This is a continuation of our Road to Reason series: a collection of blog posts dedicated to exploring the role of reason within some of the today’s dominant global worldviews. Here are our earlier posts in the Series (Introduction, I, II, and III):
Today’s Yellow Brick Road (Introduction to the Series)
Introduction to the West’s Four Primary Materialist Worldviews
So far on this journey down the Road to Reason we’ve introduced the central human concerns of God, truth, and the tools of reason itself. Let’s face it, all humans use their capacities to reason and survive, and they also tribally band together to agree on truth in various forms to serve their own particular human needs; even if that truth is “no truth.”
In other words, human history has served up an incredible variety of situations. The result? Human beings have found a practical home for nearly every claim imaginable, no matter how absurd, where that claim will somehow work to achieve some goal. It’s not the claim’s or the claimant’s fault; it’s this Mad, Mad, Mad World we experience. In sum, there are always enough human situations . . . and fools . . . such that every worldview claim has and will have its perfect day, hit-or-miss, throughout history.
Please see our two-part series on Worldview and Belief (Part I and Part II) for coloration on how we go about deciding what to believe. Once in Part I, slide down the page until you see the diagram outlining “Core, Negotiables, and Periphery” beliefs on the left. This topic of reason or rationality is fundamental to anyone’s worldview. Excellent authors continuously write on the topic, and we will be reviewing this book later this year.
Yet, of course, materialism has existed in philosophy since the earliest of ancient times. It surged again in early modern times through rediscoveries of ancient writing and the work of philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza, gained a lasting position during the Enlightenment, and took off during the 1800’s (through the efforts of notables like Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, among many others). Materialism achieved political prominence in the 20th Century with the ascendancy of often unrelated ideologies like positivism, libertarianism, fascism, socialism, communism, and postmodernism.
It’s important to understand that, according to materialist worldviews, the mind and reason entail pure matter and energy being conscious of itself. Such a claim deserves a whole post or even volumes to investigate. But in sum on this scientific debate, from what we can tell, there seem to be just as many scientists and philosophers of science who believe science can explain self-conscious matter fully (almost!) as those who believe we are no closer to explaining it (a wholly materialist mind) than in earliest ancient times.
To the latter group, the mind and consciousness will always remain a mystery, exhibiting a non-material or spiritual nature. For now, Praxis Circle with take the Fifth on that one!
Though the West has done by far the most to define reason and explore its limits, in our last post, The Tin Man and Beyond Reason linked above, we tried to show how the East has worked equally hard to know human reason and show that it has its limits, and that we human beings do well to transcend reason at the right times by honoring paradox, feelings, emotions, and the transcendent. In doing so, the Eastern goal is usually, in part, to leave our selfishness behind.
While we recognized last time that there are certainly many if not more worldviews in the East than an the West (and that we cannot possibly represent all Eastern worldviews in one post), we thought it important to start our presentation of global worldviews there.
Why? Because we must regularly consider radically different worldviews in order to understand our own. Indeed, most in the West recognize that human reason is limited and that focusing on spiritual concerns and selflessness is good. Thus, last time, we stressed the Tin Man’s role in showing the audience traveling with him down the Yellow Brick Road how to have a heart and get over himself/herself. Feelings, emotions, and love represented in the heart make the world go round, and the heart brings us together for the common good.
The Creator God Story (CGS) versus the Man God Story (MGS)
On the one hand, we believe there are many universals across worldviews (like the goodness of the heart); on the other, we see that most of the world’s dominant worldviews contain incompatible metaphysical elements that make them logically irreconcilable. While there are countless worldviews across the world, there are approximately 5 – 10 that dominate with the largest following, depending on where you want to make the cut.
The number of dominant worldviews is truly as random as the number of teams picked to make the NCAA football playoffs. (And we know college football fans and experts will never agree on which number is most satisfying there, like they have with college basketball. 64 teams enter the NCAA Playoffs in basketball to get to the Final Four, and football starts now with an extremely unsatisfying but maybe necessary for now automatic, voted in “Final Four.”)
In our post today Praxis Circle returns to the West (where we will stay for the rest of the Series) and presents short playlists from the interviews of three PC Contributors (Jim Bacon, Sam Baron, and Ladelle McWhorter). In doing so, we review four popular Western worldviews that are materialist, naturalist, or agnostic/atheist in nature: secular humanism, Marxism, postmodernism, and nihilism. The common attribute of each of these worldviews is a lack of any belief in God, the spiritual, the transcendent, or any reality different from what all of us experience via our five senses.
Without God or a source of objective truth, of course, humanity faces the very slippery, always present slope of the slide from secularism to nihilism. If we are only mass or energy like any rock, where is life’s meaning or purpose and why treat any single individual better than a pebble thrown into the sea? There are answers, of course, that materialists give, but you see the issue. An important theme from here forward, this IV post to VI, will be the struggle in the West between the Creator God Story (“CGS”) and the Man God Story (“MGS”).
The word Creator or Man before the word God in each case simply answers the simple question: Who is sovereign in that narrative, or who is the measure of man? God or man himself? This fork in the road offers perhaps the fundamental dividing line in the West between theology and philosophy.
As we will show, while materialists, naturalists, or agnostics/atheists have no need for another reality, such as ultimate reality, the spiritual world, or heaven, they will still engage most energetically in utter dog fights (disagree irreconcilably) on subjects like truth, objectivity, and the role of reason itself. In fact, these Western materialist worldviews frequently prove to be incompatible bedfellows, a reality most of us overlook or don’t understand. Furthermore, probably the majority of secular humanists in America and the West have more in common with other theists who lean to the CGS than with other materialists who reflect the MGS.
More specifically, to such secular humanists Jesus might not have been the Son of God, but he was obviously one hell of a philosopher; one of the wisest men known to mankind like the Buddha or Confucius – in other words, one worth following. Many sociologists say all humans worship something.
Finally, while leftward secularists, Marxists, postmodernists, and nihilists can enter into political alliances, once the joint political enemy (usually theists and theist-friendly materialists) leave the room, these alliances crumble like the Tower of Babel. Beyond worldview challenges from the outside, there usually remains sufficient squabbling within each worldview category to please any opposing political enemy.
In other words, again, certain MGS-only conversations can slip very quickly into a default low water mark – nihilism – which explains most of the first half, at least, of the 20th Century in the West. Given often unimpressive baseline human nature and the insanity in the American public square today, therefore, letting “the enemy” destroy itself until one can run in and claim credit might become a winning option!
Our featured Wizard of Oz video at top today includes the famous scene right before Dorothy gets to Oz, where she and the Scarecrow and the Tin Man meet the Cowardly Lion. To suit our purposes in this Road to Reason Series, we suggest that the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion represent three of the seven classical Western virtues: prudence (practical wisdom), charity (love), and courage.
We have chosen the Lion to represent the materialist position in this post because it’s the one virtue that all human beings, particularly materialists, prize without any disagreement. Yes, even Friedrich Nietzsche, a clear Founding Father of postmodernism in the “modern age,” would have applauded: no courage, no Will to Power, no Ubermensch. (Yes, Dionysus loved courage, though as the ultimate party animal being generally too “sh-t-faced” to need any.)
Most important, however, courage is the one virtue each of the PC Contributors presented today – Jim Bacon, Sam Baron, and Ladelle McWhorter – have demonstrated consistently in their lives. (In fact, we mentioned Jim Bacon and his courageous stance with The Jefferson Council and the Alumni Free Speech Alliance in our last Orbits post.)
Our hats go off to them!
Now, each one of those three would probably laugh at that – and that’s why the Cowardly Lion is perfect. Always holding his tail. What a riot!
In private, Jim Bacon will tell you he doesn’t write about worldview much, but, if you follow his writing, you find he writes about it almost everyday. In the playlist below (totaling 6:41), Jim articulates his worldview very well; not all of his worldview by any stretch, but certainly to the point we can give it a label. You know where he is coming from. He is rather vanilla American libertarian, perhaps.
To us, Jim appears to be an American secular humanist. In the first video Jim explains that he believes he looks out into the world through a Judeo-Christian perspective because of the pervasive influence Christianity has had in the West (our words) and because he has a generally favorable view of religious people and the good they have done. Perhaps in that sense Jim is, therefore, a “cultural Christian.”
His comments are honest, thoughtful, and engaging. Enjoy!
Jim brings out many very interesting points, and we can only comment on two here. First, Jim characterizes himself as an agnostic who, if he had to place a bet, would put his money between theism and atheism on the atheism side, primarily because he believes it’s impossible to prove God.
Well, we can see the argument that all “proofs of God” ultimately fail, except perhaps the proof from personal experience. But personal experience is almost impossible to verify to others unless somehow there are witnesses. So, that one might fail, too. While many excellent proofs of God certainly exist and while human beings are constantly claiming to experience God directly in their personal lives everyday, we would have to give Jim’s assessment that God likes to avoid proof lots of credibility.
If the Omni-God of CJC (Classical Judeo-Christiainty) had wanted us to prove Him/Her/It to our satisfaction beyond any reasonable doubt, like a prosecutor needs to do in a court of law pressing a murder charge, then we certainly would have probably done it by now. Even our memory of the Resurrection with many witnesses fades into a questionable category over increasing time. While skeptical historians have tried to drill holes in the truth of the Gospel forever, that effort has probably also failed.
We call this phenomenon of recorded human experience wanting to prove God so far on earth “Theoquale #1,” and we will define that term in later posts.
Our second point about Jim’s clips above: As perhaps a counterpoint to his points on science and Darwinism, we have tried to suggest that there appears to be growing evidence of God coming out of science, not less. Simple things like explaining the mind, consciousness, life, the origins of the universe, its development since the Big Bang, and our countless everyday miracles are becoming more problematical for materialist science, again, not less.
In other words, the gaps aren’t narrowing on God; they seem to be exploding on materialist science itself the more knowledge we gain. We do not believe science and religion are incompatible; they are complimentary. In a sense, materialists are starting to see their worldview glass ceiling that insists on skepticism beyond core reality is a serious handicap. Who lacks imagination and creativity, the staunch materialist or those believing our experienced world isn’t the whole show?
This is likely one of the reasons why the world is becoming more religious not less, and why most sociologists are recognizing the secularization thesis is dead. In 1966 the cover of Time magazine declared “God is Dead.” Today, many people are writing books like Is Atheism Dead? with science supporting theism.
On our opinion, the claim of increasing evidence of a Creator does not conflict at all with the reality that the West and even America is becoming less formally religious, or less dominated by institutional churches, such as the Roman Catholic or many Mainline Protestant Churches. There are perhaps good reasons that people are changing their religiosity, not ditching it. Given the Christian view, the human beings inside the institutional churches are just as flawed as those outside them, regardless of how dedicated they might be.
In other words, perhaps one big problem is the human beings running institutional churches and maybe even universities, not religion itself, though we digress. But “Why changing religiosity?” most certainly is a topic for Praxis Circle’s future posts in this Series and beyond.
(We serve up the counterpoint to Jim above only because we know Jim is one who wants to consider all facts and arguments in his thinking from whatever source derived. Of course, if we are correct, we here at PC quite agree with Jim on that – indeed, considering all points of view is the only way to stay on the Yellow Brick Road to Truth, a central principle of Judeo-Christian civilization, and, we would argue, the Bible itself.)
The original Wizard of Oz movie (released in 1939) is a parody of human life across the ages, and the clip below depicts the essential phoniness of the panoply of gods as a pretense for creating and maintaining political power in service to elite-human, ruling ends.
After the Wizard of Oz’s debut, every movie, TV, and digital member of the audience has known that the Wizard of Oz itself, that fiery bald talking-head, is a fake; a puppet of the medicine man, the magical elixir salesman, who meets Dorothy first when she tries to run away from home, just before the tornado appears. Your basic “traveling salesman.”
Additionally, the Wizard of Oz movie never strays too far from the essentially materialist milieu that was raging increasingly across the West after World War I right up to World War II’s doorstep. This materialism was most certainly a major contributor to World War II. Of course, today we can hear Twilight Zone music just as we imagine Oz hitting the theaters then, and we recognize much the same worldview diversity and malaise descending on us now.
Yes, in a material world, courage is perhaps THE essential virtue. As we can see in the movie, the God of Oz is fake.
Life’s journey here on earth and in Oz is real, however, and the Four (Dorothy, Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion) must still quest onward to bring back the Witch’s broom. All suspect from Glinda the Good Witch (she is the “good Witch of the South;” figures – not many people know this) that the Wicked Witch of the West, who is “worse than her sister,” won’t give up her broom unless she’s dead. At this point our four pilgrims in the movie don’t know it yet, but it will be sheer chance and something as simple and clear as, yes, “material” water that will destroy her beautiful wickedness. Still, the Four needed sufficient courage to place themselves into a position where “chance”could work its magic. Courage is the virtue that enables the others to flourish in supporting human action.
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves . . . again.
We offer three clips below (2:15 total) from Sam Baron’s interview to illustrate a Marxist-influenced worldview. Doug Monroe, PC’s Executive Director, has already offered at least five Compass posts involving Dr. Baron, so we will keep it on the shorter-end here.
Dr. Baron was the world’s leading expert on the life of George Plekhanov, the “Father of Russian Marxism.” Plekanov was a terrific inspiration to all of the the men and women who lead the Russian Revolution of 1917 – 1923, when the Russian Civil War ended, and to Leftward, “godless,” Big Government revolutionaries throughout Europe, whatever their persuasion (Communist, Fascist, and Nazi), during the first half-century.
We need to be clear: We are not sure at all that Dr. Baron was a Marxist. He states very clearly in these videos that he did not place America in Marxist stages of historical development (capitalism, socialism, etc.). “No, not at all,” he says. This was a very difficult question for Doug to ask.
The interview occurred over a decade after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, and Dr. Baron certainly recognized by then that the fundamental elements of classical Marxism had been thoroughly discredited academically and in history in virtually every conceivable way – the labor theory or value (labor as the sole source of value), homo economicus (man’s nature driven primarily, almost solely, by a desire for survival and material gain), the dialectical, collective, social constructivist nature of history (society through culture forming man through conflict, making individuals themselves basically meaningless), the universal brotherhood of man (over nationhood or family), the inevitability of history through Marx’s six stages (primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, advanced communism), etc., etc.
Dr. Baron would have recognized that the broadening of Marxism into the discussion of culture that we have today is not a broadening of the Marxist argument, but a defeat of Marx’s original materialism, scientism, constructivism, consequentialism, historicism, and truth. The Fall of the Wall sealed the fate of the Karl Marx, as we had known him since the early 1800’s. Dr. Baron would have recognized how the pathway of the CCP and China is demonstrating Marxism’s natural tendency to further tyrannical central control, which always leads to Big Brother attempting to control individuals and private lives.
Given a review of over 200 years of practiced Marxism across the globe, he would have recognized that Marxism is a terrific worldview or ideology to ferment revolution, though arguably a terrible one to govern with afterwards.
But what Dr. Baron did appreciate in Marxism was the sincerity of Marx’s desire so timely in the 1800’s to assist the poor and the oppressed, and Marx and his life-long study of Plekanov and the rest must have influenced his own worldview and personal politics. Likely, he wouldn’t have taken on the study of the Russian Revolution without some sympathy for it, in addition to his desire to facilitate the U.S. government’s post-WW II interest in teaching Americans about the new superpower it faced in the Cold War.
Dr. Baron did reveal off-camera that, on balance, he was not a believer in God, and for that reason we feel it’s reasonable to fit him into a naturalist worldview category. He was perhaps attracted to remnants of the Social Gospel movement remaining at Grinnell College that helped save his career after being “red baited” (challenged as an alleged Communist during the McCarthy movement) at the University of Tennessee, but his atheism probably prevented going all the way. Lastly, we do not want to further suggest labels like secular humanist or cultural Jew. Doug did not know him that well.
As a significant aside, for many reasons, labeling individuals is a difficult, imprecise, and problematic undertaking. Moreover, it can be quite dangerous, and we much prefer that our PC readers, if they so desire, do it themselves for their own benefit. It is a useful exercise, but we are particularly leery to label anyone when they are no longer alive with an ability to agree, disagree, respond, or comment.
In addition, one further caveat: An increasing number of people today bob and weave in and out of different worldviews to suit their purposes of the moment. Such worldviews are referred to not as nihilistic but as syncretic – meaning adhering to principles quite varied over the entire worldview map but without any requirement they be logically consistent at all. In fact, this might be the dominant worldview in America today. Much more on this in later posts.
As we’ve said several times already in this Series, you need to decide how important truth, logic, and reason are to you and work out your own worldview to suit as a matter of free choice. As theists, we believe this is the way God made the world and for very good reasons. Another “theoquale” in fact – but let’s leave that aside, yet again.
In any case, we do not think that Dr. Baron was so inconsistent as to have a syncretic worldview, but anything is possible. We just don’t know.
Before we move on to postmodernism, it’s critical to stress again that classical Marxists most definitely believe in truth, objectivity, logic, and reason, just as much or more than any Christian or Jew. In fact, they have always believed so strongly in truth through the power of “scientific materialism” that they believe they can actually predict the future, even better than any Old or New Testament prophet, because they possess the truth of history. In contrast, they believe Christians and Jews are placing their faith in just another edition from the Wizard’s panoply of gods – indeed, the “One True God” – ya, right!
As mentioned already, Classical Marxists believe in homo economics – that materialism, wealth, power, and dialectical struggle make the human world go round. Courage to further the revolution is essential; it is everything in the pursuit of socialism and then communism. Conflict can be bitter and even deadly when it needs to be, and much of this kind of conflict is zero sum. Forgiveness is for losers.
“We can do it (communism), and with focus and courage, we will. Unite, and victory is ours.”
Marxism proceeded almost instantly from truth-based Hegelian idealism; in a sense it was and remains to some extent one version of Christian humanism, simply removing the idea of God. Some see Marxism as a very specific version of secular humanism with a “truth of history” that leads to an inevitable paradise (communism) in this predictable materialist world. Marxist Christian liberation theologists see a faith in truth that’s no different from any Christian confidence in Revelation or the End Times.
But orthodox Christians of all varieties know that, beyond a faith in truth and reason, the “rest of the story” of Marxism couldn’t be more different than Christianity.
In the above playlist, Dr. Baron calls himself a social democrat. Clearly, he believed that the working man needs union representation to make him equal to the “capitalist” at the bargaining table. He would have recognized how business owners have embraced stakeholder considerations since the 1800’s to make work and its rewards fairer to workers across the board, and how unions have declined in the private sector as a result. While obviously favoring the public sector and the educational sector given his background, he would probably also have recognized some of the issues that arise with increasing unionization of the public sector, the only place where unions are growing in America today.
In our opinion, Dr, Baron was an American first, who would have been able to sit down with other Americans and compromise to legislate for the common good. He recognized Germans have a system of governance that works for them, and he recognized governmental forms should vary to suit the people. He also saw the danger we face as a nation given the increasing disfunction of a Constitutional government that’s unable to govern such a large nation, one that increasingly lacks any semblance of social cohesion.
Yes, Dr. Baron had a lot more confidence in elites running things from the public sector where they can offer America good solutions than we at PC’s world headquarters do, but he was of the Greatest Generation, where political difference was not as wide as it is today. Most likely, he would have been more restrained in the use of federal power than the average Democrat today.
Finally, Dr. Baron might have recognized how Cultural Marxism today is an odd variant of classical Marxism that uses most categories, including, race, sex, ethnicity, class, and religion, to divide American society. He would have seem this as a product of Gramsci extended and Third Wave feminism. Not that he might not have liked a greater cultural, social consciousness, but he would have seen the irreconcilability between equality among the races sought by the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950’s and 60’s and the straight jacket of inequality between races demanded by Critical Race Theory.
What Dr. Baron would have thought exactly about the alliance between Cultural Marxism and postmodernism and these other issues, we just don’t know. It would be great to have him around today at age 100 to tell us!
But we wouldn’t be surprised if Dr. Baron would have considered himself postmodernist in the grand sense of these other outstanding academic professionals, PC Contributors all, linked here (Deirdre McCloskey, Bart Ehrman, and Ladelle McWhorter). Each person there sincerely wants to do what they can for the most oppressed and unfortunate in society. We can all applaud that, though we may differ in our assessments of which solutions work best.
With that we turn to our 800 pound gorilla now inhabiting our truth & reason living room . . .
Our last playlist today (6:81) presents postmodernism and Ladelle McWhorter. Ladelle is a professor at the University of Richmond and the former head of its Philosophy Department. As a young girl she was a Christian, and she found her way to postmodernism through her life experience as a lesbian and her university study. She has directed much of her research and writing toward the work of Michael Foucault in an effort to addresses two key social problems, sexism and racism.
From her work we learn one of postmodernism’s main “points of difference” with the secular humanism and Marxism, discussed above, is its dedication to relativism, which takes on radical skepticism toward truth and its derivatives (goodness, morality, beauty, etc.).
We will not spend much preliminary time here discussing Ladelle’s comments because she does such a wonderful job describing postmodernism herself in the first clip of this playlist. It would be hard to find a more balanced, more thorough presentation of postmodernism than she provides in very few words. Only an educated and well-trained professional who has spent her life’s work on the subject could offer such a good rendering. Based on what we know, we agree with her explanation of postmodernism in full. Furthermore, her follow on comments on the laws of reason and logic are also brave and delightfully honest.
Postmodernism, by definition, is thinking that diverges from modernism. As Ladelle explains, it questions conclusions brought on by the Enlightenment—conclusions such as rationality, objectivity, and ethical law. Because postmodernism is a philosophy of questioning, Ladelle states that it does not offer up answers or any views of its own about the world. In fact, postmodernism hinges on the idea that there are actually no answers—because there is no truth humans could ever know with certainty.
You can see why, absent theists to balance worldview weight in the room, Marxists and postmodernists could easily come to blows!
When questioned about the postmodern dodge of truth, Ladelle shares that while reason exists to the extent that human beings can come up with cohesive judgements, conclusions, or “objective” truths—science simply couldn’t work without it—this is not an indication of rational, timeless logical functioning. Instead, she points to Foucault’s concept of “regimes of truth” which essentially explains our ability to reason together as a mental consensus within the confines of time and culture—as opposed to reason consisting of something innate in every human being.
Therefore, in her opinion, this leaves postmodernism with complete objectivity. Truth is only what we agree upon, conscious or subconscious—there is no going beyond to transcendental truth or Ultimate Reality. This view lies in stark contrast to Eastern worldviews, covered in Road to Reason III last time, that do entail Divine Truth, as it is in contrast to the Judeo-Christian worldview that depends on reason to help us see truth or at least agree to it.
Ladelle admits that taking the position of no truth is a “sophomoric mistake” in her profession of Western philosophy that leads one straight into the trap of Self-Referential Contradictions (which we have thoroughly warned you about here and here).
Again, we appreciate Ladelle’s humble stance on truth which also happens to demonstrate a postmodernist’s greatest difficulty: denying objective truth in the traditional Western sense (capital T Truth) without sounding ultimately crazy. Ladelle admits herself that she wishes to abide by our current “regime of truth” that implodes when Aristotle’s second law of reason, the Law of Non-Contradiction, is violated—while still adhering to a worldview that believes reason and truth are nothing more than relative, conceptual constructs shaped by human history and those in power.
Ultimately, we humans all see, hear, and believe what we want to see, hear, and believe.
However, we know it’s not that simple. If the Creator God Story is right, then it must be that the Creator designed life and this world to be just this darn complicated!
Lastly, we are left with our favorite worldview which needs almost no explanation. Why? Because it’s about the null and void set. (Say, what do the words null and void add to each other, anyway? Just asking. La diff there? We don’t know diff.)
As a result, now getting very punchy, we will move on to our last Wizard of Oz clip, the one where the whole audience worldwide tends to stand up out of their seats and clap. (We like it so much we have to admit we’re showing it for the second time. See the link to Series II at top.)
It’s where the Wicked Witch gets her materialist due – where she gets cleansed, even purified, by water just like the good old days of the Inquisition, when she’s escorted to the theater’s Exit door. To her reward in Witches’ underworld, whether in the next material or spiritual world. Who cares?!
There are plenty of nihilists and anarchists in AntiFa on the Left and QAnon on the Right, and, until they become more murderous, we will choose here at PC to see them as just plain comical, in true nihilist or anarchist fashion. Yet, to quote a terrific recent article on our national Woke madness and to get back to the virtue of the day, courage: “We got here because of cowardice. We get out with courage.” All are agreed on that.
So, yes, we finally killed her. Hail, Dorothy!
Next time we will continue down the Yellow Brick Road with Dorothy and her crew to remove materialism’s glass ceiling. We will be nearing the end of our journey. On our second to last stop in the Series, we will find Dorothy and the Wizard relying on a last resort to get home – Spiritualist Reason. It is materialism’s direct opposite and, in a real sense, its true compliment.