Is the Christian Worldview Objectively True? – By Dave Seivright

Why Is Your Worldview Important?

“Whether we realize it or not, all of us possess a worldview. We make one of two basic assumptions. We view the universe as an accident or we assume an intelligence beyond the universe who gives the universe order, and for some of us, meaning to life. One’s worldview, or how one answers the basic questions concerning meaning, values, purpose, identity, motivation and destiny, influences not only who we are, but how we live our lives” – Dr. Armand Nicholi, Harvard University professor and author of “The Question of God”.

“Know the truth and the truth shall set you free” – Jesus Christ.

“The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is intellectually credible and existentially satisfying” – Tim Keller.

Some years ago I met a chemical scientist on a train from Munich to Frankfurt. We had hours of fascinating conversation. Among other things we agreed on the existence of “personality” in the world; that human beings are unique as they are the only “persons” in the world; that we can call the universe a “personal universe” since it contains human beings who are “persons”. Of course the universe also contains “non-persons” such as animal and plant life as well as inanimate and non-living material objects.

At the end of our journey I gave him my business card and asked him as a chemical scientist to send me an email explaining the origin of “personality”. Six months later, much to my surprise, he sent me an email stating that my challenge had troubled him ever since that day, but he had finally concluded that science is not able to give an answer to my question.

Here is how I see it:

1. As a Christian who believes every word of the Bible, it is of no ultimate importance to me HOW God created the universe. The Bible doesn’t answer that. Of ultimate importance to me is the logical reasonable rational belief that God Himself did create the Universe.

2. My belief system, or “worldview” is based not only upon Biblical Revelation, but also upon the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Fortunately before I came to this belief I had been trained as a lawyer in both the disciplines of evidence and interpretation.

3. The important ultimate question is whether this personal universe was designed and created by an entity, which at the very least is personal as well as intelligent, or whether the universe is a product of “mere chance”.

4. There is no EVIDENCE of a “higher” more complex and sophisticated entity emanating by chance from a “lower” or less complex and sophisticated entity, in life or experience. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary all around us. True evidence must correspond with reality. Someone who finds a watch on a beach doesn’t assume that it got there over billions of years by the water washing up against the sand and the rocks and somehow by chance a watch came into being. My late and great mentor Dr. Francis Schaeffer who lived in the Swiss Alps used to draw a simple illustration of three mountain peaks with two valleys containing two lakes one much higher than the other.  He would simply ask the question “Does the higher lake feed the lower lake or vice versa?”

5. Anyone who believes in a universe resulting from mere chance, or that personality came into being by impersonality, is like someone who believes that water rises above its own level. Of course if a “higher” being designed and built a pump, that would be a logical reasonable explanation to water rising above its own level. Or if human beings were created by aliens who are not only personal but at least as intelligent as persons, that would in theory be a logical rational answer, but we would still be left with the question “who created the aliens?”.

6. On the other hand, the Bible teaches that the God of the Bible was never created and has always been there, without beginning and without end. Even if there is no scientific proof that this Biblical statement is true it is logical, rational, and non-contradictory, and is the best explanation which we have.

7. Whether or not the world came about through Darwin’s theory of evolution, or some modification thereof, is a matter for genuine science to determine. Some genuine Christians, whom I respect, are theistic evolutionists such as another late mentor of mine Dr. John Stott, former rector of All Souls Church in London and personal Vicar to the Queen. ( I have photos of both Schaeffer and Stott on my website).

8.Science, if genuine, has to be based on “fact”. Genuine Scientists are not “philosophers” or “theologians”  in white coats! They endeavor to explain the “how” but have no ability or methodology of discovering the “why”. They cannot answer the basic questions of philosophy, who am I and why am I here.

9. The best definition of fact, as opposed to hypothesis or theory is: “A fact is something which can be empirically proven, or for which there is ‘overwhelming evidence’ which is ‘universally accepted'”. Even Wikipedia claims:  “In science, a fact is a verified empirical observation; in colloquial contexts, however, a fact can simply refer to anything for which there is overwhelming evidence. For example, in common usage theories such as ‘the Earth revolves around the Sun’ and ‘objects fall due to gravity’ may be referred to as ‘facts’, even though they are purely theoretical.”  According to this definition both the law of Gravity and the proposition fact that the earth is round and moves around the sun are “facts”.

10. Darwinian evolution is neither universally accepted nor has been empirically proved. By no stretch of the imagination is Darwin’s theory of evolution a fact. At best it is a hypothesis or theory. Only a small percentage of people of the world’s population believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution, and an even smaller percentage are atheists!

11. Neither Darwin’s theory of evolution or the existence of God qualify as “facts” using the above definition. It is fascinating that, for example, the vast fossil evidence which we have gives no evidence whatsoever in support of Darwinian evolution.

12. Since neither Darwin’s theory or the existence of God are “facts” we are left with “faith”. So to be relevant in this  discussion we need to primarily consider “faith”. This means that whether one believes that God created the universe or that the universe came into existence by chance (or chance + time) such beliefs are not “facts” but are “faith systems” or “worldviews”.

13. Every hypothesis, theory, or even a scientific “law” begins with an unprovable assumption, which is a “faith assumption” which is put the test. As it passes the various tests is moves up the ladder and is called a theory and once it is empirically proved or universally accepted it is called a “fact” such as the “law of gravity”.

14. This is the same methodology we should apply to “faith”. Faith is an unprovable assumption but it can be tested. If it passes the tests we should call it “reasonable faith” we can even call it a fact, but not a scientific fact. Non-scientific facts are no less valid than scientific facts, as the scientific method of empirical proof has its limitations and cannot be applied to all truth.

15. This then begs the question: “Is your faith system or worldview reasonable or rational, and what evidence or tests of objective truth exist to support it?”

15. There are accepted “tests” of truth in comparing faith systems and Worldviews. These are the same tests of truth used in Evidence, Philosophy,  literature, interpretation, history, archaeology etc.  This is what I spend my life doing.

16. The Bible claims that we have “overwhelming evidence” for the existence of God. Thus if the Bible is correct, we should call the existence of God a non-scientific fact. Here is some of what the Bible says on this subject:

Romans 1:19-32:

“19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

“21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

“24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

“28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.”

17.  THE BOTTOM LINE is that:

A. Everybody has a worldview.

B. Every worldview is a faith system.

C. Whether or nor a worldview is rational and reasonable can be determined by applying the generally accepted tests of truth particularly those relating to evidence and philosophy, such as the test of non-contradiction (logic) the test of correspondence (reality) and the test of practice (experience).

(i) The test of Non-Contradiction:  a cannot = non-a, the earth cannot be both a square and a sphere! If your worldview believes that 2+2=5 or can =5 (relativism), if you believe that we can have “your truth” and “my truth”, or if you do not believe in objective truth (which is independent of anyone’s belief) your worldview is false. Genuine philosophy is the search for objective truth, but at least it believes that objective truth exists. Post-modernism or “post-truth” is just nonsense!

(ii) The Test of Correspondence: Does your worldview correspond to reality? If your worldview is that the world is flat but photos from space prove that it is a sphere, then your worldview is false.

(iii) The Test of Practice: Can you live consistently with your worldview? After days of discussion with a Buddhist whom I met on the beach at a hotel in Negril in Jamaica, I realized that we had little common ground. Finally I decided to get to the heart of the problem. I asked him if he believed that everything is an illusion. “Yes” he said. I then picked up a large stone, and replied “OK, I am going to throw this large stone at your head, don’t duck!”  This was the end of the discussion. I asked him if he was able to live by his belief that everything is an illusion when he went to work as a stockbroker 5 days a week? “No” he replied, I just try to live by my Buddhism on the weekends”.

Here are the type of questions you should ask about your worldview:

Does it give a logical rational explanation of: The existence of personality and non-personality? The existence of both physical and non-physical phenonina in our world? The design of a butterfly? Beauty and ugliness? good and evil? etc.

Does it line up with what you experience? Does it work? Does it satisfy you intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically?

There are a great number of good books and papers on this subject, some of which are listed on the Resources” page of my website at www.seivright.com

The discovery of the existence of DNA is very relevant to our discussion. Dr. Francis Collins, the famous scientist who was an atheist/agnostic who headed up the Gnome Project. After the extensive discovery and study of DNA and after reading “Mere Christianity” by Oxford professor C.S. Lewis, Dr Collins converted to Christianity, but remained a theistic evolutionist. I don’t personally agree with theistic evolution, but I like the title of his 2006 book “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”.

I much prefer the later book “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design”. This is a 2009 book by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, the American, University of Cambridge trained, philosopher of science and physicist . Meyer deals with his disagreement with the theistic evolution of Collins.

If you don’t want to begin with these hefty lofty books, I would heartily recommend a book by Lee Strobel, Yale trained lawyer and investigative journalist for the Chicago Tribune, in which he analyzes much of the above in his book “Case for Creator”.  Strobel was an atheist/agnostic who tried to disprove Christianity after his wife became a Christian.  His trilogy of books (“Case for Christ”, “Case for Faith”, and “Case for Creator”) were also made into a single easy to watch DVD. I particularly like the DVD on “Case for Creator”. These videos can also be found on YouTube!

However, my best recommendation for logically comparing different Worldviews using ONLY science (and logic) is the Video Series “Does God Exist?” by Dr. Stephen Meyer, available on Amazon Prime Video.