You cannot separate science and philosophy. You cannot separate worldview from your thought life. You begin with presuppositions when you view the world and think about it. The wise man does not simply view the world and consider what he should both think and do, he also reviews his worldview to be sure it makes the most sense. Before you begin a trip you do need to have both a destination and the route that will take you there. But anyone with any common sense makes sure that the vehicle is ready for the trip.
I keep my vehicles in good shape. I keep them tuned up and do preventative maintenance. Since I have been injured I now have a mechanic do most of the work for me but I have virtually every tool a mechanic needs and have been an accomplished "shade tree mechanic" so I know very well what to check on before a trip aside from having a basic system of automotive maintenance like changing timing belts every 80,000 miles and changing oil somewhere between 3,000-5,000 miles (an auto that is driven long distances and mainly highway miles at steady speeds allows you to change at 5,000 miles, but an auto that is driven short distances and has much stop-and-go driving you should change at closer to 3,000 miles. You are welcome).
Before a trip I still inspect my well-maintained vehicle to be sure the tires are aired up properly and do not show too much wear. I check the various vehicular fluids to be sure they are topped up to standards and thus, if something is unusually low I may have to investigate to see if there is a leak or problem that will make me decide to take a different car on this trip and have that car checked further. I make sure all lights and signals are working. Only then do I confidently set out on the trip. A good automobile in good shape and well-maintained can last for many years.
As far as my life vehicle, I used to continually change my worldview like I used to change my go-to-work vehicle. I used to like to buy older cars from junk yards or private citizens, fix them up on the cheap and drive them until they were ready to be cannibalized for parts. Like those beaters, my worldview was always changing until I became a Christian and, for the first time, I had a worldview worth keeping and maintaining. Christianity is the Rolls-Royce of worldviews. Those cars used to be made to last and never have to be replaced. I'm keeping my worldview now because I know it is the best available. But it took awhile for me to find it, a long journey stretched behind.
In order to follow up the last post, which focused on the common definitions of that person who tends to identify himself as an Atheist/unbeliever, we now look to logical arguments for the existence of God from philosophical perspectives. Since there is a great website (linked on my blog) which takes this issue on, it makes sense to use one of the site's posts and point the reader towards that site. The Existence of God website is designed to take people through all these basic arguments and the post below is kind of a starting point for you.ontological argument, the first cause argument, the argument from design, and the moral argument.
Each of these arguments, if successful, supports a certain conception of God: the ontological argument, for instance, is an argument for the existence of a perfect being; the first cause argument is an argument for the existence of an eternal Creator; the argument from design is an argument for the existence of Creator with a special interest in humanity; the moral argument is an argument for a moral authority.
Each of the arguments, if successful, then, so supports a specific religion to the extent that its conception of God matches that supported by the argument.
The Ontological ArgumentThe first purported proof of the existence of God is the ontological argument. The ontological argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the laws of logic alone. It dates back to St Anselm, an eleventh century philosopher-theologian and archbishop of Canterbury, but was also used by the French philosopher René Descartes. It argues that once we mentally grasp the concept of God we can see that God’s non-existence is impossible. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a perfect being that could not possibly fail to exist.
The First Cause ArgumentThe second purported proof of the existence of God is the first cause argument, also called “the cosmological argument”. The first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing. There must therefore be some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to exist. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a Creator that transcends time, that has neither beginning nor end.
The Argument from DesignThe third purported proof of the existence of God is the argument from design, also called “the teleological argument”. The argument from design seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe is ordered.
The universe could have been different from the way that it is in many ways. It could have had different laws of physics; it could have had a different arrangement of planets and stars; it could have begun with a more powerful or a weaker big bang.
The vast majority of these possible universes would not have allowed for the existence of life, so we are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does. On an atheistic world-view, there is no way to explain this good fortune; the atheist must put this down to chance. On the view that God exists, though, we can explain why the universe is the way that it is; it is because God created the universe with beings like us in mind. This argument, if it is successful, strongly suggests the existence of a Creator that takes an interest in humanity.
The Moral ArgumentThe fourth purported proof of the existence of God is the moral argument. The moral argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that there are moral laws.
Moral laws have the form of commands; they tell us what to do. Commands can’t exist without a commander though, so who is it that commands us to behave morally?
SummaryTogether, then, these arguments claim to prove the existence of a perfect, necessary, transcendent being that created the universe, has authority over it, and takes an interest in humanity. This, if it could be accomplished, would be more than enough to show that the Christian conception of God, and those conceptions of God related to it, are close to the truth.
Darwinism was founded and fueled by the failed hypothesis of Charles Darwin, which he culled from several sources. Those who preferred to deny God found refuge in this materialist explanation for life, which was then applied to all aspects of origins, from the start of the Universe (once the steady state hypothesis was debunked) to all organisms on Earth. Darwin borrowed ideas from Lyell, Blythe, Wallace, Hutton, his own grandfather (Erasmus) and myths from the early Greek philosophers to try to explain life as he saw it. He did not attempt at first to also pretend to have an answer for the beginning of life but that became part of the myth. With great effort, those who wanted to eliminate God from society worked hard to make Darwinism popular and accepted and finally in the early 20th Century they began to succeed.