The Secular Worldview

What you'll learn

Describe the four main strands of secular thinking: naturalism, scientism, relativism and expressive individualism
Distinguish 'lack of belief' atheism, agnosticism and the religious 'nones' and tailor your approach to each
Apply a presuppositional critique showing that naturalism cannot account for reason, morality and meaning

Secular is a worldview, not a neutral zone

Many people think of secularism as the absence of a worldview, a neutral starting point from which religion is an optional extra. That is the first assumption to gently challenge. Everyone has a worldview: a set of basic beliefs about what is real, how we know things, and how we should live. Secular people have answers to those questions too. They are just rarely spelled out.

The philosopher Charles Taylor, in A Secular Age, argued that the West has shifted from a world where belief in God was the default to one where unbelief feels natural and belief has to justify itself. Taylor called the result the 'immanent frame': people live as if this natural world is all there is, even if they never sit down and decide that. Your job is often to bring those hidden assumptions into the light.

Explain in your own words why secularism is a worldview rather than a neutral zone.Show answer

A worldview is a set of basic beliefs about what is real, how we know things and how we should live. Secular people hold answers to all three of those questions; they just rarely spell them out. So secularism is not the absence of a worldview but a particular one that usually goes unexamined.

Everyone has a worldview
Reality, knowledge, how to live
Secular answers are unspoken, not absent

What did Charles Taylor mean by the 'immanent frame', and why does it matter for your conversations?Show answer

Taylor argued that the West moved from a world where belief in God was the default to one where unbelief feels natural and belief must justify itself. The immanent frame is living as if the natural world is all there is, often without ever deciding it. It matters because your task is often to bring those hidden assumptions into the light.

Unbelief now feels natural
Living as if nature is all there is
Assumed, not decided
Bring assumptions into the light

Four strands of secular thought

Secular thinking usually combines four ideas, though few people would name them.

Naturalism: the belief that nature is all there is. No God, no souls, no supernatural. Everything, including the human mind, is the product of matter, energy and natural laws acting without purpose.
Scientism: the belief that science is the only (or the best) path to knowledge. If something cannot be measured or tested, it is either unknowable or meaningless. Note: this is a philosophical claim about science, not a scientific finding.
Relativism: the belief that truth, especially moral and religious truth, is relative to the individual or culture. 'That's true for you.' It often sits alongside a strong confidence that some things, such as tolerance or equality, are absolutely right.
Expressive individualism: a term from sociologist Robert Bellah, popularised by Carl Trueman. It is the belief that the meaning of life is to discover and express your authentic inner self. The self becomes the highest authority, and any outside claim on it (God, church, tradition, even biology) can feel oppressive.

What is the difference between naturalism and scientism?Show answer

Naturalism is a claim about what exists: nature is all there is, with no God, souls or supernatural, and even the mind is the product of matter and natural laws acting without purpose. Scientism is a claim about knowledge: science is the only or best path to knowing anything. Scientism is itself a philosophical claim about science, not a scientific finding.

Naturalism: what exists
Scientism: how we know
Scientism is philosophical, not scientific

Put expressive individualism into one sentence you could say to a friend, and explain why it makes outside claims feel oppressive.Show answer

Expressive individualism is the belief that the point of life is to discover and express your authentic inner self. Because the self becomes the highest authority, any outside claim on it, whether God, church, tradition or even biology, can feel like an attack on who you really are. It is a term from Robert Bellah, popularised by Carl Trueman.

Discover and express the inner self
Self as highest authority
Outside claims feel oppressive

Who you are actually talking to

Not every secular person is an atheist debater. It helps to know the categories. Many modern atheists define atheism as a lack of belief in God, not a belief that there is no God. This idea goes back to Antony Flew's 1972 essay 'The Presumption of Atheism'. The move places the whole burden of proof on the believer. You can respond kindly: do you believe the universe is the product of purposeless natural causes alone? If yes, that is a positive belief about reality, and it needs its own support.

An agnostic says we cannot know (or do not yet know) whether God exists. Some are honest seekers; some use agnosticism as a way to avoid the question. The nones are people who tick 'no religion'. Many still pray occasionally, believe in some higher power, or call themselves 'spiritual but not religious'. With nones, the problem is usually not intellectual hostility but indifference, busyness or past hurt. Questions about meaning, grief and hope often open more doors than arguments about cosmology.

In Australia, the 2021 census found that about 39 percent of people reported no religion, up from 0.8 percent in 1966. Those numbers include many people who have simply drifted, not reasoned their way out. Ask how they came to their view. A story of a painful church experience, a parent's death or a single unanswered question calls for a very different conversation than a considered philosophical position.

Remember too that secular people are made in God's image and are not your opponents. They are neighbours, colleagues and family. The Reformed doctrine of common grace reminds us that God gives good gifts of wisdom, kindness and insight to unbelievers, so you can genuinely learn from them while still calling them to Christ.

How would you answer someone who says atheism is just a 'lack of belief', so they have nothing to prove?Show answer

This definition, going back to Antony Flew's 1972 essay, places the whole burden of proof on the believer. You can kindly ask whether they believe the universe is the product of purposeless natural causes alone. If they do, that is a positive belief about reality, and it needs its own support.

Flew: presumption of atheism
Shifts burden onto believer
Purposeless causes is a positive belief

Why does it matter to ask a 'none' how they came to their view, rather than launching straight into arguments?Show answer

Many nones have drifted rather than reasoned their way out, and their problem is often indifference, busyness or past hurt, not intellectual hostility. A painful church experience, a parent's death or one unanswered question calls for a very different conversation than a considered philosophical position. Questions about meaning, grief and hope often open more doors than arguments about cosmology.

Many drifted, not reasoned out
Indifference, busyness, hurt
Different stories need different conversations
Meaning, grief, hope open doors

The presuppositional critique: borrowed capital

Presuppositional apologetics (Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen) asks what must be true for anything to make sense. You met this method, and the transcendental argument, in Foundations of Defence, Lesson 2; here we apply it to secular friends. Van Til famously said the unbeliever lives on 'borrowed capital': he uses reason, logic and morality, which only make sense in God's world, while denying the God who makes them possible. Romans 1:18-21 says unbelievers know God but suppress that truth. We are not trying to put knowledge of God into them; we are calling them to stop suppressing it.

Press three foundations. Reason: if my mind is only the by-product of unguided processes aimed at survival, why trust it to track truth? Charles Darwin himself expressed a 'horrid doubt' in an 1881 letter about whether convictions of a mind developed from lower animals could be trusted. Alvin Plantinga developed this into his evolutionary argument against naturalism. Morality: if we are only rearranged chemicals, what makes cruelty actually wrong rather than merely disliked? Meaning: if the universe will end in heat death and every memory of humanity vanishes, what ultimate meaning does any life have? Many honest atheists agree there is none and say we must create our own.

The goal is not to say atheists cannot reason or be moral. They obviously do both, often admirably. The point is that their worldview cannot account for what they do. They are standing on Christian ground while denying it exists.

Explain Van Til's idea of 'borrowed capital' in your own words, and which text supports it.Show answer

Van Til said the unbeliever uses reason, logic and morality, which only make sense in God's world, while denying the God who makes them possible. Romans 1:18-21 says unbelievers know God but suppress that truth. So we are not putting knowledge of God into people but calling them to stop suppressing what they already know.

Uses reason and morality from God's world
Denies the God behind them
Romans 1:18-21: suppressing the truth

The presuppositional critique does not claim atheists cannot reason or be moral. What is it actually claiming about reason, morality and meaning?Show answer

Atheists obviously reason and act morally, often admirably. The claim is that their worldview cannot account for these things: if the mind is a by-product of unguided survival processes, why trust it to track truth; if we are only chemicals, why is cruelty really wrong; and if everything ends in heat death, what ultimate meaning is there? They are standing on Christian ground while denying it exists.

Atheists do reason and act morally
Worldview cannot account for it
Reason, morality, meaning
Standing on Christian ground

How to engage: questions before answers

Greg Koukl's Tactics gives a simple pattern (you practised it in Tactics and Debate, Lesson 1). Ask 'What do you mean by that?' to clarify. Ask 'How did you come to that conclusion?' to shift the burden of proof fairly. Then use a few leading questions to expose tension in their view. For example: 'You say truth is relative. Is that statement true for everyone?' Or: 'You said that what matters is being true to yourself. What if someone's true self is cruel?'

Be honest about what you believe and why, and be quick to listen. Many secular people have only met Christians who were angry or anxious. A calm, curious Christian who takes their questions seriously and then points them to Christ is often the most surprising apologetic of all. As 1 Peter 3:15 says, we answer 'with gentleness and respect'.

Example: 'That's true for you' at a barbecue

Sam: I think it's great that your faith works for you. But that's your truth. Mine's different.

You: I appreciate that you're not trying to push me around. Can I ask what you mean by 'my truth'? Do you mean my opinion, or what's actually real?

Sam: I guess I mean nobody really knows about God, so everyone just picks what works for them.

You: That's honest. How did you come to that view? Was it something you read, or more something you've seen?

Sam: Mostly seeing how many religions there are. They can't all be right.

You: I agree with you there. They can't all be right, because they say different things about God. But that doesn't mean none of them is right. Different maps of Sydney don't mean there's no Sydney. It means we should check the maps.

Sam: Fair. But how would you even check?

You: For me it comes down to one person. Christianity stands or falls on whether Jesus rose from the dead, and that's a claim about history you can actually investigate. If he did, he's not just my truth; he's the truth for both of us. Would you be up for reading one of the Gospels and telling me what you make of him?

How would you use Koukl's questions with someone who says, 'Truth is relative'?Show answer

First ask 'What do you mean by that?' to clarify, then 'How did you come to that conclusion?' to share the burden of proof fairly. Then use a leading question to expose the tension, such as 'Is that statement true for everyone?' The aim is to help them see the problem in their own view, calmly and with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).

Clarify: what do you mean?
How did you conclude that?
Expose the self-contradiction
Gentleness and respect

In their own words

“Atheism is not a belief system. It is simply the lack of belief in gods, so the burden of proof is entirely on the one making the claim.” (Antony Flew, 'The Presumption of Atheism' (1972); a standard line in New Atheist debate)

“Science is the best way we have of knowing anything about reality; where science has no answers, we should simply say 'we don't know yet'.” (Common scientism; compare Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2006))

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (1995), ch. 4 ('God's Utility Function'))

“Meaning is not handed down from above. We create our own meaning through relationships, curiosity and making the world better.” (Secular humanism; compare Humanists UK and Humanists Australia statements)

“I'm spiritual but not religious: I believe there's something bigger, but no religion has the whole truth, and I follow what feels authentic to me.” (Common self-description among the 'nones'; see Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (2007))

Key texts

Romans 1:18-21: Everyone knows God through creation but suppresses that truth. This is the foundation of the presuppositional approach: we appeal to knowledge they already have.
Psalm 14:1: 'The fool says in his heart, There is no God.' In Hebrew thought 'fool' is moral, not intellectual: a refusal to live under God. Use it to explain, never to insult.
Colossians 2:3: In Christ are hidden 'all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge'. Reason itself finds its home in him.
Acts 17:22-31: Paul at the Areopagus starts with his hearers' own spiritual instincts and poets, then calls them to repentance. A model for engaging 'spiritual but not religious' people.
Ecclesiastes 3:11: God 'has put eternity into man's heart'. Explains the longing for meaning even in those who deny God.
1 Peter 3:15: Be ready to give a reason, with gentleness and respect. Sets both our task and our tone.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“Atheism is just a lack of belief. I don't have to prove anything. You're the one making the claim.”Show a response

That's fair as far as it goes: if you simply have no view, you have nothing to defend. But most people who say this also believe something positive: that the universe came from purposeless natural causes, that minds are products of matter, that there is no afterlife. Those are claims about reality, and they need support just as much as mine do. So let me ask: do you think the natural world is all there is? If so, we both have a worldview on the table, and it is fair to compare which one better explains the things we both rely on, like logic, science and morality. I'm happy to carry my share of the burden. I'd just like us to share it.

“Science is the only reliable way to know anything.”Show a response

Science is a wonderful tool, and Christians founded much of it. But consider the statement itself: 'Science is the only reliable way to know anything.' Can science test that? There is no experiment that proves it. It is a philosophical claim, so if it is true, we cannot know it is true. Science also depends on things it cannot prove: that the universe is orderly, that our senses and reason are reliable, that we ought to report results honestly. Those assumptions fit naturally in a world made by a rational, truthful God. So I'd say science is one great way of knowing, alongside logic, history, moral intuition and testimony, and it actually points beyond itself.

“We can have meaning without God. I find meaning in my family, my work and helping others.”Show a response

I believe you, and those are genuinely good things. The question is not whether you experience meaning but whether that meaning is real or just a feeling we generate to cope. If the universe is headed for heat death and no mind will ever remember any of us, then in the end nothing we do makes a lasting difference. Many atheist philosophers admit this openly and say we must invent meaning anyway. Christianity says the meaning you feel in loving your family is real because you were made in the image of a God who is love. Your experience is pointing at something true. I'd suggest it fits my worldview better than yours.

“Your presuppositional argument is circular. You assume God to prove God.”Show a response

Every worldview has an ultimate authority that cannot be proved by anything higher, otherwise it would not be ultimate. If you defend reason, you have to use reason. That is not vicious circularity; it is the nature of foundations. So the real question is which foundation can account for itself and everything else. I'm not asking you to accept my starting point blindly. I'm asking you to test both: on your worldview, why trust your reasoning, why are there universal laws of logic, why is anything really wrong? On mine, a rational, moral, personal God made us in his image. I think only one foundation holds the house up.

“Religion is fine in private, but the public square should be neutral. Secularism is just the fair, neutral ground where everyone can meet.”Show a response

I agree that everyone should be free to speak and no one should be forced to believe. But I'd question whether secularism is actually neutral. Everyone has a worldview: beliefs about what is real, how we know things and how we should live. A secular public square still assumes answers to those questions, usually that this natural world is all there is and that religious claims are private opinions rather than truth. That isn't the absence of a view; it is a particular view that rarely gets spelled out. So I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm asking that we put both worldviews on the table and compare them honestly, rather than treating one as the default and the other as an optional extra. Would that seem fair to you?

“I just want to live my truth and be who I really am. Your religion tells people who to be, and that's oppressive.”Show a response

I can hear how much it matters to you to be yourself, and I don't want to crush that. But can I ask a question? If the highest authority is my authentic inner self, what happens when someone's true self is cruel or selfish? Most of us sense that our inner self needs some outside standard to measure it by. Christianity actually agrees you matter enormously: you are made in God's image, which is why your identity isn't something you have to invent and defend alone. The Bible doesn't just hand us rules; it offers a God who knows us better than we know ourselves and loves us anyway. I'd suggest being known and loved by your Maker is more freeing than carrying the weight of creating yourself.

Written task

A friend at the gym says: 'I'm not religious. I just believe in science and being a good person.' Write a 250-350 word reply (as you would actually speak it, or as a message) that (a) shows genuine interest and asks at least two clarifying questions, (b) identifies the worldview assumptions behind the statement, (c) gently presses at least one 'borrowed capital' point (reason, morality or meaning), and (d) points toward Christ.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Opens with real interest and at least two good clarifying questions (Koukl style)
Correctly identifies scientism and/or naturalism behind the statement without jargon overload
Makes a clear, accurate presuppositional point about reason, morality or meaning
Moves naturally toward the gospel or the person of Christ rather than stopping at argument
Tone is warm, respectful and free of mockery