Christian Apologetics
Engaging young minds to think about worldviews
How do we test for coherence in a worldview?
Here is a simple but practical example. I choose to examine naturalism as a worldview here for two reasons: because it seems to be one of the dominant worldviews challenging the Biblical worldview in the West, and because it is very easy to show that naturalism is indeed internally incoherent.
Let's assume John Doe’s reply to the first of the four questions about the origins and the existence of humans is based on the survival of the fittest, as in Neo-Darwinism. In this sense, he will likely maintain that there is essentially no difference between animals and humans in terms of their origin and survival. At this stage, he need not have a naturalistic worldview yet because there are evolutionists who also embrace the theistic worldview.*** But as an evolutionist, he has very few reasons to affirm the theistic worldview, especially if he has been raised apart from the church. Hence, he could be only one small step toward accepting the naturalistic worldview, which also denies the existence of anything supernatural. And if he does take this small step toward affirming naturalism, then he must also acknowledge that the killing of the weak by the strong is not morally wrong. Why? Because the stronger species kill the weaker species all the time in the natural world of animals, and it would be absurd to indict the stronger animals of any wrongdoing.
But how will John Doe square this perspective with his answer to the second question, which concerns his relationship to other humans and how humans ought to relate to one another? Since his naturalistic worldview supports the survival of the fittest and allows for the killing of the weak by the strong, how can he not but condone ethnic cleansing and genocide, that is, if he is to be consistent within his naturalistic worldview? What about self-sacrifice and selflessness? Is he willing to disavow such virtues and altruism since they contradict his naturalistic worldview of personal survival at the expense of the weak? Let's probe his naturalistic worldview even further....
As John Doe answers the third question about the meaning and purpose of his life, it seems the inconsistency of his naturalistic worldview becomes even more poignant. How can his life's purpose be any more meaningful and purposeful than that of an iguana or a chimpanzee? And if he insists he has a higher and more sophisticated purpose in life than that of an animal, he must never cease to wonder why, because his naturalistic worldview, which equates humans to animals, simply does not have a ready answer.
What about the undeniable reality that the world we live in is sometimes unfair? John Doe knows that good people are not always properly rewarded and bad people do not always receive their just deserts. However, since his naturalistic worldview precludes the supernatural, he must also deny the existence of an afterlife. For him, death must have the final say since there is nothing beyond the grave. So, there is no possibility of payback or reward in the next life for people who may have been shortchanged before they die. In the absence of such payback or accountability beyond the grave, he must, like all animals, accept the injustices (and yes, even cruelty) in this physical world as a given reality of human existence—and he must do so without complaining or questioning. But can he? Can he stoically, without putting his head in the sand, ignore the injustices in this world, especially if the victim of unfair treatment is none other than himself?
I have used the above example to showcase the failure of naturalism as a consistent worldview, and that's because naturalism is really quite incapable of addressing the four worldview questions coherently. The error of naturalism is patently clear when we reduce its arguments to unlivable absurdity (reductio ad absurdum). To the best of my knowledge, only the theistic worldview, in particular the Biblical one, addresses these questions most coherently, and it does so with the least inconsistency compared to other worldviews. This has been brilliantly illustrated by many Christian apologists and I will refrain from belaboring their efforts here.
Some of us may think such reasoning is only for older youths and adults rather than for young children. Children are too young to rationalize in this manner, so they say. However, in recent years I have taught children as young as 12 years old, and I found they have no difficulty following through the arguments. I personally don't think children are too young to learn about the need to have a consistent worldview.
But is it really that urgent to teach children about worldviews? Please click here to find out.
***But theistic evolution is problematic because it tries to affirm not only evolution as an undirected process, but also the notion that God is directing the undirected process—a clear contradiction in terms.