Featured Christian Apologetics: Knowing Our Enemy Called the Scientific Worldview

I have compiled the scientific worldview according to my knowledge of it as a former atheist.

The Scientific Worldview

The scientific worldview believes that we should imagine that the universe is simply physical phenomena, which have been proceeding from when time began, and which have been predetermined by scientific laws. All of this existing at many levels of perspective from a galaxy on down to our daily lives on down to a subatomic particle. Thus, our universe is simply a vast, vast number of physical interactions that have made the universe into one long, predetermined chain of cause and effect since time began. A chain of cause and effect that predetermines galaxies, our own day to day lives, and subatomic particles.

As human beings, we must understand our smallness and insignificance to all the universe, but we must also understand and cherish the large impact we have on others who we know and love. However, as human beings we must also understand our frailty, and how easy it is for us to die and then possibly cease to exist.

As such we should live lives that fulfill us and give us meaning in this universe. Lives filled with comfort and ease to take advantage of every moment we exist.

Thus, human existence is about personal meaning, personal fulfillment, comfort, and ease. It is simply put dangerous to your well being to believe that you make a huge difference to the universe or beyond with your life.

Another hard truth to understand is that there are most likely many people on other worlds like us all throughout the universe, who have their own struggles. These people are called aliens by our society at this point in time.

Furthermore, while a Creator is certainly very possible and even plausible given the Big Bang, for an active God to exist that entity’s existence must be apparent in the chains of cause and effect within the universe, by at least being apparent in history, a notion which is highly debatable.

In addition, all religions and holy books must be judged by whether they fit the evidence we currently have from scientific disciplines and history. If they make claims science can test, then science and the religion or holy book’s claim must coincide. If they make historical claims then history and the religion or holy book’s claim must coincide. That said, no holy books conform to the truths about the universe currently at our disposal, even the Bible.

Also, while difficult to explain physical phenomena exist, these phenomena will one day be explained through new scientific laws.

The secular worldview is also about maximizing the pleasure people have in their lives in any of its forms such as happiness, comfort, peace, visual pleasure from architecture or artwork, aural pleasure from music, pleasurable scents, exotic experiences, ease of work. and much, much more. People are given the ability to pursue pleasure in any of a myriad of ways. Now, because of all of this, the hope of each person is to live in pleasure, especially to live with happiness and peace, from the day they are born until the day they die a death that is not attributed to violence or an accident. This also means that at its core the secular worldview is about establishing a paradise on earth in the future, where it is often imagined mankind also lives in outer space.

However, the secular worldview has not yet defeated the problems of crime, absolute poverty, relative poverty, natural disasters, or the necessity for warfare.

Because of the many chains of cause and effect working on us free will as we know it is very constrained, and many argue it doesn't exist at all. Missing here of course is the notion of a God Who answers prayer or Who works miracles that upset the chains of cause and effect in the universe. That is unless that God is apparent to history, which is debatable.​

I open up for discussion whether I describe the scientific worldview correctly? Have I represented the skepticism of this worldview well? Also, how we are to respond to this belief system?

As for my own response, I am writing an essay where I show that the bible already talks of people like those who embrace the scientific worldview. This is just another in a long line of lies of the Adversary and it has the exact same fruit as before. I use Romans 1:16-2:11 to show the biblical response to the scientific worldview. From this passage it is clear that the scientific worldview is just another attempt to suppress the truth by those who have rejected God, and the curse upon those who do so is the same as before. I will post my essay later, as I don't want to bog down readers and responders with text.

I will say that to say that the scientific worldview is unbiblical is to understate the situation entirely. The bible at every turn seems to disagree with the scientific worldview’s premises about the nature of life, humanity, meaning, purpose, how to live, and the world’s history.

 

Wow, this is a heated debate. I will say more on my own viewpoint when not on my phone. For now, I must say that I believe in apparent age and that history before Eden is simply a work of art that should not be taken seriously. We can learn from that work of art of course, but it isn't history.

 

Calminian got it. I believe that the bible is literally true and accurate. The stars, moons, planets, etc. were created by God after the earth.This means that He made it with what seems to be age, but isn't.

Thus, apparent age. Many scientists hate this viewpoint calling it antithetical to the purpose and mission of science. I think they love science more than the Word.

 

Maybe I do have my terms mixed up. The reason I call it the scientific worldview is because that is what I hear it called by those opposed to the Gospel. I figured I would square off against them with their own term, but that maybe a trap. I will have to ponder this and do some more research on what the best term is for the worldview I described. Another term I hear used by atheists is "secular rational" worldview. Using that term may be a trap as well.

For now let's call this the dominant "Secular worldview" in the West.

 

What I described is Materialism in the philosophical sense, because it sees nothing beyond the material.

It is Empiricist in that it sees empiricism as the best form of knowing something. The highest form of epistemology.

It is Rationalist as it sees reason and knowledge as superior to emotion or revelation.

It's Secularist in that it is indifferent to religion but not outright opposed, so it isn't very secular.

It is Naturalistic in that it it is indifferent to the supernatural, which if real would just be new scientific phenomenon to catalog and explain.

It is Relativistic as it does not inherently believe in transcendent morality.

It is Humanistic as it is centered on the development and pleasure of the human individual.

It is Modernistic in that it sees society advancing or "progressing" with the modern day superior to all eras before it. The future being more advanced than the present as long as "progress" is not stalled.

According to a dictionary, it isn't really Scientistic, as it is less focused on science's supposed superiority and more guided by Materialism and Empiricism.

It is actually unique to the West given the various types of secularism I can draw from apologetical works. It is clearly a child of Enlightenment thinking.

I see I was stupid, it is already existent and I reinvented the wheel, it is called Secular Humanism.

 

I actually described modern Secular Humanism, not Scientism. I'm sorry, I should have been more careful.