My World View I Cannot Share my views in one minute of shallow reflection.The position I hold, belief that the universe and everything in it was crafted by a personal Intelligent Designer, is held by hundreds of millions of people, and is defended by brilliant thinkers. On the other hand, hundreds of millions of people, many highly intelligent, hold the other position, belief that matter, energy, and space leaped into existence, and there are no personal supernatural beings within or beyond our universe. I have been trained to be a scientist, and after years of investigation, I do not have enough faith to be an atheist. I see no other plausible choice but Intelligent Design.
I believe the Intelligent Design position is correct and the other side is wrong.
In this culture, I have to ask you to NOT think of me as arrogant or intolerant for saying we are correct and they are wrong. I say this because most people use these words without knowing their meanings.
Arrogance, by definition, is to exaggerate one's OWN worth or importance in an OVERBEARING manner. I am not being arrogant for believing we are correct and they (or, perhaps, you) are wrong. It's not being arrogant to claim that we have the key answers to the origins of the universe and life, although, it's possible that I could present the evidence in an arrogant manner. Arrogance has to do with attitude, NOT with the content of the message.
Regarding tolerance, the classic definition is to live in social and civic harmony with people whose beliefs or practices you think are wrong. So, to tolerate someone is to put up with him when you believe some idea he holds, or practice he is involved in is wrong or immoral. For instance, I am against abortion for any reason (even rape and incest). I believe it is immoral because it takes the life of a defenseless, preborn human being. But, I do have a certain level of tolerance toward those around me who hold the pro-abortion view. If I ask you if you tolerate homosexual behavior, and you say, "Yes," the next question I would ask is, "Then you think homosexual behavior is immoral?" For, you see, if you tolerate a behavior, then you, by the classic definition, think that behavior is wrong or immoral; you are putting up with someone who you think practices a wrong or immoral lifestyle.
The irrational, postmodern definition of tolerance, so widely preached today, is that you cannot think you are right and others are wrong. You must think that everyone's beliefs and practices have equal merit, and are correct and good. There is no absolute morality, no one has the just-right answers to the ultimate questions, no one has a corner on Truth. (How odd to believe that the answers aren't available and that people haven't found them!) It's ironic, but those who preach this new definition of tolerance are often the most intolerant people around, and don't even realize it. For, in their relativistic mindset, if they truly believe that ALL views of reality have equal merit and are correct and good, then why isn't my view that their view isn't correct also tolerated? Those who hold the other position often believe just as strongly that they are correct, and we are wrong, and they don't consider themselves arrogant or intolerant; they're just RIGHT!
Having said the above, my goal is to present our position in a gentle, gracious, respectful, winsome, and attractive manner.
I believe people disagree with our position, NOT because the evidence is flimsy, but rather, for various reasons, they have not carefully examined the evidence, and/or do not WANT to believe it. They want to live their lives their way. It's a matter of the human WILL. It's a matter of personal autonomy.In current Western culture, most people believe that no one had found the Truth. Some believe that no one can ever hope to find the Truth of reality. It seems in some circles it's a virtue to NOT have answers to the ultimate questions. Some seem to think they are better off being doubters rather than believers. They seem content to be perpetual SEEKERS, rather than eventual FINDERS.
In our culture, polite conversation does NOT include the discussion of ultimate origins; where we came from. However, this is THE issue, which addresses THE questions, and which determines what kind of society we live in. Ideas have consequences!
This culture believes in the "privatization of convictions." We may talk about the weather, where we went for dinner last night, our favorite music, how the kids are doing, how the favorite sports team might have won the game: "safe" small talk. Most people hold strong beliefs, and most people feel it's better to just keep those beliefs to themselves.
I hear, "My beliefs and my religion are personal, private issues."
I ask, "Why?", when so much is at stake.
Whenever the subject of origins comes up between a person who believes in Intelligent Design and a person who believes in scientific naturalism, several things could happen depending on their personalities and the strength of their beliefs:
- The scientific naturalist could have a strong, preconceived notion that someone who believes in a personal Intelligent Designer has lost his mind. After all, the theory of evolution has been "proven", right? He might "encourage" the Intelligent Design person to "join the 21st century". The Intelligent Design person could be ill-prepared to defend his view. It could be a short and condescending exchange; maybe hostile.
- An Intelligent Design person could defend his view very well, while the scientific naturalist is ill-equipped. The scientific naturalist could throw out a bunch of ad hominems (name calling), and bring up questions that have nothing to do with the arguments for a personal Intelligent Designer. The discussion could break down in a hurry.
- One could try to "steamroll" over the other, just talking and not wishing to learn anything from him. A meaningful discussion would never happen.Is it any wonder we in Western culture say, "Why bother?" OR "I've already made up my mind about the 'God thing', and I'm comfortable. What difference does it make? I like my life and I'm not interested in changing."
Most people are so wrapped up in their day-to-day interests and struggles that they give little thought to where they personally fit into the "grand scheme".
The following discussion, with it's links, can strengthen the argument of those who believe in the Intelligent Designer, and can plant the seed that could profoundly change the thinking and the life of a scientific naturalist.My approach in defending our view starts with...
- An argument for Intelligent Design of the universe and life.
- After the evidence for Intelligent Design is presented, the questions that need to be answered are,
"WHO is this Intelligent Designer, and is the Intelligent Designer still interested in us?"
- After the Intelligent Designer has been identified, then the question that begs to be answered is,
"If the Intelligent Designer is interested in us, then what does this Intelligent Designer require of us?"The last question is, "What am I going to do about those requirements?"
Click HERE to go to "Intelligent Design vs Darwinism, OR go to my main page for a brain break.