Worldview Assignment04
Overview:
- Answer the following questions (425–words).
.
- Meeting the minimum word count as required for each paragraph is important.
- Do NOT include the question as part of your word count
- Direct quotations should be short and limited.
- Quotations and material used from other sources should be cited using current APA, MLA, or Turabian formatting (whichever corresponds to your degree program).
- Check your work for spelling and grammatical errors.
- Be sure to do your own work, do not plagiarize.
- Part One: What is a worldview? Define what the term “worldview” means. Use descriptive phrases to support your definition. (25 words)
Toward the end of the Renaissance, the modern method of empirical science began to develop. The key players were Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Johannes Kepler (1571- 1630), and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). Although it may seem ironic now, each of these men believed in the Christian God. They viewed science as studying the handiwork of an almighty Creator and discerning His natural laws. Galileo considered God to have written two “books”: the Bible and nature (Hummel, p. 106). Contrary to popular belief, the cause for the diversion between Christianity and science originated not with the Church but with the university professors who were threatened by Galileo’s revolutionary ideas. These professors were steeped in the Greek scientific method, which included observation to a small extent, but mostly explained the workings of nature through rational deduction from first principles, or assumptions, an entire view of the universe had been built up. Consequently, the professors embraced such misconceptions as the sun having no imperfections, the moon being a perfectly smooth sphere that shone with its own light, and the earth alone having a moon since the earth was at the center of the universe. Galileo’s recently invented telescope quickly demonstrated the incorrectness of such assumptions (Hummel, pp. 91-94). Not willing to be thwarted by Galileo, the professors decided to make the controversy religious rather than academic (Hummel, p. 92). They argued that the heliocentric (sun-centered) view contradicted scripture (e.g., Psalm 104:22 says, “The sun rises.” Therefore, the sun must revolve around stationary earth). In the face of what at that time appeared to be a genuine contradiction between scripture and the heliocentric theory, the theologians of the Roman Catholic Church had no choice but to condemn Galileo’s views, because the conflict had challenged the authority of the Church. As a result of that controversy, the schism between reason and faith had begun. There were now two apparently irreconcilable sources of truth: the church and science. Secularism A Religion Profile from International Students, Inc. 1 Secularism: An Overview Number of Adherents Demographer Davit Barrett estimates that there are 150 million atheists and 768 million nonreligious people in the world. The combined total comes to more than 918 million people (Barrett). Secularism Among the Nations In more than 40 countries, atheists or nonreligious make up more than 10 percent of the population (World Christian Database). The following are just a few of those countries: Austrailia, Britain, Canada, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, North Korea, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, Uruguay and Vietnam. Defining the Terms An “atheist” is one who says there is sufficient evidence to show that God does not exist. An “agnostic” is one who says there is insufficient evidence to know whether or not God exists. The “functional atheist” is one who is apathetic concerning God’s existence. For the purposes of this profile, the term “secularist” will be used to indicate all three. The Rise of Secularism The Renaissance (Ca. A.D. 1400-1600) In the early 1400s, Gutenberg invented the printing press with movable type. As a result, the writings of the past became much more accessible to the public, and this increased accessibility sparked two responses. One was a greater awareness of and obedience to God’s Word, which led to the Reformation. The other was a pursuit of humanistic themes, which drew upon the writings of Greek and Roman thinkers and served as the foundation for the Renaissance. The word “renaissance” means “rebirth,” and that which was reborn was man’s sense of independence and individualism.In the way that philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) responded to a movement call Pyrrhonism (named after the Greek skeptic Pyrrho, 365-275 B.C.), he contributed to the trend of moving the source of truth away from the Church. Pyrrhonism was a form of utter skepticism whereby everything was doubted. As a result, nothing could be known for certain. The significance of Descartes’ cogito ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”) is that he had used Pyrrhonists’ own method of questioning everything in order to establish one fact: The doubter could be certain of his own existence (Brown, p. 184). Descartes had no intention of being a religious reformer; nevertheless, his new method of approaching truth shook Christianity to its core. It was used to shift the basis for certainty from God to man. The Enlightenment (ca. A.D. 1600-1800) The success of science ushered in the Age of Enlightenment. During the Enlightenment, people began to elevate science to being the ultimate test for truth. The discoveries of the laws of science by men like Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Robert Boyle (1627-1692), and Isaac Newton (1642-1727) gave support to the analogy that the universe was like a machine. Such an analogy, when misapplied, tended to dismiss the need to believe in a God who sustained the universe. Other challenges to the Christian worldview came through philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), David Hume (1711-1776), and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Hobbes drew out the implications of a materialistic philosophy in which matter was the ultimate stuff of the universe. Hume, in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, presented arguments against the veracity of the miracle accounts in the Bible. And Kant encouraged people to assert the power of their own intellect and to throw off the shackles of ecclesiastical authority (Brown, pp. 286-287). Still, even with the onslaught of the Enlightenment, most people in the nineteenth century, including scientists, believed in the existence of a rational and personal Creator. The reason was that there was no alternative theory to that of creation that adequately explained the existence of an orderly universe. That changed with Charles Darwin. The Modern Age (ca. 1800 to present) In 1859, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In it, Darwin theorized that life forms had resulted from natural, random processes and not from the pre-design of an intelligent Creator. The gap that had previously been filled with a religious faith in a Creator could now, through the theory of evolution, be filled with a purely scientific and naturalistic explanation. Many scientists became enthralled with the theory of evolution, and began to apply it to every field of study, including history (Marx) and psychology (Freud). The result of Darwinism was that, for many, the belief in God became an unnecessary hypothesis. If mankind was to find solutions for its problems and hope for its future, people must look inward, not toward God. The Beliefs of Secularism The Denial of God The most fundamental tenet of secularism is the denial of the existence of the supernatural. According to secularism, belief in God is nothing more than a projection of man’s own thoughts and desires. God did not make man in His image; instead, man made God in his image. The Denial of Miracles After having denied God’s existence, it’s logical then to conclude that miracles—the result of God’s intervention—are not possible. The miracles recorded in the Bible, secularists surmise, must have been the embellishments of the authors who were promoting their particular religious agenda (Geisler and Brooks, ch. 5; Geisler, 1992). The Fact of Evolution Secularists assert that the existence and complexity of the universe can be sufficiently explained through naturalistic principles as set forth in the theory of evolution. Personality and mind also have resulted from the evolutionary process and are sufficiently explained through the interaction of chemical and biological elements. Thus, there is no “ghost in the machine.” The Potential of Man Secularists see religion as being restrictive and escapist. Religion does nothing more than to assuage the fears of an ignorant peo
ple. If humanity is to survive, secularists say, mankind must face problems squarely and find the answers within itself, reason, and science. Secularism begins and ends with man. Man will be able to face the issues squarely only when freed from the shackles of religion. The Centrality of Science Secularists are confident that the scientific method of inquiry is the only reliable avenue by which to discover truth and knowledge. According to the secularistic point of view, there 2The Finality of Death At death, the individual ceases to exist in any cohesive or conscious form. As the signers of The Humanist Manifesto II wrote, “There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body” (Lamont, p. 293). is an irreconcilable antagonism between reason and faith, science and religion, empirical observation and revealed authority. The Stress on Relativity Secularists deny that there is an absolute moral reference point beyond man (i.e., a holy God). They contend that humankind does not need an absolute moral standard beyond itself in order to have a sufficient foundation and motivation for moral behavior. Humanity is by nature good, and all that is needed to realize that innate goodness is education, not religious transformation. 3 Secularism God Matter, in one form or another, is all that has existed from eternity. Humanity Humanity is by nature monistic in that man consists of only one substance: matter. Humanity represents the highest point of the gradual and random processes of evolution. Humanity’s Problem The problem is that humanity depends on the escapist promises of religion, rather than facing problems squarely and believing that humankind has the potential to create a world in which peace and justice will prevail. The Solution The solution is in extending the scientific method of rational inquiry into all aspects of life, while at the same time maintaining a sense of compassion for the individual. Jesus Christ At most, Jesus was a good moral teacher. Because the biblical authors embellished the details of Jesus’ life, though, we can be certain of very little concerning what is historically accurate. After Death There is no personal survival after death. Christianity God alone is infinite and eternal. The material universe is finite and has not always existed. God created it out of nothing. Humanity is by nature dualistic in that man consists of two substances: body and spirit. Humanity, being made in the image of God, represents the highest point of God’s creation. The problem is that man has rebelled against a personal and holy God. As a result, man lives for himself and places hope in false gods, such as success, money, nature, science, education, etc. The solution is in man being restored to a right relationship with a holy God through faith in Jesus Christ. While Christianity encourages the rational inquiry of science, it opposes scientism, which goes beyond the limits of science in that it claims that the scientific method is a sufficient avenue to all truth. Jesus was the very embodiment of God on earth. The Bible meets the qualifications for being authentic history. It records that Jesus lived, died for our sins, and rose from the dead. There is personal survival after death, either to eternal life with God or eternal separation from Him. Secularism and Christianity ContrastedSuggestions for Evangelism What Kind of God Did the Student Reject? Don’t assume that all secularist international students have rejected the personal God of the Bible. Since they came from cultures influenced by various non-Christian religions, they might not have considered the possibility that a personal God who loves them exists. Ask questions to discern their concept of God. Offer Evidence for God’s Existence In the following section, some evidences for God’s existence is listed. Notice how each new bit of evidence tells us a little more about the nature of God—from Cause, to Intelligent Cause, to Moral Being, to Fulfiller of our Longings. • The Origin of the Universe and of Life The second law of thermodynamics says that while the total amount of energy remains constant (the first law), the availability of usable energy is constantly decreasing. Energy, then, inevitably moves toward a state where it is increasingly unusable and inaccessible. The inevitable cooling of a cup of hot tea typifies the constraints impressed by the second law. What are the implications of the second law with respect to the origin of the universe? It means that the universe had a beginning. Why? Because if the universe has always existed, then an infinite amount of time would have already passed until this present moment. But this cannot be true because, according to the second law, the universe would then be in a state of equilibrium—a cold and lifeless state of absolute rest. The question that obviously follows is: If the universe has not always existed, then who or what caused it to come into existence? We can appeal to science for the answer. Scientists understand that the universe was tuned in at its inception to a precision of greater than sixty decimal places, which is a precision equal to the number ten multiplied by itself more than sixty times. Unless the universe had been finely tuned, it would not have “worked.” But all known natural processes are not tuned that finely, only to several decimal places. Only a First Cause with supreme intelligence could have produced such phenomenal accuracy. Further questions include: What is life, and how did it originate? Could life have arisen from the gradual changes that resulted from the interaction between natural forces over billions of years? To help answer such questions, try doing a simple experiment. Pour salt and pepper into a clear container that can be covered, and keep the salt and pepper separate. Then shake it. What happens? The salt and pepper become mixed. Now continue shaking the container to try to separate the two. Do they become unmixed? What would be the best way to separate the salt from the pepper? What does this experiment illustrate? First, that the random processes of nature destroy, not create, patterns. Second, that it would take an intellect (by physically separating the salt from the pepper) to restore the pattern (see Gange, ch. 7). Living cells are like the pattern of the salt and pepper being separated, except that the patterns in such cells are much more complex. They are not only complex but also viable, in that not just any pattern will do; living cells must maintain a particular pattern that will produce and sustain life. Such a pattern, moreover, contains a vast amount of information, such as is found in DNA. Life is not the mere repetitive pattern that is contained in crystals, which the random processes of nature can produce, but it is like the pattern contained in a blueprint, which can be produced only by an intelligent being. The question of origins, then, concerns the issue of what is a sufficient source for the information—the coherent and viable patterns—contained within living cells? To say that the information contained in a complex living cell came from the random and gradual evolutionary processes of nature is to believe that one can separate the salt from the pepper by shaking the container—an outcome that, being unobserved, is a matter of faith and one that goes against the observed second law. The best explanation for the source of information in living cells is not blind nature, but a Supreme Intellect. After all, it is an everyday empirical fact that people, not random forces, are the source of meaningful and coherent patterns (e.g., words, cars, buildings, etc.). Also, it is not mere coincidence that the theme of separation—the instilling of information—is found in the creation account of Genesis 1, where God separated light from darkness; the waters above from the waters below; sea from land; time into days and years; sea, air, and land life, each after its own kind; man from dust; and woman from man. • The Presence of Design The argument from design is built on the premise that design indicates the work of an intelli
gent designer (see Ps. 19:1, Rom. 1:20). The classic example is that of a watch. Obviously, the intricate inner workings of a watch could not have come about as the result of random chance, but 4 Approaching Secularistsdoubt that lingers. For example, Corliss Lamont, who was voted Humanist of the Year in 1977, wrote, “Even I, disbeliever that I am, would frankly be more than glad to awake some day to a worthwhile eternal life” (Lamont, p. 98). Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell, too, expressed some hesitation concerning the idea that this life is all there is: “It is odd, isn’t it? I care passionately for this world and many things and people in it, and yet…what is it all? There must be something more important, one feels, though I don’t believe there is” (Heck, p. 224). What would be the source of our yearning for an existence beyond? Perhaps the universe has played a cosmic joke on us. Or, our yearning is a mistake of evolution. What, though, if it’s not a joke or a mistake, but a pointer to that which is real? The Deeper Issues People make decisions based not only on their intellect, but also on their emotions. So, one should also try to pluck those deeper chords. 5 only by the thoughtful planning of an intelligent designer (see Olsen, pp. 26-27, and Denton, ch.14). The same is true of the relationship between the creation and the Creator (e.g., the intricacies of the human eye). • The Stirring of the Conscience Our consciences and feelings of guilt give evidence to our moral nature. Such moral feelings are like currency—they are worthless unless backed up by something of value outside themselves. They also indicate that the best explanation for why we have moral sensibilities is that our Source must be both moral and personal, for impersonal natural forces do not have moral sensibilities. In other words, since there is a moral law binding on all of that insists we do what is just and good,
