I have given two worldviews here (below) that represent two diametrically opposed views. The first one (Richard Dawkins) represents a naturalist worldview. The second one (C. Baxter Kruger) represents a Christian worldview.
The naturalist worldview postulates that the natural world is all there is and everything can (or will eventually be) explained by science. The Christian worldview believes that the natural world was created and is ultimately sustained by God through His Son, Jesus Christ (Col.1:15-17). This is also called a Trinitarian Worldview.
It should come as no surprise that I embrace the latter view. But that should not be taken to mean that I’m anti-science. Quite the contrary. I believe science has delivered the goods on helping us understand and benefit from the natural world we live in. But I also agree with Nobel Prize winning biologist Sir Peter Medawar, who said:
“these are questions that science cannot answer and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer.” (“The Limits of Science,” p.66)
As far as I know, Medawar was not a Christian (referred to himself as a rationalist). And Richard Dawkins referred to him as “the wittiest of all scientific writers.” (The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 179). I mentioned Sir Peter Medawar because I personally believe that the naturalist worldview is inadequate for explaining everything in reality. I also believe that the natural world of science can be subsumed within my Christian worldview.
But enough about my personal view. I would like you to consider the two worldviews I’ve put forth here. To be clear, I’m not asking you which one is correct (which is impossible to prove) but to consider which one sounds more appealing to you. Perhaps neither one represents your personal worldview, which is fine. There’s certainly more than two. In that case, you can hypothetically decide which of these two sounds better. Both worldviews are from direct quotes. The second quote is longer, only because I needed more of it in order to capture the complete thought. I’ve tried to fairly represent both views here.
Richard Dawkins’s Naturalist Worldview
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless, indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, New York, Basic Books, 1992, p. 133)
C. Baxter Kruger’s Trinitarian Worldview
From all eternity, God is not alone and solitary, but lives as Father, Son and Spirit in a rich and glorious and abounding fellowship of utter oneness. There is no emptiness in this circle, no depression or fear or insecurity. The Trinitarian life is a great dance of unchained communion and intimacy, fired by passionate, self-giving and other-centered love, and mutual delight. This life is good. It is right, unique, full of music and joy, blessedness and peace. Such love, giving rise to such togetherness and fellowship and oneness, is the womb of the universe and of humanity within it.
The stunning truth is that this Triune God, in amazing and lavish love, determined to open the circle and share the Trinitarian life with others. This is the one, eternal and abiding reason for the creation of the world and of human life. There is no other God, no other will of God, no second plan, no hidden agenda for human beings. Before the creation of the world, the Father, Son and Spirit set their love upon us and planned to bring us to share and know and experience the Trinitarian life itself. (from C. Baxter Kruger, PhD, “The Trinitarian Vision Summary“, 2012)
What’s interesting to me is that both Dawkins and Kruger use the metaphor of a “dance.” Both describe a “dance” that’s in our design (or biological makeup). For me, Dawkins’s “dance” seems cold and impersonal; we have no choice, we must dance to the music to our DNA. Conversely, Kruger’s vision comes across as intimate and very personal. While we’re included in the “great dance” of God, it’s a “dance” we’re invited to participate in.
Now it’s your turn. Which worldview sounds more appealing to you? And why so?
NOTE: Please keep your comments concise and to the point of the questions. I will not respond to other questions or topics not directly related to this post.