Are You Addressing A Worldview or Its Adherents?

The other day I posted a challenge to the atheistic worldview. I basically proposed that a few things were inconsistent within the worldview. In the comments, a person challenged me about how I was approaching the issue- saying that no atheist he knew held the beliefs that I was proposing. This brings up an important distinction that I think needs to be brought to the forefront: a worldview vs. an adherent.

A worldview is basically a series of propositions that may accurately reflect reality. An adherent is one who holds those beliefs. In conversations about reality, a worldview may be addressed; the adherent to a worldview may be addressed, or both may be addressed. When addressing a worldview, one takes its propositions and tests them against reality. There are multiple levels of worldviews that get more specific. Within the theistic worldview, you have Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and others. Within the Christian worldview, there exists Calvinists, Arminians, Compatiblists, etc. And there are more divisions at the same level of that with other distinctions. The general worldview or the specific worldviews may be tested. I expand on this more in my post "Can Religion Be Tested For Truth?".

🦃Thanksgiving, Evolution, and Design

Thanksgiving In America

Thanksgiving is a holiday that I see has lost a lot of its meaning in American society. I remember being taught that Thanksgiving was a time to stop and thank God for everything that he has bestowed upon us (be it material goods, health, understanding or anything- even suffering).

It seems quite difficult to do such a thing when America has abandoned belief in a personal God who affects our lives or has abandoned belief in God completely. I would hope that I would be able to see people at least showing gratitude to each other for something, but I don't even see that anymore. Instead, I see people calling it "Turkey Day", almost in an effort to remove the idea of being thankful to anyone for anything- which is a direct logical conclusion of America's narcissistic materialism ("its all about me").

Stephen Law's "Evil God" Argument

In a recent debate with William Lane Craig, Stephen Law proposed an interesting argument in defense of atheism. He provided many examples of "good" in the world and from those concluded that an evil God does not exist. He then challenged Craig to show how one can believe that a good God can exist when one believes that an evil God does not exist. In a very simple form, the argument looks like this:


1. An evil God does not exist.
2. An evil God and a good God are the same
3. Therefore, a good God does not exist
4. Craig's God is a good God
5. Therefore, Craig's God does not exist

At this time, I'm not going to focus on the first premise (although it will play a part). I think that Craig handled it adequately in the debate (Randy Everest at Possible Worlds addresses the concerns with the premise and Craig's responses in his analysis of the argument). However, premise 2 is the one that did not receive much attention from Craig and where I think that he could have also shown the argument's weakness. I want to quickly go over a few observations about the second premise.

The Scientific Method, Proof, and Skepticism

About a year ago I was having a conversation with a friend who told me that science had proven that God was not necessary for the universe to come into being. He concluded from that God is not required to explain the existence of the universe, and he is justified in his belief that God does not exist. He claims that an honest look at the evidence will lead to this conclusion (implying that other conclusions are not honest evaluations of the scientific data, and that they stifle scientific progress).

On the other hand, about a month ago I was in a conversation with a person who told me that science can't prove anything, and he must be skeptical of everything that scientists say. He believes that he is justified in rejecting many of the commonly accepted-as-true theories in the scientific world in favor of one that the scientific community, as a whole, has rejected. He claims that this is a humble and honest approach to science (implying that all other approaches to science are dishonest, and only skepticism promotes scientific progress).