PHIL 201 Practice essay
A worldview is the set of beliefs about fundamental aspects of Reality that ground and
influence all one's perceiving, thinking, knowing, and doing. A person’s worldview represents
his most fundamental beliefs and assumptions about the universe he inhabits. Worldviews shape
and inform our experiences of the world around us. Like spectacles with colored lenses, they
affect what we see and how we see it. Depending on the “color” of the lenses, some things may
be seen more easily, or conversely, they may be de-emphasized or distorted—indeed, some
things may not be seen at all. One’s perception is not something they come into the world with,
rather something that has resulted from being in a particular environment.
Philosophy is the activity of thinking carefully about the deep issues of life, taking into
consideration the insights of the greatest thinkers who have preceded us in attempt to better
understand these issues and perhaps resolve associated problems.
It is obvious that the worldviews of Christianity and naturalism differ primarily on origin,
and certainly, the origin of logic. Trying to know exactly where society gets the laws of logic is a
difficult task. From a naturalism perspective, the laws of logic depend on rational people that
came into existence by inexplicable evolutionary processes. However, if the laws depend on
people, who have opinions and thoughts, and those opinions and thoughts are subject to change,
does that mean the laws are also subject to change? This argument that the laws of logic are true
because rational people said they were true does not necessarily work. A Christian perspective
on the nature of logic would stem from the idea that God is a rational, supernatural being, able to
comprehend the truths. God is also necessary, which suggests that the laws of logic can exist
without people, which we know to be true. If everything in our world still existed, minus the
human race, the trees would still be trees. God never changes, and therefore, the laws of logic
would never change. This is certainly more satisfactory to the question of the origin of logic,
compared to naturalism. Belief accompanied by trust is what defines faith. Belief requires
evidence
Through careful consideration, I find the Cosmological Argument to be the strongest
argument for the existence of God. Physical science states all effects must have at least one
cause. The universe had to have a beginning. Everything could not have, simply, come from
nothing. Aquinas premises are as follows: (1) There exists a series of events (2) The series of
events exists as caused and not uncaused (3) there must exist a necessary being that is the cause
of all contingent being. If the first physical event occurs and there must be a cause to that
physical event independent of itself, then the cause could not have been a physical cause. If
causes can either be physical or non-physical and non-physical causes can be uncaused, the first
physical event must have been a non-physical cause. If the cause for the first physical event had
been a physical cause, then that physical cause would have another physical cause which would
send the theory into the fallacy of infinite regress. I think this argument is strong and
convincing, even for skeptics. It provides the fullest explanation of the universe.
I have concluded that the problem of evil is the most compelling argument atheists make
to disprove the existence of God. The dilemma questions the character of Judeo-Christian God.
If God is omniscient, He would know about every evil thing that happens. If God is omnipotent,
He is capable of preventing any evil event. If God is a perfect, benevolent God, He would want
to prevent evil. The conclusion is (1) either God lacks one or more of these qualities, and in that
case would not be a god worth serving or, (2) God does not exist at all. Theodicy is the response
Christians have for the reasons why evil exists and continues to exist under the reign of an all-
knowing, all-powerful, perfect God. The most popular argument from theists is the free will
argument. Evil is simply a consequence of free will God grants mankind. If God were to prevent
evil or only allow ‘insignificant’ evils, free will would no longer truly be free will. However, this
argument does not entirely address the problem of evil because some horrible occurrences are
not a result of any one person’s conscious choices.
Skepticism is the view that there is likely no genuine knowledge. This idea does not
relate to theism or most naturalists. Some naturalists are skeptics. Empiricism is the concept that
all knowledge comes from experience. This worldview does not apply to theists because theism
believes that there are truths that are instilled in us from God. We can experience God’s activities
with the senses, but there is moral knowledge that does not require logic to learn. Rationalism is
the idea that some knowledge can come from reason alone. This idea fits well with theism on
account of innate knowledge, but naturalists have a difficult time explaining where innate
knowledge would come from if there is no superior being or god. Rational empiricism is the
framework of ideas a person has that helps them interpret experiences. This idea fits theism
rather well. Theists believe in innate knowledge from God. We have already been given certain
absolute truths that affect the rest of our decisions and thoughts. Naturalists would reject this
idea because they do not believe in God. Scientism is the belief that knowledge only comes from
scientific investigation. This idea does not fit either worldviews of naturalism or theism.
Scientism commits the fallacy of self-referential incoherence, in which it denies a condition that
is required for the phenomenon to make sense or be true.
Mind-body dualism is the idea that the physical and mental— body and brain— are two
entirely separate entities. It contrasts with monism, the position that there is only one
kind/category which is the physical, and it is most similar to pluralism, a view that there are a
variety of categories. This position best complements a theistic worldview. Natu/ralists believe
that nature equals reality and would most likely subscribe to monism. Due to their struggle to
explain an immaterial mind and free will, naturalists would likely avoid the discussion
altogether. I believe that Cartesian Dualism is the best form of dualism, specifically
interactionism. The mind and body are two separate entities, immaterial and material. The idea
is that the mind influences the body just as the body influences the mind. Both cause action in
one another. This position still creates questions and presents certain flaws, but ,comparatively,
it is the most plausible argument for dualism.
Physicalism is sometimes known as ‘materialism’. It is the position that everything is
purely physical or is made up of matter. Their view is primarily based on the problem that a
purely nonphysical thought or idea could not produce a physical action or event. Ideas are simply
different physical states of the brain. This view best complements naturalism. I believe one of the
best arguments for physicalism is the Identity argument; this is the theory that we characterize
ourselves as I because we subconsciously know that we are our bodies. When we are hungry, we
say ‘I am hungry’, not ‘my body is hungry’.
The social contract theory states that beliefs about morality stem from an implicit
agreement between members within a society that facilitate the function of that society; morality
develops as people learn what works in order to get along with one another. This view best
complements the naturalist worldview which also supports cultural relativism and the
fundamental lawlessness of nature.
Ethical realism is the idea that moral goodness comes from timeless, unchanging rules that exist
apart from society like the laws of nature. This view does not correspond with either naturalism
or theism. Naturalists believe that everything is natural is good because nature is enough while
theists believe that God instituted timeless moral truths for His people in the Old testament.
Divine Command Theory is the idea that what is good is good because God commands it. This
does not align with naturalism or theism. Naturalists do not believe in God and creation, and
theists do not believe that God is below some sort of sovereign truths and must command good,
but that He is good. This point leads to the last theory, Divine Nature theory. This theory
improves the divine command theory by stating that what is ethical and good is a reflection of
the innate goodness of God himself. The timeless unchanging truth is inside of God which does
align with theism.
The numerical bodily identity theory is most complementary to a naturalist’s worldview.
It relies on spatial location and qualitative identity; two bodies must be the same person if they
have equal qualities in the same place. This reduces personal identity to being purely physical,
correlating with the naturalist perspective that everything that is in nature is all that exists.
Spiritual continuity is the most complementary theory for a theistic worldview, supporting the
main idea that our bodies are merely vessels and our souls are what inhabit them. Two people
can only be the same if they have identical numerical spirits. The body is simply the vessel that
carries the spirit.
Naturalists explain the uniqueness of mankind in terms of the degree of their developed
attributes. The best explanation for a naturalist’s view of human uniqueness is language. If
language evolved gradually, the theory of natural selection would require some intermediate
language systems varying in efficiency. The languages of our human ancestors of millions of
years ago would not resemble the languages we speak today. In a less demanding environment
they would have had no need for a complex grammar, and the ability to combine a limited
number of sounds in different ways would be sufficient. Theists explain human. Uniqueness as
proof that man is made in the image of God. The best argument for this worldview is morality.
Morality is unique to humans and must originate from somewhere or someone. Naturalists have
a hard time explaining its origin while theists can explain that innate knowledge of right and
wrong is instilled in us from God.
Naturalists hold an extrinsic view of purpose; our purpose is dependent on things outside
of ourselves like our jobs, relationships, and accomplishments. Our only true purpose is to
survive, being the best possible versions of ourselves, in a naturally evolving world. Theists
subscribe to an intrinsic view of purpose. Our purpose on earth is independent of the type of jobs
and success we have achieved; our lives have meaning regardless of our status. Our purpose is to
please God by being a reflection of His nature and goodness to those around us
The natural process argument is most complementary to how naturalists view death.
Death is simply a natural part of life. This view cannot ease the fear of death; therefore, a
naturalist is afraid of death because when one’s life ends, that is the end of their existence. The
best theistic argument for life after death in the argument from near-death experiences. Personal
accounts recorded from enough people experiencing nearly dying and reporting seeing heaven or
hell is the best evidence for life after death.
