Your Worldview
As we travel through life, we eventually come face to face with the question, “What is it all about?” The answer to this question, known as our worldview, is more than an academic inquiry. It’s the basis for all that we think and everything we do.
Your worldview sets the stage for what you will become and the legacy, if any, you leave. But more importantly, if there is such a thing as absolute truth, your worldview affects the very purpose for your existence. And it can determine the destiny of countless individuals beside yourself.
There are two general ways that people in our culture gauge the world:
1. This universe came into being eons ago by some unknown forces of nature. By a long series of physical phenomena, life appeared on this planet, and evolved into what we now call humans. These humans interact in a variety of ways with each other and their environment, and each person decides for themselves what is “right” and what is “wrong”. The purpose of life, according to this worldview, is to pursue happiness (defined by the individual) without causing harm to others or interfering with the happiness of others.
Or, the other way to view our existence is . . .
2. A transcendent (outside our time/space experience) Being, who designed life for a specific purpose, created the universe and everything in it. The transcendent Being is not just a source of truth – He is truth. He is not merely an example of how to live a good life – He is life itself. We do not refer to Him as Father because He’s like our human fathers – instead, we refer to our physical progenitors as fathers because they were designed to exemplify the Creator (the real Father, not a symbol). Everything in the physical universe, including truth and logic, subsist only in the Creator. In other words, without the Creator, nothing else can exist. The purpose for which we were created is to worship the Creator and bring glory and honor to Him through a relationship in which we fully reflect the essence of beauty (that is, beauty as He defines it).
• • •
There are many different versions of these two basic worldviews, but essentially, the question to consider is: Do you believe in a transcendent Creator or not? If not, some problems arise that might (or perhaps necessarily) interfere with your ability to live a reasonable life.
First, there’s the problem of determinism. That is, if we are simply a product of physics and chemistry and biology, then there are no choices that we can claim as our own. Every thought you’ve ever had is merely the result of the atoms (inanimate matter) in your brain colliding and reacting in certain ways . . . and those atoms reacted in certain ways only because of previous collisions and reactions of other atoms. And those atoms were set in motion because of the trajectories and properties of yet other atoms. Ultimately, all of these atoms were affected by the first atoms produced by the “Big Bang” that allegedly started the universe.
What caused this “Big Bang” is unknown and maybe unknowable; but nevertheless, it is the cause (indirect or not) of every physical collision, chemical reaction and biological evolution that has ever taken place or ever will take place – all the way down to the sub-microscopic events occurring in our brains every second. So every thought, choice and action we take are the only possible results given the initial conditions of the universe. That is to say, the physical conditions at the beginning of the universe determined everything that happened afterward (forever). Your thoughts are simply a matter of physics, not free will.
Consequently, all of life and history (and the future) is just one big “cause and effect” exercise. It’s a play with no audience and a cast that only has the illusion of being alive. We are biological robots, moving and acting in ways that are merely the result of the “laws” of nature. We have no more choice regarding our actions than a leaf has in its location when it falls to the ground. The physical laws that govern where the leaf lands are the very same laws that determine what our brains think, and hence, what we say and do.
Determinism, though, is only one problem with not believing in a transcendent Being. Even if you discount the fact that every move we make has been determined by the nature of the physical universe, there’s still the question of moral truth. Is there any such thing as moral truth? If you say no, then life becomes unlivable. If someone steals from you or physically hurts someone you care about, you can’t complain or demand recourse. Why, you ask? Because, according to your worldview, there was nothing “wrong” with what they did. (If there are no moral truths, then nothing is right or wrong.) Things just are. Period.
Or as another example, if the government inflicted a punishment on you that seemed unfair (for example, to exact the death penalty for a speed limit violation), you have no legitimate argument if you don’t believe in moral truth. You cannot say that it is unjust or cruel punishment, because remember, you don’t believe in moral truths – there’s no such thing as right or wrong, which means there’s no such thing as justice or cruelty.
Now if you say, “I do believe in moral truths – there is such a thing as right and wrong, but I don’t believe in a transcendent Being.” Well, perhaps you haven’t thought about this question in depth: Where did right and wrong come from? Many people believe that right and wrong really exist, but that each individual must decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. The final part of this paper will deal with this issue.
One final thought about an atheistic worldview (one in which there is no God). Remember that, using this framework, our purpose in life is pursuing happiness (however you define that). If this is the case, it is hardly a purpose at all. Think about it . . . you know that you will only live maybe a hundred years, a geologic “blink of an eye”. You will be dead a lot longer than you will have been alive. No matter how much “happiness” you obtain in this life, it will all be gone with the wind very shortly, and you will have no ability at all to remember or otherwise benefit from it. So it’s useless.
Someone might argue that acquiring wealth gives life meaning because you can leave it to your children so they can enjoy it. That’s a noble thought, but if you think this gives your life a legitimate purpose, think about this: Your children have the same problem you had, namely they will only be able to enjoy life for a short time as well. And their children will meet the same fate. And so on, until one day, the physical universe as we know it will have run its course and cease to exist – which appears to be inevitable according to modern physics theories.
At that point, nothing that ever happened . . . nothing . . . will be remembered and there will be no signs that anything ever did happen. It will be as if we never existed. Think about that: as if we never existed. So even if you completely ignore your life’s “purpose” and run away from happiness, or even if you want to prevent others from becoming happy – it really wouldn’t matter. If there is no ultimate meaning behind (outside) the universe, happiness is moot. In the end, everything goes “back in the box” and there is no memory of anything that ever occurred. No memory at all. And no happiness, either.
Blaise Pascal wrote, “. . . there are two kinds of people one can call reasonable; those who serve God with all their heart because they know Him, and those who seek Him with all their heart because they do not know Him.” Whether we like it or not, it appears the only reasonable way to live is searching for a deeper meaning and ultimate purpose beyond ourselves. Beyond our families. Beyond our world.
If there is a transcendent God who created the universe, is it possible that He made us simply to enjoy life and “do the best we can”, and then spend eternity in heaven doing more of the same? This idea doesn’t seem logical for two reasons. First, if the universe, including us, subsists in God, then “the best we can do” is only possible when done in and through Him. Anything and everything we do by our own effort is hopeless, because our very being is not even possible without Him. The reason the Bible says that “apart from Him we can do nothing” (John 15:5) is because apart from Him, we are nothing.
Secondly, our enjoyment of life, or anything else, is inextricably tied to the Source of our life. It stands to reason that, if God made us, we are for Him, not He for us. An artist does not exist for his work of art; it’s the other way around. And so, while we may think that we are enjoying life, certainly there will come a time when we realize that we really were not as “happy” as we thought. Consider the following illustration:
When a small child gets a few years older, she sees that there are bigger and better things that bring her contentment. A few years later, even those bigger and better things don’t satisfy – there must be something bigger and better yet. And so on through the seasons of life. Why do we think this process ends at some stage in adulthood? We tend to believe (no matter how old we are) that we have arrived at a time in our lives when we know what’s best for ourselves and we truly know what will make us “happy”. Yet, if we are honest with ourselves, our ideas of happiness are always changing – so is it really true happiness? Perhaps what we call happiness is really something else. Whether we think we have arrived at it, or we are still chasing after it, it’s a question worth considering.
God couldn’t have created us simply to enjoy this life. God is, by definition, infinite. Also, by definition, He is supremely good. Any enjoyment He has designed into our lives could not be limited to anything outside of Himself. Maybe our definition of happiness should be . . . God. He is infinite. Everlasting. Perfect.
So, what is the meaning of life? The Bible makes it clear: “. . . what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8) Ecclesiastes, probably written by King Solomon (considered one of the wisest men ever) concludes by saying we should “Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man’s all.” (12:13)
As you read through the Bible and understand it as a whole, it becomes clear that this means more than just trying to be a “good” person as best you can. It means making your relationship with God the highest priority in your life. It means submitting every thought, word and action to His authority and making your most sincere attempt to decipher His plan for every facet of your life; and to follow it wholeheartedly.
This may sound difficult, and at times it can be. But since God is a relationship in and of Himself (Father, Son, Spirit), it is His ultimate purpose that we share in that relationship to the fullest. And the only way we can do that is by committing our lives to knowing Him better every day and sharing the truth about Him with everyone possible.
If that’s the case, does it matter? Shouldn’t friends and family be our priority? Well, getting to know God better every day (by reading His Word, praying, getting involved in church, etc.) makes perfect sense if we were created to be in relationship with Him. It would seem rather odd for someone to say, “I love my family and I highly value our relationship, but we haven’t spoken in a year. However, I might visit them for Christmas – if I have to.”
Most people would never do that to their human families. And yet God is more of a family to us than they are because He is the originator of the family. Our earthly families are only a shadow, or a reflection of the real family that we were created for, namely God Himself. What a tragedy to ignore our real family and “worship” a shadow!
Now this doesn’t mean that our human families are unimportant – they are very important. But they are merely practice for the real thing. We should focus on what matters most and everything else will fall into place. A puzzle has many pieces, all of them important, but it’s the big picture that matters most. God is the big picture. Our earthly relationships are meant to point us to Him.
In addition to getting to know God better, I said we must share the truth about Him with everyone possible. What or who do people talk about most. We usually talk about things we like and people we care about. And if someone says false or hurtful things about those we love, we want to correct that person immediately. If God is our most important relationship, why don’t we do the same with Him? Who would others say we love the most? Only God deserves 1st place.
I think it might have been Thomas Aquinas, a 13th-century theologian, who observed, “When we love someone and they don’t love us back, we are hurt because we’ve lost something. Not so with God. When God loves us and we don’t love Him back, God is hurt, not because He’s lost something, but because we (His creation) have lost something.” This fact alone should cause us to love God above all else and follow Him completely. We were created for Him; He (and only He) knows what will really make us happy.
Many excuses are offered for not leading a life fully devoted to God, but I think they basically come down to one thing: unbelief. Not believing in God seems to be an unlivable and unreasonable worldview. And if you truly believe in God, it‘s not logical to believe that He exists for us, but rather we for Him. Now if that is indeed our state, what a tragedy it would be to spend our lives seeking anything but Him.
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. Jim Elliot
Deciding Moral Truths for Ourselves
If moral truths (right and wrong) really exist, a transcendent Being must be assumed. The reason for this should be obvious once you begin to consider the alternative in depth. If we assume a universe that came into being on its own, we first must wonder where physical laws came from. It is clear that every material object and particle, as well as things we can’t see (like energy and forces), follow very definite rules . . . rules that have been spelled out in antiquity. These rules are intelligible and observable. We can understand them. We see them at work.
If this is the case, is it possible that such information just happened to exist on its own before our universe appeared; or could this only be the result of purposeful design? While scientists often tell us that things happen simply by chance (give the physical universe enough time and everything is bound to happen eventually), our logic reveals that if we see definite information, there must be an intelligent information-giver.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s suspend our belief that a universe that can be understood in terms of science and mathematics must have an intelligent Creator. For the moment, let’s say we are here only because some eternal matter (in one form or another) spent billions of years evolving into basic life forms, which in turn developed into more “advanced” life, which eventually resulted in what we now call humans.
The first questions we need to grapple with is, “Did moral truths exist before the advent of humans, or after?” It doesn’t make sense to say “before”. Before humanity, there was just matter or life forms that had no self-awareness, no concept of right and wrong, and no real intelligence. Moral truths pertain to intelligent creatures that have the ability to decipher good and bad as they relate to others. Only creatures that are aware of their own existence can know right from wrong.
Inanimate matter is amoral. It’s neither good nor bad. And lower life forms have no ability to know whether they are doing something good or bad; they don’t know that good and bad exist (or that they themselves exist). They are merely biological robots, reacting to their environment the way they’ve been “programmed” by chemistry and physics. So from an evolutionary perspective, moral truths must have been waiting for the arrival of humans. In other words, humans invented moral truths. We humans define right and wrong.
Two serious problems arise now. First, when did humans actually “arrive on the scene”? Evolution is a process . . . a very long and indefinite process. There was never a time that we can point to and say, “That’s when humans first appeared.” Humans gradually developed the traits and characteristics that we call “human” today. And humans are continuing to change little by little; there may come a day that humans will look and behave much different than the humans we know in the 21st century. So to answer the question, “When did humans arrive?” we must give a clear definition of what a human is, and that is not easily done. It’s more subjective than objective. There are different opinions about what it means to be human.
Now we could say, “Well, I don’t know when humans arrived on the scene, but we’re here now, and we must decide for ourselves what is right and wrong.” Fair enough, but now we run into the more serious of the two serious problems. Which humans are right about “right and wrong” and which humans are wrong about them? There are currently about 7 billion people on the planet, and probably just as many ideas about moral truths. If right and wrong really are to be decided by individuals, then you can’t say that any particular individual is wrong about their ideas. That would be like saying someone is wrong about what they like.
But if you say that your ideas of right and wrong are more right than someone else’s ideas, then you are really saying that right and wrong exist independently of what humans think. You are appealing to some “higher power” that has a monopoly on moral truths and cannot be wrong. After all, if you claim to know real moral truths (real rights and real wrongs), then they must really exist . . . and they must really be correct. They cannot simply be a convention of a certain group of people or a mere human invention. (Conventions or inventions would have the capability of being incorrect, hurtful and fleeting; so they could not possibly be real moral truths or anything like them.)
So if right and wrong exist independently of humans and they could not have arisen from inanimate matter (which we know is amoral), then where did they come from? There can be only one legitimate answer to that question, and it leads us outside of ourselves and outside of our time/space universe. Once we acknowledge the need for a transcendent Creator, right and wrong begin to make sense. “Right” has existed eternally in the Person of God, and “wrong” is the perversion of anything God has created for His purposes.
And His purposes are (necessarily) good. Just as the viewpoint of the author of a book about the characters in the book cannot be wrong, so the ethics and morals of God (the Author of space and time) cannot be wrong. As C.S. Lewis noted, calling God wrong is like cutting off the branch you’re sitting on.
So this is the heart of the matter. We humans could not have created rights and wrongs, for if we did, then we could change them at any time, which would mean that real rights and wrongs don’t exist. Furthermore, if we believe that real rights and wrongs do exist, we must believe in some transcendent Creator, because it doesn’t make sense to say that rights and wrongs just existed on their own when the universe had no idea there would ever be people (or anything else) to apply rights and wrongs to.
But which transcendent Creator? I believe that only the Christian God is worthy of our devotion. To see why, I highly recommend reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, one of the 20th Century’s most brilliant writers.
Consider this excerpt from C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity . . .
A good many people nowadays say, “I believe in a God, but not in a personal God.” They feel that the mysterious something which is behind all other things must be more than a person. Now the Christians quite agree. But the Christians are the only people who offer any idea of what a being that is beyond personality could be like. All the other people, though they say that God is beyond personality, really think of Him as something impersonal: that is, as something less than personal. If you are looking for something super-personal, something more than a person, then it is not a question of choosing between the Christian idea and the other ideas. The Christian idea is the only one on the market.
He goes on to say . . .
If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.
sidenote pertaining to 6th paragraph in the “Deciding Moral Truths for Ourselves” section (beginning with “Two serious problems arise now.”):
According to Dr. Sy Garte, in a conversation with Dr. James Tour on YouTube (posted 10/1/2021), “when we get to humans, evolution is done . . . .” There have only been a few mutations in the human population, he says, since we diverged from other primates. For example, some of us can drink milk as adults, and we’ve had changes in skin color; he says there have been a few other changes in evolutionary time (hundreds of thousands of years). “Otherwise,” Dr. Garte goes on to say, “we’re exactly the same genetically as we always were.”
Whether this claim helps or hurts my argument, I don’t know. But the point of that section is that if human life is merely the result of natural processes, then there can be no objective point of reference for moral behavior. Everything would be relative, and therefore essentially meaningless in the grand scheme of things.