The Christian Worldview is the Best Explanation

Detectives Utilize Abductive Reasoning
Detectives have a interesting job. We have to enter the crime scene and assess the evidence in front of us: is this a natural death or a homicide? If it's a homicide, which suspect best explains the evidence at the scene? While there may be a number of potential suspects that account for some or most of the evidence we see, one suspect will usually emerge as the "best" in that he or she most completely (and most reasonably) explains the evidence. This suspect simply makes the most sense of what we are seeing. As good detectives, we then "infer", from the fact that this suspect provides the best explanation (given the evidence) that the suspect is, in fact, the true killer. This process of "inferring to the best explanation" is sometimes called "abduction". As a detective myself, I understand the importance of examining a number of potential solutions (suspects) and carefully assessing which of these solutions best explains the evidence. When I utilize the process of abduction, I end up with an explanation that is simple and coherent and adequately explains the evidence in question. Is it "possible" that I might have the wrong suspect? Sure, especially if I grant that anything and everything is possible. But is it "reasonable" to believe that someone else committed this crime when my final suspect accounts for all the evidence at the crime scene? No. And that's the beauty of utilizing abduction in this manner. I arrive at a place of "evidential sufficiency" and I'm able to make sense of what I am seeing.

Detectives aren't the only people who employ abductive reasoning to make sense of their environment. All of us want to make sense of our world. As a result, each of us holds a view of the world (something we refer to as "worldview") that attempts to explain the situation we find ourselves in. That's fair; all of us observe the world around us and begin to think about potential explanations for what we are seeing. We then find ourselves offering the most reasonable explanation that would, if true, explain the evidence we have in front of us. We are inferring to the best explanation; employing the process of abduction.

The longer we live, the more we recognize life's "big questions". These questions beg to be answered and have motivated theologians, philosophers and scientists to explore and investigate their world. Every one of us develops a particular worldview in order to explain the reality of our lives and answer life’s most important questions. Along the way we make a decision between two potential realities: a world in which only natural forces are at work (an atheistic worldview known as Philosophical Naturalism) or a world in which supernatural forces are at work in addition to natural forces (as represented by Theistic Worldviews). Given these two possibilities, can abductive reasoning help us to decide which best explains the reality in which we live? I hold a theistic worldview because I believe it best explains the world around me, and it does so in a way that simply cannot be equaled by the philosophical naturalism inherent to atheism. In the ten most intriguing and important questions that can be asked by humans, Christian theism continues to offer the best explanation, especially when compared to philosophical naturalism.

The First Big Question:
How Did the Universe Come Into Being?
The First Piece of Evidence: A Universe That Has a Beginning

 

Evidence has been mounting for many years demonstrating the fact that we live in a finite universe; all space, time and matter had a beginning. From Einstein’s work on the General Theory of Relativity, to Edwin Hubble’s confirmation of the expanding universe, to the recognition of Hydrogen – Helium abundance in the universe, to Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson’s discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, to the simple reality of the Infinite Regress Theory, the vast majority of scientists continue to acknowledge that the universe came into being from nothing at some point in the distant past. Many have articulated this realization in some form of what has become the Standard Model of Cosmology, the “Big Bang” theory. But this theory presents us with a dilemma and causes us to ask our first big series of questions: if the universe has a “beginning”, what “began” it? What “first cause” could be adequate enough to cause the vast and overwhelming universe we live in? And how could this cause be itself uncaused (in order to avoid the problem of infinite regress)? How could this uncaused, first cause exist independently from the space, time and matter it caused? And if the “caused universe” once was "not", why is it here at all? As Gottfried Leibniz famously wrote in his “Principles of Nature and Grace, Based on Reason” in 1714, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

 

The Answer According to Philosophical Naturalism:
Atheism maintains that all questions can ultimately be answered without having to resort to a supernatural solution (the presupposition of Philosophical Naturalism). The implication that “Big Bang” cosmology requires a “Big Banger” has been reverberating through the scientific community for many years. A number of theories have been suggested to avoid the problem of “everything coming from nothing” at some point of “cosmic singularity”. “Steady state” cosmology, “conformal cyclic” cosmology, “ekpyrotic” cosmology, “quantum mechanics theory” cosmology, multiverse cosmology and many other theories have emerged in an effort to avoid the implications of the “Big Bang”. The problem with these alternative cosmological models is that they are simply without evidential support, while the evidence for the “Big Bang” continues to grow. No alternative to Big Bang Cosmology has garnered the broad support of the scientific community. Science cannot tell us what caused our caused universe. The scientific community instead begs us to wait patiently and trust that we will someday find a solution that will fit within their philosophically natural presuppositions.

 

The Answer According to Christian Theism:
Long before any scientist recognized the need, the Christian worldview (as described by the authors of the Bible) maintained that there was an uncaused, first cause of sufficient power to cause the universe. Long before any scientist recognized the caused nature of the universe, the Christian worldview described a universe that came into existence (from nothing) though the miraculous power of this uncaused, first cause. Long before scientists could ever observe it, the Christian worldview described a universe that was continuing to expand from a moment of cosmic singularity and was presently running down on its way toward heat death. Long before scientists and philosophers questioned why something would exist when nothing could just as easily have been the case, the Christian worldview described a creative and loving God who chose freely to create a universe that demonstrated his power and served as a place where His created beings could come to understand His nature and His offer for eternal life. The timeless Christian answer to the origin of the universe is still the best answer, and it is consistent with the evidence for Big Bang cosmology.

 

The Second Big Question:
Why Does There Appear to Be Design (Fine Tuning) in the Universe?
The Second Piece of Evidence: The Fine Tuning of the Universe

 

Scientists are more and more inclined to admit that the universe appears to be designed. This is not to say that the scientific community would acknowledge the existence of a supernatural designer, but it is true that science has helped us to understand that the universe appears to be remarkably “fine tuned” to support the existence of life. There are a number of forces in the universe that are finely calibrated to work together to make it possible for life to exist. The laws of electron mass, atomic mass, proton mass, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, speed of light, cosmological constant, gravity, mass of the universe (and many more) are finely tuned to coexist in harmony to govern the universe and our world. In addition to these forces, there are another set of particular conditions that are necessary for a planet to support life. The presence of liquid water, the proper distance from a star, the existence of a terrestrial crust, a properly proportioned magnetic field, the correct ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere, the existence of a large moon, and a mother star of a specific and particular size and type are all required. Our universe appears to have been designed so that sentient, carbon based life is possible, and our planet appears to have been fine-tuned with just the right proportions and conditions to make this life inevitable. Scientists are coming to the realization that while there may be an incredible number of planets in the universe, the specific conditions necessary to support life on any one of these planets actually exceeds the number of planets available! How did Earth overcome the long odds against the appearance of life? Can the widely recognized “appearance of design” in the universe be explained without the existence of a designer?

 

The Answer According to Philosophical Naturalism:
Atheists recognize the problem here. Richard Dawkins, in his book “The God Delusion” acknowledges that the appearance of design in the universe has been an historic challenge for atheists: “One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.” This is a problem for philosophical naturalists only because they are precluded from considering the possibility of a designer. Dawkins admits that the sciences simply have no explanation for the appearance of design and fine tuning in the universe. He recognizes that all theories offered by science fail to account for the physical evidence of design and fine tuning, but in a manner similar to the response given by the scientific community to the origin of the universe, Dawkins suggests that we wait patiently for science to provide an answer rather than conclude that the appearance of design is best attributed to the existence of a designer: “We should not give up the hope of a well-grounded explanatory model arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying model to match the biological one, the relatively weak models we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating God hypothesis of an intelligent designer.”

 

The Answer According to Christian Theism:
Long before any scientist observed the appearance of design and fine tuning in the universe, the Biblical authors described a universe that had been designed specifically by a God who was “the Maker of heaven and earth” (Psalm 115:15). This God designed and created the universe with the earth in mind. The Bible tells us specifically that God designed the earth so that He could fill it with living plants and creatures. The Christian worldview is founded on the existence and creative activity of a Master Designer, and for this reason, it does not have to struggle with the appearance of design; the Christian worldview is consistent with the evidence of design and fine tuning we see in the universe.

 

The Third Big Question:
How Did Life Originate?
The Third Piece of Evidence: Life Emerged from Non-Life

 

Scientists and philosophers have pondered the origin of life for ages. The answer to 'how' we got here is inextricably connected to the answer to 'why' we are here; one question clearly leads to the other. While the universe is filled with inanimate chemicals, minerals and other materials, life (at least intelligent carbon based life) seems to be far more rare. While the development and diversity of life is typically explained scientifically through some process of neo-Darwinian evolution, the transformation from non-living chemicals to the first, most primitive forms of life (a process known as "chemical evolution"), is still a topic of hot debate. Why is there life here on planet earth? How did it first emerge from inanimate chemicals and materials?

The Answer According to Philosophical Naturalism:
Science has been working on this question for some time, and has attempted to employ all that it has learned about natural processes in an effort to explain how non-living chemicals evolved into living organisms. Early efforts attempted to account for the basic building blocks of life, the creation of amino acids. From the Miller-Urey experiment to other ‘primordial soup’ theories (including “deep sea vent” theories, Eigen's hypothesis, Wächtershäuser's hypothesis, and the “radioactive beach hypothesis”), each scientific theory has suffered from some fatal flaw that eliminates it from consideration. Most have either misrepresented the environment of the early earth or have required an unnatural control of this environment in order to protect the development of amino acids to produce the desired results. But there is an even greater problem facing these abiogenesis theories. The creation of amino acids is simple compared to the formation of these amino acids into more complex building blocks required for life. There’s a big difference between a pile of car parts and a functioning car. We now know that DNA guides the formation of proteins and simple organisms, and this reality makes the process of chemical evolution much more difficult to explain. Scientists have to account for the presence of DNA and this is a far more daunting task than accounting for the presence of amino acids. Repeated efforts to explain the formation of DNA (like “RNA world” models) have failed to account for the formation of basic nucleotides necessary to make RNA or DNA possible. In essence, philosophical naturalists are still unable to explain how life began, and more importantly, their work in this area simply reveals how difficult the problem is to explain. As John Horgan (a philosophical naturalist and director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology) wrote in his book, “The End of Science”, the field of abiogenesis “...is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writers dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.”

 

The Answer According to Christian Theism:
Long before any scientist considered the perplexing problem of the origin of life, the Biblical authors were teaching that an uncaused, first cause was the only possible solution to this "chicken and egg" problem. A Being with unimaginable creative power overcame the natural impossibility of life emerging from non-living matter. The Christian worldview maintains that a creative God has the power necessary to form life "from the dust of the ground" and create a "living being" from non-living materials (Genesis 2:7). This scientifically inexplicable event can be described as nothing short of miraculous; the Christian worldview explains how the long odds against the emergence of life were overcome.

 

The Fourth Big Question:
Why Does There Appear to Be Evidence of Intelligence in Biology?
The Fourth Piece of Evidence: Biological Organisms Display Attributes of Intelligent Design

 

Just as with the "appearance" of design in the universe, most scientists are quick to agree that biological systems often "appear" to be designed. There are many examples of biological "machines" that appear to be irreducibly complex, a sure sign of design. In addition to this, there are a number of biological organisms that exist in symbiotic dependence with one another, reasonably inferring that they first appeared simultaneously as part of an integrated relationship (something that is impossible to explain naturally). But perhaps the most important evidence suggesting the involvement of an intelligent agent is the presence of DNA and the guiding role that this DNA plays in the formation of biological systems. Science has demonstrated that DNA is actually a digital code; DNA is information. Naturalism must explain the existence of information without resorting to some form of intelligent agent.

 

The Answer According to Philosophical Naturalism:
Most scientists refuse to infer the existence of a designer from the appearance of design. For this reason, they must also refuse to accept the existence of irreducibly complex biological machines (such as bacterial flagella). Instead, they have proposed a number of "possible" evolutionary pathways that, through a slow process of assembly and addition, have resulted in such organisms. These "possible" functional pathways are highly speculative, however, and are not evidentially supported. In addition to this, scientists are so perplexed by the existence and implication of information in the DNA code that many would rather deny that it is information than explain its source. The more we know about the complexity and specificity of DNA and the role it plays in the guidance and development of organisms, the more difficult it is to explain through natural processes. Antony Flew, one of the foremost and most vocal atheists in the past fifty years, acknowledged that the presence of information in the DNA code was the key to moving him from a position of atheism to a position of deistic theism. In a private interview in December of 2004, Flew admitted, "My one and only piece of relevant evidence (for an Aristotelian God) is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... (In fact) the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."

 

The Answer According to Christian Theism:
Long before scientists discovered the existence of complex biological machinery or DNA, the authors of the Bible were writing about a creative designer with incredible power who designed our bodies with organs and systems that were interdependent and irreducibly complex (just read 1 Corinthians 12:25-26). Scientists are hard pressed to find a single example in which information came from anything other than an intelligent source. As Stephen Meyer writes in "Signature in the Cell", "experience shows that large amounts of specified complexity or information (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source – from a mind or a personal agent. Since intelligence is the only known source of specified information (at least starting from a nonbiological source), the presence of specified information-rich sequences in even the simplest living systems points definitely to the past existence and activity of a designing intelligence." This is entirely consistent with the Christian Worldview and the Biblical claim that God, the most intelligent being in (or out of) the universe, is the source for the information and design we see in biological systems.

 

The Fifth Big Question:
How Did Human Consciousness Come Into Being?
The Fifth Piece of Evidence: Immaterial Consciousness Emerged from Unconscious Matter

 

As humans, we are aware of our existence. We are aware of a variety of mental states (thoughts, beliefs, desires, volitions and sensations). The question, "What's on your mind?" makes sense because we recognize that we have private, immaterial thoughts we can share with others. We think, believe, recall, desire and emote. What's more, we recognize our personal identity; we are “self aware”. We answer the question, "Who are you?" with more than a simple physical description. We understand that we are more than our physical bodies. Most of us are “conscious" of our existence and identity and we understand our "selves" to be more than just our physical entities. Most of us take this for granted, but our worldview must recognize and account for our immaterial conscious experience. Which view of the world best accounts for the experiential reality our conscious minds?

 

The Answer According to Philosophical Naturalism:
Philosophical Naturalism struggles to explain the emergence of consciousness and the existence of the mind. Colin McGinn (a naturalist himself and the author of “The Mysterious Flame”) recognizes the nearly magical way in which consciousness must emerge if philosophical naturalism is true: “How can mere matter originate consciousness? How did evolution convert the water of biological tissue into the wine of consciousness? Consciousness seems like a radical novelty in the universe, not prefigured by the after-effects of the Big Bang; so how did it contrive to spring into being from what preceded it?” If naturalism is true, we must accept the fact that prior to the emergence of consciousness, the universe contained nothing more than matter in spatial relationships. We must then imagine that spatially-arranged matter somehow organized itself to produce non-spatial, immaterial mental states. Naturalism has no reasonable explanation for how this might come to pass. As a result, many naturalists simply deny the reality of body/mind "dualism", arguing that the mind is merely an illusion caused by the brain and that matter is all that truly exists. Philosophical Naturalism compels us to deny what we know is true from our innate experience; naturalism begs us to either deny the existence of the mind, or imagine that it "sprang into being" without adequate explanation.

 

The Answer According to Christian Theism:
Long before science and naturalism struggled to account for the emergence of consciousness and the existence of the immaterial mind, the authors of the Bible described an all-powerful, uncaused conscious Being and a universe that was created at His command and reflecting His nature. Consciousness did not emerge from unconscious matter, but instead existed from the inception of the universe. The Christian Worldview can account for the existence of consciousness in a way that is impossible for Philosophical Naturalism. As J.P. Moreland describes it: "...in the beginning there were either particles or the Logos. If you start with particles and just rearrange them according to physical law, you won’t get mind. If you start with Logos, you already have mind."

The Sixth Big Question:
Where Does Free Will Come From?
The Sixth Piece of Evidence: Humans Appear to be Free Agents in a "Cause and Effect" World

 
If you're reading this article, your human experience undoubtedly confirms that you had the freedom to decide to study it (and then to actually read it!). Our experience tells us that our actions are not simply events or movements that were caused by some prior force or event; we recognize that we have the freedom to act in spite of forces that may attempt to stop us or force us in one direction or another. We experience "free agency" (we are able to act as independent, personal "free agents" and make our own choices in spite of physical, material causes that surround us). In addition to this, we live in societies that actually presume "free agency" on the part of every human being within the larger group. We write laws and then hold each other accountable, as though we had the freedom to either obey or disobey the laws we wrote! In fact, moral accountability is meaningless and unfair unless each and every one of us is a "free agent" who had the freedom to act in a way that either garners praise or warrants condemnation. Our experience of personal freedom is yet another piece of important evidence that we must consider in choosing our worldview. Which view best accounts for the fact that we have free will (the ability to act as "free agents")?

 
The Answer According to Philosophical Naturalism:
Philosophical naturalists, scientists and philosophers have struggled to account for free agency for some time. If our species is simply the result of molecules and chemicals that have been acted upon by unguided natural forces, then we live in a world of rigid cause and effect (in other words, all current and future events are "causally necessitated" by past events combined with the laws of nature). This is commonly known as "determinism". If determinism is true, we are not free to act (we have no free will); instead, every action is simply the result of some prior cause. Science has largely adopted determinism as its favored worldview and generally relies upon determinism when formulating theories and making predictions. Some scientists have, however, challenged the view by citing recent discoveries in quantum mechanics, but these discoveries have not solved the "free will dilemma". This second group of philosophical naturalists believes that we live in an "indeterminate" universe based on the physical indeterminacy that appears to exist at the sub-atomic level. But if indeterminism is true, our actions are random rather than determined, and if this is the case, no one can be held accountable for anything they might do (after all, if indeterminism is true, our wills lack the control necessary to be morally accountable). Can you see the problem here? Scientism (philosophical naturalism) begs us to accept one of two extremes, determinism or indeterminism. Either view simply cannot accept the existence of free will creatures who make choices on their own. As the Greek Stoic Philosopher Chrysippus observed, free, uncaused agents would destroy the universe if philosophical naturalism is true:

 
"Everything that happens is followed by something else which depends on it by causal necessity. Likewise, everything that happens is preceded by something with which it is causally connected. For nothing exists or has come into being in the cosmos without a cause. The universe will be disrupted and disintegrate into pieces and cease to be a unity functioning as a single system, if any uncaused movement is introduced into it."

 
The Answer According to Christian Theism:
But you and I know better, don't we? Our common experience tells us that we do make free will decisions and, as a result, we hold each other morally accountable when we make bad choices. In addition, our "free agency" does not appear to have destroyed the universe. We must, therefore, reconsider the reality and origin of free will. If we are simply molecules in motion, the result of deterministic or indeterministic (but wholly natural processes), how are humans able to break the cause and effect or random nature of the universe? Well, long before any philosopher posited the problem and long before any scientist restated the dilemma, the Bible offered a solution. Long before Chrysippus claimed that the insertion of an uncaused "movement" would disintegrate the universe, the Bible claimed that an uncaused, first "mover" actually freely chose to create it! The Christian God is a free agent; He is the uncaused, first cause of the universe and He created humans in his image. Humans, according to the Christian Worldview, are not the result of a deterministic or indeterministic natural process, but are instead the creations of an all powerful free agent and, as a result, we reflect and possess His own free agency. The Christian Worldview best accounts for (and explains) human free agency.

 
The Seventh Big Question:
Why Are Humans So Contradictory in Nature?
The Seventh Piece of Evidence: Humans Are Both Noble and Contemptible

 
A classic philosophical debate has raged for centuries concerning the nature of humans. On the one hand, mankind appears to be capable of extraordinary greatness. Humans have accomplished great achievements in science, art and philosophy, and we have demonstrated an amazing capacity for altruism, compassion and charity. Yet, we are also clearly capable of great evil. Humans continue to hate, kill rape and destroy each other in evermore creative ways on a daily basis! We are inherently contradictory creatures; as Blaise Pascal observed, we are "the glory and rubbish of the universe". Once again, our worldview must account for (and make sense of) what is sometimes called the "enigma of man": the contradictory nature of mankind.

The Answer According to Philosophical Naturalism:
Naturalists have argued and disagreed about the nature of man for some time. Some philosophers, like John Locke, have argued that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance. These philosophers believe that mankind is inherently reasonable and that people are, as a result, innately "good". But philosophers like Thomas Hobbes have argued that human nature is "tainted" and that humans will behave immorally if not restrained in some way. Science has revealed the surprising dichotomy that exists within each of us; this contradictory nature has been observed in scientific experiments dating back as far as the 1960's and 1970's. The Milgram Experiment, (initiated in 1961 by Yale University psychology professor Stanley Milgram) revealed that 65% of those studied would agree to administer a 450 volt shock to someone if told to do so by a scientist in the name of an experiment. These were regular people, just like you and me, who were capable of love and compassion in other settings. In addition to this, Stanford psychology professor Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment and discovered that Stanford students who were asked to take on the roles of prison guards quickly exhibited sadistic tendencies toward students who were asked to play the role of inmates. While these students were capable of compassion and generosity in other settings, the experiment revealed the dual nature that exists in all of us as humans. Over and over again, experimental observations have revealed the surprisingly corrupt and self preserving nature of humans who would otherwise be described as loving and compassionate. Philosophical Naturalism struggles to explain how creatures capable of genocide and cruelty are also capable of compassion and sacrificial generosity.

 
The Answer According to Christian Theism:
Long before psychologists and sociologists struggled to reconcile the contradictory nature of humans and explain its origin, the authors of the Bible clearly identified the dichotomy and described its cause. According to Genesis 1:27, humans were created in the image of God. Our potential greatness is the result of this "Imago Dei"; we reflect the glory of our Creator, and for this reason, we have the potential to behave in a "Godly" manner and reflect many of God's holy characteristics, especially when we are compared with other creatures in our environment. But at the same time, humans display an evil and wretched character that is a direct result of man's fall as recorded in Genesis Chapter 3. God gave Adam the freedom to love, and this freedom also allowed Adam the liberty to rebel. Adam's rebellion (and fall from sinlessness) set the pattern for human nature. All of us, as his descendants, now share the fractured, dual nature of humanity (as described in Romans Chapter 5). We are capable of reflecting God's glory, while prone to pervasive sin as a result of the fall. The Christian Worldview explains the mess we are in; Christianity explains why we are both "the glory and rubbish of the universe".

 
The Eighth Big Question:
Why Do Transcendent Moral Truths Exist?
The Eighth Piece of Evidence: Transcendent, Objective Moral Truths Exist

 
Each and every one of us feels a certain obligation to "moral duty". We have an intuitive sense of moral "oughtness"; we recognize that some things are right and some things are wrong, regardless of culture, time or location. We understand that it's never morally "right" to torture people for the mere "fun" of it. It's never morally "right" to kill people without any justification or cause. At the same time, we recognize that there are true moral virtues like courage and compassion. These moral vices and virtues are objective in the sense that they stand above (and apart from) all of us as humans; they are not simply creations of our liking. Instead, they are independent and transcendent. We may discover moral truth, but we do not invent moral truth. Because of this, we are able to look across history and culture and make meaningful judgments about the moral "rightness" or "wrongness" any given set of actions. Because moral truth is transcendent, we are able to praise or condemn the behavior of cultures other than our own. We recognize that the culture cannot be the source of moral law, but that there is instead a "law above laws" that transcends all of us. So, where does transcendent, objective moral truth come from? On what is objective moral truth grounded? Our worldview must account for what we know intuitively; our worldview must account for the existence of transcendent moral truth.

 
The Answer According to Philosophical Naturalism:
Naturalists respond to the apparent existence of transcendent moral truth in one of two ways. Some argue that moral codes have simply evolved within the human species. The slow development of moral codes is simply a part of the evolutionary process of human "psychological evolution". But philosophical naturalists have themselves discovered a fatal flaw with this explanation for objective truth; both David Hume and G.E. Moore observed what has come to be called the "naturalistic fallacy". This fallacy is also known as the "is/ought" fallacy, and it occurs when philosophers and scientists treat the terms "good" or "bad" as if they were the names of some natural property. When philosophers do this, they confuse a "description" of what "is" with a "prescription" of what "ought to be". This errantly equates a natural category (a description of how things "are") with a non-natural category (a description of how things "ought to be"). Naturalists have failed to explain how non-natural, immaterial realties (like "moral oughtness") can emerge from natural, material sources. Even John Mackie (perhaps the foremost philosophical atheist of the twentieth century) recognized the problem that objective moral truths pose to the naturalist (in his book, "The Miracle of Theism"):

 
"(Objective moral values) constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, without an all-powerful god to create them. If, then, there are such intrinsically prescriptive objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them."

 
Some philosophical naturalists, in response to the "naturalistic fallacy", have simply denied the transcendent nature of moral obligations altogether. This second group argues that all moral truths are determined by either the individual or the society in which the individual lives. But this fails to comport with our human intuition and experience. If individuals determine moral truth, then we really have no right to judge or control behavior the behavior of individuals with societal laws like the penal codes that have been adopted in each state. If societies determine moral truth, then countries like America, or France, or Canada, really have no authority to judge or condemn a culture when it engages in genocidal behavior (such as we have seen in Darfur). After all, genocidal countries are operating within their own borders and are simply acting within their own moral values! Our moral intuition tells us that individuals and societies simply cannot be the ultimate source of moral truth. Philosophical naturalism simply fails to offer a source for the transcendent moral truths that exist in our world.

 
The Answer According to Christian Theism:
Long before philosophers recognized the fact that transcendent moral laws require a transcendent moral law giver, the authors of the Bible described a Holy God whose moral code is written on the hearts of humans created in His image (Romans 2:14-16). Greater than individual rule makers, greater than societal law givers, God alone transcends the entirety of the human race and is the only sufficient "first author" of moral truth. The Christian Worldview does not maintain that whatever God declares to be "good" is "good", but instead maintains that moral "goodness" is a reflection of God's eternal nature. "Goodness" does not precede God, it exists as a result of the reality of God's existence. Without a transcendent moral law giver there can be no transcendent moral law; without the existence of God, all moral law is relative to either the individual or the society. If this is true, there is no transcendent foundation for moral behavior and no behavior can be authoritatively judged. As Ivan Karamazov said in Fyodor Dostoevski's The Brothers Karamazov, "If there is no God, everything is permitted."

 
The Ninth Big Question:
Why Do We Believe Human Life to be Precious?
The Ninth Piece of Evidence: There is Something Exclusively Valuable About Human Life

 
The vast majority of us, regardless of worldview, hold human life in high regard, especially when compared to other forms of life here on planet Earth. Few of us would hesitate to pull weeds in our garden, to spray insecticide on ants invading our kitchen, or to dispatch mousetraps when we have a rodent problem. There are many forms of life we routinely destroy on a daily basis without much thought. But we take a very different approach when it comes to humans. As a species, we rally to assist people who are suffering and form global organizations to assist those in need. Why do we hold human life in such high regard? Do we have sufficient reason to believe that humans are somehow precious when compared to other forms of life? And what impact does our worldview have on the way we treat other species?

 
The Answer According to Philosophical Naturalism:
If Philosophical Naturalism is true, humans are nothing special. Naturalism claims that all species evolved through an unguided natural process, and if this is true, no species has more intrinsic value than any other. Each species is fighting for survival and only those that are strong enough to master their environment have the privilege of surviving and reproducing. In spite of this, many naturalists argue that humanity is somehow special and precious (relative to other species) because humans are sentient, rational and self aware to a degree that other species are not. This argument claims, in essence, that value is connected to intelligence. But if this is true, then people within our own species who are less intelligent are also less valuable, right? Intelligence seems to be a cruel and unreliable standard upon which to judge value. If naturalism is true, there is really no reason for us to lament the fact that we may negatively impact the survivability of some competitor species (so long as their elimination does not impact our own survivability). After all, we live in a "dog eat dog" universe; only the strong survive, and those species that capitulate to competitors will soon be eliminated by those same competitors. We live in a harsh, cruel universe, and we ought not lose any sleep over the fact that some rare species is driven to extinction because it tastes good and can't run fast enough. That's just the way it works. As humans, we may think we are important, but we typically base this importance on some human definition or criteria (like intelligence). In the true scheme of things, we are no more important (nor any more precious) than the thousands of species that have come and gone before us. Biological life has no intrinsic value and the universe has no purpose. All our perceived feelings of importance, purpose and satisfaction, are simply the result of chemical reactions in our brain. Our value and purpose are simply imagined.

 
The Answer According to Christian Theism:
But our intuition and experience tell us otherwise, don't they? We seem to have a special role to play in the biosphere. We feel a responsibility to steward our environment and respect the other species that live here, even if their well-being has no impact on the human race. And we know there is something precious and special about humanity; our actions often give us away in spite of what we may say we believe. Long before scientists and philosophical naturalists formed the opinion that humans were unexceptional, the authors of the Bible wrote that humans were, in fact, precious for reasons beyond their relative intelligence and self awareness. The Christian Worldview recognizes that an object's value comes from two factors: the rarity of the object in question and the skill of the craftsman who created it. Humans are valuable and precious because they are the handiwork of the Master Designer of the universe, and we are the only creatures who have been designed in His Image. We are unique amongst all living creatures; we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" to reflect the image and wonderful craftsmanship of our Creator (Psalm 139:14-16). God created us uniquely and with a special stewardship role over the rest of creation (Genesis 1:26). This is why we feel a burden to care for other species and protect the environment they live in. Naturalism fails to explain why we should care for other creatures unless we can demonstrate their impact on our own survivability. The Christian Worldview uniquely explains the desire and responsibility we feel to care for the creatures in our world and the environments they live in.

 
The Tenth Big Question:
Why Does Pain, Evil and Injustice Exist in Our World?
The Tenth Piece of Evidence: Evil and Injustice Will Never Be Eradicated In Our World

 
All of us recognize the existence of evil in our world. We see pain and suffering all around us; people are capable of inflicting great evil on one another and natural disasters occur across the globe all the time. More importantly, no matter what we do as humans, we seem to be unable to stop evil from occurring. We cannot even control ourselves as a species, let alone control the natural evil that occurs to humans all the time. Atheists often point to the presence of evil as an evidence against the existence of an all-loving and all-powerful God, but all of us have to account for evil in the context of our worldview. Both sides of the argument have to explain the existence and injustice of evil, consider what role it plays in the history of the universe, and come to grips with why justice is often elusive. Our worldview must offer a reasonable explanation. The British philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell once said, "No one can believe in a good God if they've sat at the bedside of a dying child". Whatever worldview we adopt, it had better offer a cogent response to the young child who is dying of an incurable disease. Which worldview offers the most satisfying and reasonable explanation for the evil and injustice we see in our world?

 
The Answer According to Philosophical Naturalism:
Naturalists have difficulty responding to the issue of evil. To recognize that something is objectively "evil", we must first admit that there is an objective standard of "good" and "evil" to begin with. Objective standards are transcendent and, as a result, they require a transcendent source. In order for the naturalist to recognize "evil" in our world, he or she must first accept the existence of a transcendent source for "good". For this reason, naturalists typically offer little more than an description of the situation without declaring the situation's "rightness" or "wrongness". Life is just the way it is. The evolutionary paradigm recognizes that survival of the fittest is often a harsh reality. Stuff gets destroyed and creatures get eaten. The strong survive and the weak are ruthlessly annihilated. Get over it. Not everything is going to be made "right"; justice is elusive to say the least. We live in a universe without meaning or purpose; there is no grand creator with good intentions who can make everything "right". The universe is blind to our discomfort; it is uncaring and unconcerned. The naturalist has little to offer the child who is dying. What could be said? "Sorry my child, your suffering is meaningless in the larger scheme of the universe. Your life really had no meaning anyway; your existence was largely unnoticed by the cosmos. Soon you will die and your miserable experience will end. That's just the way it is." Naturalism can describe the evil that we experience, but it cannot make sense of it. Bertrand Russell put it like this (in his article "A Free Man's Worship"): "Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way..."

 
The Answer According to Christian Theism:
The Christian Worldview is not ignorant to the fact that evil exists. In fact, true "evil" can only exist in a theistic worldview that accepts the existence of a transcendent source for "good" and "evil" in the first place. But the Christian Worldview does more than describe evil's existence; Christian Theism offers an explanation that naturalism simply cannot offer. Long before philosophers like Bertrand Russell described a blind, uncaring naturalistic universe of despair, the authors of the Bible described a loving God who intentionally created the universe and world in which we live. He created humans by choice and we are here for a purpose. Our world is more than mere matter; there is an unseen reality. We have a brain, but also a mind; we have a body, but also a soul. Our lives are not limited to our mortal existence but extend beyond the grave as well. We are eternal beings, designed by a loving God for an important purpose. It's in this context that Christian Theism begins to explain the existence of evil and the role of justice in our lives. While we often experience pain and suffering, this discomfort often plays an important role in shaping the quality of our character and focusing us on the reality of our eternal nature. We live in a fallen world; people often misuse their God-given personal freedom to take advantage of others. Our aging planet often groans and causes us to suffer. But our mortal lives are not the sum-total of our existence. We are eternal beings created by a loving God. Our suffering will be addressed and justice will be served. Sometimes it is served in this mortal life, but it is always served in the next life (our eternal life with God). The Christian Worldview offers a different statement to the dying child: "My child, while my heart is broken for you, I know this small fraction of your life will make sense in light of eternity. When you close your eyes for the last time here, you will begin your life with God. I will be with you soon enough. Then we will understand the power that suffering has had in our lives; all justice will be served and there will be no more pain or suffering. Take heart; the best is yet to come."

 
Evidential Sufficiency and the Ten Big Pieces of Evidence
The ten "big questions" of life can also be seen as ten pieces of evidence "in the room". As a detective, I look at the evidence, offer possible hypotheses that might explain what I am seeing, then evaluate the hypotheses to see which is the best explanation. The process of abductive reasoning requires me to evaluate a given hypothesis to make sure that it is feasible (it possesses "explanatory viability"), that it is simple (it has the most "explanatory power"), that it is exhaustive (it has the most "explanatory scope"), that it is logical (it has the most "explanatory consistency") and that it is superior (it possesses "explanatory superiority"). When looking at these ten pieces of evidence, I quickly recognize the problem Philosophical Naturalism has explaining them. At the same time, it's clear that Christian Theism offers explanations that are feasible, simple, exhaustive, logical and superior, if we don't simply reject the existence of God before we even begin the examination. After all, we've got to start each investigation by offering the broadest possible solutions, then allow the evidence to tell us which of these "possibilities" is actually the most "reasonable inference".

Finally, it's important for us to recognize that no solution will explain the evidence completely (without leaving some limited number of unanswered questions). I've never worked a homicide case, nor presented a case in front of a jury, that didn't have some unanswered question. But this cannot prevent us from moving toward a decision, and it has never prevented a jury from coming to a verdict. We've got to understand that "certainty" can reasonably emerge from what I call "evidential sufficiency". At some point, the evidence is sufficient to cause us to believe that our hypothesis is the true explanation for the evidence under consideration. We cannot expect that every question will be answered, but the hypothesis that explains the evidence the most powerfully, the most exhaustively and the most consistently must sufficiently satisfy our need for certainty. This is the case with the Christian Worldview in light of the ten big pieces of evidence "in the room". The Christian Worldview is the best explanation.