Friday, October 01, 2004

Can Religion tell us anything important? (part 5, conclusion)...

In parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, I have argued that the naturalistic worldview of reality, that of Methodological / Philosophical Naturalism, is incapable of accounting for the existence and meaning of the abstract. Its dismal attempt at reconciling the inherent knowledge humans have of the existence of moral right and wrong within the mechanics of its worldview give clear indication as to the limits of its general explanatory power. It fares little better in answering, as it were, even the most basic questions of life. Questions such as: Is there absolute truth? Does the Universe have meaning? Or, Is knowledge about anything possible? On the other hand Religion and, in particular, Christianity does a much better job of addressing the complex realities of our existence. I believe that the tapestry of Christian thought weaves through the topics of theology, metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, and anthropology in a manner that results in a coherent and consummate interpretation of our reality. It is in this sense that Christianity can, and does, tell us something important. It not only addresses and answers the most basic questions of life, but does so with robustness and authority. While we may not like the answers we get, we are beholden to acknowledge the authority with which they are given. Herein lies the gist of the problem which triggered my starting this series – that of how an individual could deny the existence of absolute morality. Such a stance hinges on one’s worldview which, when all is said and done, depends on whether one acknowledges God as God.

No comments: