Acts & Apologetics: 9. the Unbeliever's Worldview

The  Christian worldview of life is, for all purposes, straightforward.  It's not that believers are automatons, but we "view" the world and universe around us through the only eyes that matter: God's eyes. 

The unbeliever on the other hand looks at the world very differently. He looks at it through his own eyes. Virtually everything he (or she) sees or experiences - visible and invisible, perceived and actual, logical and illogical - is seen through their particular filter. 

There is no single "unbeliever's" worldview. Like Paul in first-century Athens dealing with Epicureans and Stoics (Acts 17), the Apostle understood the basic tenets of their philosophy of living and could reason and persuasively argue with these "learned" men.  

So what are Epicureans and Stoics you ask? The Epicurean philosophy was formulated by Epicurus back around 307 BCE. Epicureans attacked the supernatural and divine intervention. They sought "modest living" (everything in moderation) for the purpose of attaining a state of  "tranquility" and freedom from fear, although this moderation bordered on the verge of asceticism; typically following an austere lifestyle.

Stoicism  - founded by Zeno of Citium about 200 BCE - dealt with and concerned itself more with how a person behaved and sought to eliminate destructive emotions. Ultimately, the person practicing Stoicism would reach the level of "sage" (a person of moral and intellectual perfection) and therefore not suffer such emotions. For you Star Trek fans, think of the Vulcan race.

The foundations of these ancient philosophies are still around today and provide the building blocks leading to the modern worldviews we see in society.  There are many unbelieving worldviews, but thankfully they fall into a few basic categories. Like Paul, we 21st-century believers must know who our audience is and have a grasp as to what they believe so that we may properly engage them in the reasoning of the Gospel.

Let's be clear and brutally honest unless the person has a need - or at minimum a curiosity - for a paradigm shift in their life, and the Holy Spirit has already been "plowing the field", our words can be or could be meaningless to them.

When you ask the question: "what is the Nature of...?", as we did in looking at the Christian worldview, you'll find that the three most important questions that make the unbeliever "who" he or she is, are the questions of Ontology or reality,  Epistemology or "knowing what you know" and commitment. Let's go through these questions again from a Western (we will not concern ourselves with Eastern beliefs in this study, but for further information, I would encourage you to read James Sire's "The Universe Next Door"), unbelieving or non-Christian standpoint. It will make sense to keep in mind Romans 1:18 - 25. 

The first question of Ontology and reality (metaphysics)  reveals that the unbeliever is more of a naturalist or materialist -  you can work in the Nature of Cosmology here too. All that matters to him or her is what they can see, touch, or experience. Whether it's with  their own eyes or senses, through a microscope or telescope, what they see is what "is." The "supernatural" doesn't or "can't" exist.  If there's no knowledge or desire to accept the possibility of the supernatural, then miracles are impossible, and God and the spirit realm don't exist. If they don't exist, then it's easy to throw out a literal - and Biblical - 6-day Creation, young earth theory, Biblical stories of the parting of the Red  Sea, the sun standing still, Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection. Those are just stories made up by "unlearned" people of past millennia to explain natural phenomena or support their beliefs. That is their "meta-narrative". 

From naturalists come the idea of "nihilism": we've come from nothing and that's where we're all headed. Nothing matters. There's no purpose  (question 6: Teleology). There's no meaning to life. Everything that we  see and experience is a product of "chance." 

As the unbeliever looks at the Nature of the Cosmos and man (questions 2  and 3)- cosmology and anthropology - the pathway grows even wider to create and expand his worldview. In his denial of God and anything supernatural, the idea of "Science" comes into play. Science can become the "god" of the unbeliever.

Although science has been around and used for thousands of years, the ideas of the process of Evolution and the "Big Bang" theory are not even centuries old. Up until the mid to late 1800s, the general belief was that God (sometimes god) created all and put it into motion. Being sophisticated, modern men and women, that just couldn't be. New constructs (stories - backed up by "science") were needed. I remember being in elementary school in the late 1960s and early 1970s, being taught in our Science class that the universe was about 3 - 5 billion years old. Today, the number is ten times that. Why?  Did science need more time for its evolutionary processes to take place?

When you watch television shows about the creation of the universe on  Discovery or History International, you see "educated" men and women spouting "facts" about what happened so many eons ago. Were they there? Was anyone there to corroborate those facts? Of course not. So then how can they be so sure in their beliefs? These scientists must have great faith.

Looking at the other questions of Nature, what does the unbeliever do with those questions of Morality and Ethics? For the naturalist or realist, it becomes a question of relativity: what's true (real or good) for me may or may not be true (real or good) for you. Whatever works...you know? So where did morality and ethics come from? What of the ideas of good and bad, right or wrong? Sacred and profane? Why is it "wrong" or "bad" if someone steals a poor old woman's purse and then "right" or "good" when another individual gets it back?  Who sets the rules or the standards of morality and ethics? Is it society in general or the individual? Do they change or are the standards of right and wrong, good and evil "immutable" (as is God)?  More importantly, how do you live under those conditions? 

Here we deal with the philosophy of Existentialism. According to Answers.com, Existentialism is a "philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts." Again, "chance" is the "power" behind all that is. Do as you want, you're responsible for it.

Imagine playing a game of chess. There are rules. Certain pieces can move in certain ways and directions and spaces. You are playing by the rules but your opponent keeps changing them to suit his or her fancy. Suddenly a pawn can move like a Queen or a knight like a rook. Never mind the fairness of the game, but what can you count on with the passing of each move? If you're going to live by "chance" then you have to be willing to be on this unending roller coaster of uncertainty for your entire existence. You can't pick and choose when the rules apply and when they don't. 

Back in the early 1980s, at the urging of a close acquaintance, I participated in the "est"  Training. Looking back, I still think it was a remarkable 2 weekends. I  saw and experienced many things in very different lights. My mind may have broadened, and my thinking expanded, but the anchors of standards were severed. I was set "free" from the bondage of "old thinking." I  could create my own reality. Many times I thought, "You know, if the 'Training' could be done in a 'Christian' context, it would be cool.  People could break away from their old notions and find liberty and  actual truth." I now realize that the "Training" took you off of one hamster wheel of living, and put you onto another. The real problem was that the new wheel had no tether to Truth.

So next up - and tied into this idea of morality - is a person's Epistemology (question 5). How does an unbeliever or naturalist or relativist "know  what they know?" Where did they get their information? Not to be snarky, but they obviously weren't there at the "Big Bang". They didn't see the ooze become a microorganism then a fish and so on up the evolutionary scale until it reached the human race. But this is again where "Science" comes in.  Although the unbeliever will not admit it, a tremendous amount of  "faith" as well. They have to have faith or a strong commitment to their beliefs and their sources of information.

Moreover, what are the authorities or credentials of the naturalist? How have those sources changed over time? If the "authority" is the diorama in the museum or the program on PBS, what's their authority?

What is "Truth"? That discussion has been on the docket for millennia. Even  Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" Jesus gave him an answer,  but Pilate chose to side-step the issue. We'll look at this idea at another time.

Through all of this, we haven't even begun to look at the ideas of hope or love, or emotions. Why are humans the only creature on earth that has emotions? Now I know that your pet may whine when you leave it and be "happy" when you return, but why do they do that? Do pets have the capacity to understand good and evil?

Back to a couple of other "isms." Existentialism has led to post-modernism. Post-modernism looks at all we have discussed and then goes a step further stating, "I'll create my  own reality." When you create your own reality, what is the purpose? Is there a purpose? The post-modernist has to ask the question (as did a former President of the United States), "What is the meaning of 'is'?"  The post-modern thinker (committed person, question 7 or 8) constructs a history or personal story for him or herself that matches up with their belief system. It's their "meta-narrative." It may not have one piece of truth or historicity, but it's "true for them."

So what is an unbeliever's or atheist's worldview? Why is there an animosity toward theism, God, and Christian theism in particular? Aldous Huxley, an existentialist of the 20th century is quoted as saying, "For myself, no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was ... from a certain system of morality. We  objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."  Quoted by Stanley L. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (Edinburgh: Scottish  Academic Press, 1980). 

This is the overarching mindset that then demands abortion, and homosexual  "rights", promotes otherwise deviant behaviors (pedophilia is one), "transgenderism", and talks of extreme "abortion" of children up to the age of 3 (used at one time in Germany) because they're not really human, population control (with the idea that the earth is "over"-populated), and even eugenics  (selective breeding of humans). 

In other words, they don't want rules or to be reminded of sin. They want to be able to do what they want when they want without having to worry about consequences; the key phrase there is "worry". If there are no absolutes, or God, or purpose, or meaning, then go do what you want to whomever you want. Since there are no absolutes, there are few consequences - according to you anyway.

But maybe existentialist extraordinaire - and committed atheist - Jean-Paul Sartre put it best. Yet again, keep in mind Romans 1:18 - 25, as you read his thoughts from his autobiography.  "I had been playing with matches and burned a small rug. I was in the process of covering up my crime when suddenly God saw me. I felt His gaze inside my head and on my hands...I flew into a rage against so crude an indiscretion, I  blasphemed...He never looked at me again...I had the more difficulty getting rid of Him [the Holy Ghost] in that He had installed Himself at the back of my head...I collared the Holy Ghost in the cellar and threw Him out." Sartre later writes: "Atheism is a cruel affair. I still write. What else can I do?" The Words (New York: George Braziller, 1964).

Finally, when it comes to the commitment of the unbeliever, especially those "isms" that we've been looking at, they are left with how to live out these worldviews. How committed are they to these worldview constructs?  Can they actually live with some of these views?  I would propose that it would be difficult at best. I know that I can live day to day with my worldviews. The various parts of my worldview do not compete with or contradict one another. My belief in a personal God supports all aspects of my worldview. In upcoming posts, we will look at how to engage and discuss competing world views.