts and biological being.

The necessity of morals is not contested, but discovering and conveying the correct Moral Law is a struggle humanity has not overcome.  While Nealon and Giroux were correct in their observation that all people are “subject” to their context, but the contexts are all subject to the Moral Law.  As individuals are subject to our own social structures, so all social structures are subject to this Moral Law.  The real crisis is not morals, but that “true” morals are unknown.  In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt gave an epic speech about the destructive nature of the moral codes of men.

“Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it…You damned man, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code…And no one rose to ask the question: Good?—by what standard?…Yes, this is an age of moral crisis…And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality—you who have never known any—but to discover it.”[56]

The real problems arise with the application of the Moral Law since it often get obscured by cultural preferences.[57]  The real struggle about the Moral Law is not its existence but how to determine the “real” Moral Law from a “counterfeit” Moral Law.

Different cultures arrive at different interpretations of the Moral Law that are revealed through their metanarratives.  Every cultural worldview reflects their limited understanding of the Moral Law.  Nealon and Giroux’s “sense” of ideology is “descriptive…attempting to show the way things are.”[58]  This sense tends to describe the context and show how different elements have meaning in this context.  Stories are told to describe “how” one can behave under the cultural moral law.  In religions, there are metanarratives that claim to describe the “true” reality and have the “true” Moral Law.  For example, in the Islamic tradition the Qur’an was given to the Prophet Muhammad by Allah to declare the right way for men to live.  In Hinduism, the Vedas—the Bhagavad Gita in the Mahabharata in particular—claimed to grant men guidance to proper conduct with men and gods.  These are worldviews that have metanarratives that portray a fragmented Moral Law.

Worldviews that have metanarratives and morals are not unique to religions.  The deist believes that “god” created the world and stepped back to let it “unwind” like a clock.[59]  Their moral code is heavily reliant upon human reasoning and material resources to discover the best way for mankind to get along.  Very similar to the deist is the naturalist who maintains that “Human destiny” is “an episode between two oblivions.”[60]  However, in the naturalist case, there is no “god.”  These two views portray their own metanarrative that deals with existential crisis.  For the deist, there might be an existence after death.  In contrast, the naturalist maintains that “The Cosmos is all that is and ever was or ever will be.”[61]  Yet, despite their different answers to the existential crisis of death, both positions maintain morals.  In both cases, one ought to improve life for those that follow.  So regardless of worldview, one must accept the Moral Law.  The acceptance of a Moral Law as the context of reality is a strong position that opposes some alternate worldviews.  After all, accepting the Moral Law is to believe a specific metanarrative; and to believe a metanarrative is to subscribe to a worldview with specific ideologies.

The pinnacle of opposition to metanarratives is postmodernism.  Lyotard defines postmodernism as “incredulity toward metanarratives.”[62]  In Salman Rushdie’s children’s novel, Haroun and the Sea of Stories, the antagonist, Khattam-Shud says that “for every story there is an anti-story.”[63]  The way to ruin a tragedy is to incite “helpless laughter,” or to destroy a love story one must turn it into a “tale of hate.”[64]  The result is “the two cancel each other out, and bingo!  End of story.”[65]  Postmodernism is an “anti-story” to any metanarrative.  In The Universe Next Door, James W. Sire said, “No longer is there a single story, a metanarrative” because “With postmodernism no story can have any more credibility than any other. All stories are equally valid.”[66]  The subtle danger of postmodernism is its ability to invade worldview.  Postmodernism is not a worldview that can survive on its own.  Rather it tag-teams with worldviews by claiming to be “objective”—which is appealing to the Moral Law—by allowing multiple worldviews and beliefs to coexist.  In simple mathematical terms, postmodernism reduces metanarratives to either their lowest common denominator or greatest common factor.  However, postmodernism creates a metanarrative that rejects narratives which are inclusive and exclusive.  Therefore, postmodernism is exclusive; and thus, by rejecting metanarratives, postmodernism is self-contradictory in nature.[67]

Despite the ultimately contradictory position of postmodernism, its critical analysis of metanarratives has made several contributions to the deeper discussion of worldview: the critique of human reason and the scientific method and “attention to the social conditions under which we understand the world can alert us to our limited perspectives as finite human beings.”[68]  Really, this contribution of postmodernism is the same as using logical reasoning.  However, since logical reasoning has little press, postmodernism has taken the gold medal as the forerunner of criticism.  These ideas help the intellectual to identify those systems of thought that can be considered “tainted” because of their flawed foundation in limited human reasoning.  The social conditions have been addressed by acknowledging the “tainted” moral laws.  Yet, the postmodern stance leads to a necessary examination of the role of science in worldview and narratives.  The role of science is often misconstrued to suppose it is in search of significance for humanity.

The alleged unbiased stance that the scientific community provides through facts, evidence and paradigms against metanarratives is wildly misunderstood.  Many narratives used by the intellectual community are derived from “facts” of reality discovered by scientists during experimentation.  While the facts are worth considering, there are two dynamics that desperately need to be clarified: paradigms prove nothing and the perspective of scientists.  Science creates paradigms and observes reality but is constructed through beliefs that might be inaccurate.  Scientists themselves are not innovators or creators, but rather “puzzle-solvers.”[69]  The concept of “paradigm” suggests in its premise that there is a “solution.”[70]  The purpose of “normal science” is to more accurately describe paradigms.[71]  According to Kuhn, the “really pressing problems, e.g., a cure for cancer or the design of a lasting peace, are often not puzzles at all, largely because they may not have any solution.”[72]  These facts, paradigms, then are not in and of themselves “revolutionary.”  The “revolutions” are dynamic shifts in the scientist’s or scientific communities’ worldview.[73]  Nothing changed in the characteristics of the event or object being observed.  Rather, there are two factors that determine what a man sees, “what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see.”[74]  In his discussion of Galileo and Aristotelian observation of an object swinging by a string, Kuhn notes that “Descriptively,” their perceptions were equally accurate.[75]  The difference lay in their understanding of “how” it happened.  The job of scientists is to more accurately describe known phenomenon of “problem-solution” paradigms.  Paradigms do not create “narrative” but articulate events within a narrative with hoped/attempted accuracy.

The understanding that science contains the correct narrative about reality because it accurately describes phenomenon in the world is a fallacy.  In Thomas S. Kuhn’s examination of the history of science, he began by clarifying the historical perspective by saying, “If these out-of-date beliefs are to be called myths, then myths can be produced by the same sort of methods and held for the same sort of methods and held for the same sorts of reasons that now lead to scientific knowledge.  If, on the other hand, they are to be called science, then science has included bodies of belief quite incompatible with the ones we hold today.”[76]  Science is unjustly granted privileges because it is rarely recognized that “scientific knowledge” struggles with beliefs just like philosophy and religion.  There is another fallacy that science is “moving” towards a “goal.[77]  In short, supposedly, science is progressive.  However, this is incorrect.  A “goal” is derived from a narrative.  Science does not give narratives.  Narratives are created by scientists who have their own worldviews based on their own ideologies.  When science beings to pursue a goal—significance—it is attempting to provide evidence for a narrative, not examining paradigms.  Science simply describes more accurately that which is known.  An economist and historian, Ludwig von Mises said that “Emphatically rejecting all traditional religions and claiming for their teachings the epithet “scientific,” various writers tried to substitute a new faith for the old ones.”[78]  In Mises estimation, science is the term by which the metanarrative of progress “will triumph” by “the plan of the mysterious prime mover” to the “liquidation of all dissenters” to “establish the undisputed supremacy of the absolute eternal values.”[79]  Said in this fashion, that narrative generally falls under the worldview of “Deism.”[80]  Yet, that narrative is not new.  It is the same metanarrative of most world religions but relabeled as “science.”[81]  Similar to the detective story, the facts and paradigms are clearly laid out for observation but they are not conclusive.  One can describe “how” a bullet left the gun, but that won’t explain “why” someone pulled the trigger.  Even science relies on a metanarrative to grant the field significance.

Metanarratives convey a fragmented version of the Moral Law through the ideologies it proclaims and are supported by some paradigms and interpellate the individual.  The response by the individual is directed by their prior beliefs.  These metanarratives which interpellate individual’s to “believe” by appealing to their “why.”  The “Golden Circle” has returned.  When a metanarrative is told, it “sells” a fragmented moral law.  Those that have the same “why” as the metanarrative will accept the fragmented moral law while others will not.  In Ayn Rand’s book, Atlas Shrugged, she lays out her “Objectivist ethics” through the character John Galt.  The “Objectivist ethics” propose that “man’s life [is] the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man.”[82]  Rand supposed that all men were “selfish,” not in the traditional evil sense, but because it was natural for man to “be the beneficiary of his own moral actions.”[83]  This position stands in direct opposition to altruism which is the belief or practice of selfless concern for the well-being of others.  These two narratives attract different individuals because their “why” correlates with one of the two narratives.  Ayn Rand saw that men acted in their own self-interest and created a narrative to explain her worldview.  In turn, she produced a story that explained “how” her worldview functioned.

Labeling another individual’s culture helps identify their worldview more quickly by acknowledging the metanarrative of their society.  For example, Ayn Rand was a Russian Jew that came to America during the between World War I and World War II.  Through her novel Atlas Shrugged, she shows her Objectivist ethics in action.  Salman Rushdie was a British Indian writer of Muslim origin and became the object of a fatwa—which is an Islamic ruling given by a Muslim in authority—from Ayatollah Khomeini to kill Rushdie to silence him from speaking and writing against Muslim beliefs.  Using the children’s story Haroun and the Sea of Stories as an analogy for Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian and Indian governments’ attempt to control speech in the Middle East and India, Rushdie spoke out against the fatwa.  C.S. Lewis was a British professor at Oxford University and in The Chronicles of Narina displayed his Christian beliefs and the conflict between Protestants and Catholics.  By pinpointing an individual’s culture, one can more quickly uncover their worldview to grasp the ideologies they show through their stories.

However, there is a catch: if these metanarratives are told by limited humans then they are “tainted.”  All narratives told from a limited human position are “tainted” and therefore only partially accurate in their attempt to convey the Moral Law.  As C.S. Lewis notes, “A great many of those who ‘debunk’ tradition or (as they would say) ‘sentimental’ values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process.”[84]  In the speech by John Galt, Rand tried to “debunk” traditional views, even though her own perspective is “tainted” as well.  When someone, like Rand attempts to be “objective,” they are suggesting a lack of allegiance to a person, idea or agenda.  Yet, at the same moment they appeal to the Moral Law and claim to be in a morally just position under the Moral Law.  The Moral Law hails us to behave in a particular fashion.  There is no initiative by us since the Moral Law existed before our own existence.

In any attempt to understand the “real” narrative, this position leaves the individual quite hopeless and confused—the opposite of providing significance.  Human reasoning, like observing facts or scientific paradigms, only avails us to a certain degree.  One can confidently conclude that a Moral Law exists, and it is separate from human biology and derived from an external source outside of the material universe.  The cultural interpretations of the Moral Law are tainted and incomplete versions, similar to a shadow of a man.  The shadow gives a basic understanding of the real man but inaccurate for details; sometimes the shadow is taller and sometimes shorter than the real man himself.  Scientific paradigms exist but don’t explain the “why” of metanarratives and facts could support a variety of different narratives.  Human intellect is tainted by the context into which the individual is born, thus making their perspective skewed.  Therefore, any description of reality is like comparing a painting to the real landscape: the painting might look beautiful, but it is a fake version.  The terms “science,” “worldview” and “religion” are all synonymous with “believing a metanarrative that grants significance.”  At this point, logical reasoning can go no further.  There is nothing left to deduce from a logical or linguistic position.  Without a metanarrative, all the factors—the Moral Law, paradigms, intellect—amount to empty mental exercises with no reason to form application.  How then is one to find an “untainted” narrative if all narratives are told from human perspectives?

A narrative that comes from a source that is outside of the context of humanity that can be confirmed by two witnesses is the “true” metanarrative about existence that will grant understanding to the Moral Law and pure significance to an individual.  There are two problems with the Moral Law: humanity can never fully know it by logical or casual reasoning.  Since the Moral Law is outside of the biological human, the conclusion is that the Moral Law was put into place by another source which is separate from humanity.  That premise demands the existence of a “higher power.”  If the Moral Law exists prior to our own existence, then something or someone must have installed the Moral Law into the fabric of the universe.  This premise might appear to be a trick, some illusion of an argument meant to convince the reader into “believing” a specific metanarrative.  It is not the case, rather, using logic, this is the only conclusion that holds any validity.  On one hand, using logical reasoning mandates that “A limited human perspective entails limited accuracy.”  On the other hand, “A source outside of context entails a source not subject to context entails an untainted source.”  While many intellectuals emphasize the failings of religion, it has already been observed by Mises that science and religion actually contain the same metanarrative.[85]  Logical reasoning cannot conclude anything about the nature of the external source.  Like the Moral Law, logic can only confirm the external source’s existence but not its character.

The only way to confirm an untainted metanarrative is to have two witnesses that are also external from the context.  In the context of the crime scene, the twin children would be the witnesses to convey the “narrative” of the “crime” prior to the event.  The twin children’s witness would be required in court to explain the event before the context in which the detective found the dead man and woman.  In the story, the children “existed” before the context of the crime scene was created.  Their prior existence gives them credibility when they recall their account because it is “untainted.”  In religious terms, this conveyance of “narrative” from an external source is called “revelation.”  The importance of the “revelation” is that it remains untainted since the “higher power” is outside of the social and cultural constructs that obscure humanities’ observations about itself and the natural world.  Through these narratives, significance is granted.

As a historical, literary and religious document, the Biblical account is the best text to demonstrate interpellation through a metanarrative derived from an external source outside of human context that provides witnesses to confirm the metanarrative.  In the Christian tradition, the Gospel of John’s account of Jesus the Nazarene begins by calling Jesus the “Word” that came with a metanarrative that interpellated the hearers to accept Jesus as one with God and if they “believed in his name” then they could become “children of God.”[86]  In Paul’s letter to the Christian Romans, he explains a similar understanding, that “faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.”[87]  These terms seem “religious,” but can be explained with intellectual terminology.  Simply, Jesus spoke a metanarrative with a specific Moral Law that interpellated listeners.  They either believed or did not believe and depending on their response, each individual created their own worldview as their ideologies and interpretation of the narrative interacted.  Historically, one can see the resulting conducts of at least two worldviews that resulting from the interpellation of Jesus’ message: the Jews that killed Jesus and the Jews that followed him until their death.  It is taken for granted that denial of a metanarrative is the acceptance of a different metanarrative.  It is convenient to believe one doesn’t adhere to a metanarrative, however, it has already been show this is a fallacy.  Even postmodernism has a metanarrative.  Ayn Rand said “A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence.  As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need philosophy.”[88]  It is the same with metanarratives; everyone has one even if it is unknown to the conscious mind.

In the formation of worldview, individuals accept and produce metanarratives that exemplify their ideologies about the Moral Law.  By their behavior, people show that a Moral Law exists, but curve it to fit the collective social condition without knowing which portions got twisted.  Through the various cultural metanarratives, individuals retell their own worldview that contains all their ideologies.  Within that metanarrative, the person finds their significance that helps give understand to their “why” and action to their “how.”  The narratives that are constructed tend to answer the questions posed by existential crisis.  Whether about birth, work or death, people desire to find a meaning to the event.  Through that understanding, the individual perceives the world and tries to find significance in the confusion.  However, for all humanity’s collective input, the “true” metanarrative that provides real significance and the pure Moral Law can only be discovered by hearing an external source’s story before the context of human existence began.  It will be revealed when two witnesses finally step forward that observed the events under inspection; after all, “Who is John Galt?”[89]

[1] Victoria Neufeldt and Andrew N. Sparks, eds, Webster’s New World Dictionary (New York, NY: Warner Books, 1990).

[2] Neufeldt, Webster’s New World Dictionary.

[3] Neufeldt, Webster’s New World Dictionary.

[4]Simon Sinek, Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action (London: Portfolio/Penguin, 2013), 38-39.

[5] Sinek, Start with Why, 40-41.

[6]Ibid, 41.

[7] Ibid, 40.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid, 56.

[11] Ibid, 56-7.

[12] “Genesis” in The International Inductive Study Bible (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), 5.

[13] “Ecclesiastes” in The International Inductive Study Bible (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), 1065.

[14] “Genesis” in The International Inductive Study Bible, 5.

[15] Salman Rushdie, Haroun and the Sea of Stories (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1991), 22.

[16] Rushdie, Haroun and the Sea of Stories, 59.

[17] Rollo May, The Cry for Myth, (New York, NY: Norton & Company, 1991), 30-31.

[18] Bruno Bettelheim, “[The Struggle for Meaning]” in The Classic Fairy Tales: Texts, Criticism (New York, NY: Norton & Company, 1999), 269.

[19] May, The Cry for Myth, 38-39.

[20] Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It (New York, NY: New American Library, 1982), 2.

[21] James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, 4^th Edition (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 20.

[22] Jeffrey T. Nealon and Susan Searls Giroux, The Theory Toolbox: Critical Concepts for the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012), 97.

[23] Nealon and Giroux, The Theory Toolbox, 97.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics, (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002), 713-14.

[28] C.S. Lewis, First and Second Things: Essays on Theology and Ethics edited by Walter Hooper, (Oxford, London: Fount Paperbacks, 1989), 14.

[29] Lewis, First and Second Things, 14.

[30] Ibid, 14.

[31] Nealon and Giroux, The Theory Toolbox, 94.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Lewis, First and Second Things, 14.

[35] Ibid.

[36] P.F. Strawson, Introduction to Logical Theory (Northampton, Great Britain: John Dickens & Co Ltd,1967), 36.

[37] Strawson, Introduction to Logical Theory, 37.

[38] Ibid, 36.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Nealon and Giroux, The Theory Toolbox 47.

[42] Ibid, 36-42.

[43] Ibid, 46.

[44] Ibid, 44-48.

[45] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics, (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002), 15.

[46]Strawson, Introduction to Logical Theory 36.

[47] F. A. Hayek, The Collected works of F. A. Hayek: The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, Edited by William Warren Bartley, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991), 17-19.

[48] Strawson, Introduction to Logical Theory, 37.

[49] Sire, The Universe Next Door, 68.

[50] Hayek, The Collected works of F. A, 17-19.

[51] Neufeldt, Webster’s New World Dictionary.

[52] Lewis, The Abolition of Man, 708.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Ibid, 710.

[55] Lewis, Mere Christianity, 20-21.

[56] Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1992), 925.

[57] Lewis, The Abolition of Man, 714-15.

[58] Nealon and Giroux, The Theory Toolbox 96.

[59] Sire, The Universe Next Door, 48-9.

[60] Ibid, 67.

[61] Ibid, 61.

[62] Jean-Francois Lyotard, “The postmodern condition” in The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Theory edited by Steven Seidman, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 27.

[63] Rushdie, Haroun and the Sea of Stories, 160.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Ibid.

[66] Sire, The Universe Next Door, 214.

[67] Ibid, 237.

[68] Ibid, 236.

[69] Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 4^th Edition (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2012), 36.

[70] Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 37.

[71] Ibid, 42.

[72] Ibid, 37.

[73] Ibid, 111

[74] Ibid, 113.

[75] Ibid, 119.

[76] Ibid, 3.

[77] Ibid, 169-71.

[78] Ludwig von Mises, Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution (Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Fund, Inc., 2005), 34.

[79] Mises, Theory and History, 34.

[80] Sire, The Universe Next Door, 46.

[81] Mises, Theory and History, 34.

[82] Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness (New York, NY: Signet Printing, 1964), 27.

[83] Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, x.

[84] Lewis, The Abolition of Man, 706.

[85] Mises, Theory and History, 34.

[86] “John” in The International Inductive Study Bible (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), 1713.

[87] “Romans” in The International Inductive Study Bible (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), 1837.

[88] Rand, Philosophy 7.

[89] Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 32.