If you are on the edge of disbelief:

 

What you believe in life really is all about what or who you choose to accept as an authority. If you decide that modern naturalist scientists are authoritative, then you’ll accept Darwinism and be more prone toward atheism or agnosticism. If you believe in the authority of God and parents who respect God, then your life will be very different from the first option. But let’s face it: the way you receive and accept authority, in either case, is essentially the same. You accept what you are told. You believe what you read. You will likely never see all the evidence — all of it — for yourself. You will have to accept something based on what someone tells you. You’ll get spin from textbooks. You’ll get it from professors. You’ll have to think it out and through. You’ll have to make sense of it all. Who and what do you trust, and why?

 

You may think that by freeing yourself from the shackles of overbearing parents or religious fanatics that you can now be a freethinking intellectual. But what have you really done then? You’ve traded authorities. You will still accept what you are told by someone. You will read what others say. You will hear what others tell you. You’ll trust that they are right. Some you may question. Maybe you’ll see a few things for yourself and, depending on the spin and interpretation by the authorities you 

now trust, will confirm or deny what you already have been told to think about it. But when you believe whatever it is, you must ask yourself why. What is your basis for believing the authorities telling you these things? Why are atheists and agnostics now right but theists wrong? Have you personally seen and tested all evidence for yourself? Or are you swapping out what you accept and believe based upon what you have read and are told? Why do 

you think you were being brain-washed before, but now are such a free thinker? I’m not asking if you’ve read about it. We all have. I’m not wondering if someone with high degrees told you to believe something if you want to be smart. We’ve all heard that, too. I mean, have you actually seen it for yourself without naturalistic biases coloring your conclusions? Have you truly been neutral? Do you think such neutrality is even possible? And how does neutrality imply assuming there is no God when looking at the evidence? What, in science, absolutely demands a God-free starting point? What scientific principle has tested and proved such a starting point? Think about it.

 

When you start really searching, I’m encouraging you to start with foundational issues. Think about matters from a worldview perspective. We all have a worldview, and we all have presuppositions that make neutrality virtually impossible. But we can test presuppositions, so we must ask some questions. What best explains everything? I’m not asking what best explains a piece of information here or there. Worldviews are about how everything fits together. What best explains the ability to think and reason: intelligence and mind? Or non-intelligent, accidental processes? What best explains meaning: a Mind who infuses meaning into life? Or brute, cold, mindless forces with no purpose or care at all? What best explains morality: a God who endows humans with rights and moral oughts? Or mere chance, random mutation, and a worldview that destroys any hope of free will and the foundation for human rights? What makes it all matter? Why does anything at all matter? What other alternatives are there? Why should anyone care at all? Why?

 

You see, coming to a conclusion about what you believe at the foundational, worldview level is not going to be answered by a science textbook. Science (good and bad) is built upon philosophical principles that themselves cannot be tested or verified by any known scientific method. This means that scientism, the idea that all knowledge comes from science, is false (and that idea itself cannot be scientifically tested). There are matters more basic than what science can deal with, so learn to think critically about them. Do not be blind to the philosophies that underlie conclusions of scientists (whether atheistic or theistic). Even when you can test all the evidence personally (if such is possible), what philosophy underlies the backstory that makes the evidence fit as it does? Which philosophy wins the day for putting the spin on reality, and why?

 

You’ll have to make some decisions. What will you accept as an authority, and why? Which worldview will help you weave your way through this dark world in such a manner that reason, morals, and meaning play a real role in your life? Will you choose a worldview that has no ultimate foundation for morals, meaning, accountability, or responsibility, one that forces you to accept that life came from non-life and that mind is nothing more than chemical processes, one that makes you essentially a machine destined for total annihilation? Will you choose a worldview based on the reality of morals and meaning because of an ultimate foundation and accountability, one that accepts intelligence as based upon an ultimate Mind, one that accepts free will as both real and valuable? Will your accepted worldview be based on chance? Or will it based on Mind?

 

Answer these questions and you’ll see how your answers affect how you view the rest of the evidence. You’ll then know how to process what you are told and what you read. Please do not ignore these issues. Life and death, in the most profound of ways, lies at the heart of it all. This is far too important take lightly. Will you choose a worldview that makes life actually matter?