Faith Interface

Roger,
I posted something very similar to this just Saturday.
Its more on the general topic of a default worldview, which includes the sciences. I will most likely post on that topic eventually. But here’s the link and the text:

http://bit.ly/hubb3T

Atheists claim that atheism is the default position that people take. Many atheists use this to bolster their philosophy of methodological naturalism in the sciences. But many Christian deny that atheism is the default position. I tend to agree with the atheist, but only to a point. All people are born with a sin nature that denies God, and specifically the Christian God. Technically, Christianity expects that the default worldview of any human being will be anti-Christian, and atheism falls into this category. So, atheism is one of the default positions of man when it comes to a worldview.

However, the atheist is claiming that naturalism is the true worldview. The default position in naturalism, though, is not atheism, as they believe. The default worldview of a person is relative to the culture in which the individual grows up. If the person grows up in an atheist home, and chooses anything other than atheism as their worldview, they have denied their default position in favor of another (be it Hindu, Islam, Christianity, or whatever). However, if a person grows up in a Christian home and remains a Christian, they have stuck with their default position.

Many atheists are fond of claiming that many people are Christian only because of their western up-bringing. The implication is that the “western” Christian has not thought through things before committing their life to Christ. Although there are many issues with that claim, I want to focus on the inconsistency with the default position. Atheists claim that it is wrong for someone to not investigate their worldview (I agree). They also claim that it is bad for us to abandon our “default” position (what they think is atheism).

I see a few issues. Not understanding the sociological effects of their worldview (which produces a relative default position- see above) allows for the issues. If it is so bad for someone to leave their default worldview, then, properly understood, naturalism teaches that westerners should remain Christian if they were brought up that way. In fact, naturalism prefers sticking with the default position instead of investigating. Ironically, that’s what the atheist accuses the Christian of doing when they decide to commit their lives to Christ. Furthermore, the atheist is going against their own worldview by denying their default position (if raised in a theistic home) by committing their lives to atheism.

This is a glaring inconsistency that springs from not understanding the implications of naturalism. Naturalism goes far beyond just the biological and astronomical realms; it effects sociology and psychology. Since we live in a universe that is subject to the law of non-contradiction, a true worldview is not tolerant of inconsistencies. I believe that the atheist can adjust their worldview to be consistent in this regard, but they will have to sacrifice an emotionally and rhetorically power tactic in their attacks on theism. I predict that such an adjustment toward consistency will not take place, due to their hearts being so set against God (and leading others away from Him) that a consistent worldview may be sacrificed. Truth is not the ultimate goal in naturalism. It is survival via manipulative control. Evolution meets sociology.

The correct naturalistic response to that supported accusation should be a shoulder shrug and a smirk. If the atheist rises up to defend against that position, then they recognize that “survival via manipulative control” is objectively wrong. Which they would then need to borrow from theism to ground their defense (another inconsistency). Instead, atheists should embrace this implication. It has shown them to be the intellectually fittest of the human species (see my short series “Human Equality and Naturalism”). Their intellectually fittest genes will survive to the detriment of the intellectually unfit genes of others. That is both intellectually and emotionally fulfilling to any true atheist.

If knowing that your genes will survive is not a fulfilling notion, and you desire intellectual and emotional fulfillment more than a rejection of God, and ultimately you prefer to have an accurate and consistent worldview, perhaps it is time to investigate the reasons to believe that a personal God does exist and desires to spend eternity with you. I recommend starting at:

PleaseConvinceMe.com’s Theism page
Apologetics 315
Reasons to Believe’s Astronomy and Biology pages
and William Lane Craig’s popular and scholarly articles on Jesus Christ