The Incoherence of Naturalism
In my last post, I commented on how difficult it is to live with a naturalistic worldview. Many speak of Christianity as being irrational, yet a Christian worldview does not require an irrational, self-contradictory leap of faith. In The Moral Animal, Robert Wright describes the naturalistic take on morality and truth:
We believe the things - about morality, personal worth, even objective truth - that lead to behaviors that lead to behaviors that get our genes into the next generation.
Free will is an illusion…a useful fiction…an outdated worldview.
He goes on to claim that naturalism calls into question “the very meaning of the word truth.” All truth claims “are, by Darwinian lights, raw power struggles.” He, unflinchingly concludes that Darwinism leads to utter cynicism. Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene, claims that our genes “created us, body and mind”. We are simply “survival machines”, sophisticated robots built by our genes to perpetuate themselves. Both Dawkins and Wright then take the “leap of faith” and encourage us to “correct the moral biases built into us by natural selection, and to “defy the selfish genes of our birth”.
What these examples illustrate is that no one can live with a naturalistic worldview. Nancy Pearcey, in Total Truth, contrasts the Christian worldview with a naturalistic one:
Because it begins with a personal God, Christianity provides a consistent, unified worldview that holds true both in the natural realm and in the moral, spiritual realm. The biblical doctrine of the image of God gives a solid basis for human dignity and moral freedom that is compatible with the compelling witness of human experience. Unlike the evolutionary psycologist, Christians can live consistently on the basis of their worldview because it fits the real world.