Worldview Analysis and Personal Inventory

This assignment will introduce you to the concept of worldview. It will also provide you with a fundamental understanding of Christian spirituality that looks to the union of body, mind, soul, and spirit, along with how those beliefs inform a unique ethical awareness and decision-making in professional practice. In addition, you will gain knowledge about your own personal beliefs, according to your own worldview.

After reading topic Resources, you will complete the “Worldview Analysis and Personal Inventory” document, which includes prompts related to the following:

Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics
Scientism and two of the main arguments against it
Ultimate reality
Nature (origin) of the universe
What it means to be a human being and purpose in your existence
What knowledge is and sources of knowledge
Ethics and where the knowledge of right and wrong comes from
Purpose of human life and existence
Influence of personal worldview values in decision-making within current or future professional practice

Support your response using only Chapter 1 from the textbook Practicing Dignity: An Introduction to Christian Values and Decision-Making in Health (attached) Care and two other Topic 1 Resources.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric (attached). Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Worldview Analysis and Personal Inventory – Rubric

1. Christian Perspective of the Nature of Spirituality and Ethics 25 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics

5. Target 25 points

Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics

demonstrates a thorough, concise, and exceptional understanding of the concepts.

Explanation is supported with references to relevant textbook chapter and topic

Resources.

4. Acceptable 21.25 points

Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics

demonstrates a clear understanding extending beyond the surface of the concepts.

Explanation is supported with references to relevant textbook chapter and topic

Resources.

3. Approaching 18.75 points

Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics

demonstrates a basic understanding of the concepts. Explanation is supported with

references to relevant textbook chapter and topic Resources.

2. Insufficient 16.25 points

Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics is a

copy of information from the textbook chapter and topic Resources that

demonstrates a poor understanding of the concepts.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics does

not demonstrate knowledge of the concepts as presented in the textbook chapter

and topic Resources or explanation is not provided.

Collapse All

© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

https://www.gce.com/

2. Scientism and Arguments 25 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of scientism and description of two main arguments against scientism

5. Target 25 points

Explanation of scientism and description of two main arguments against scientism

demonstrate a thorough, concise, and exceptional understanding of the concepts.

Explanation is supported with references to relevant textbook chapter and topic

Resources.

4. Acceptable 21.25 points

Explanation of scientism and description of two main arguments against scientism

demonstrate a clear understanding extending beyond the surface of the concepts.

Explanation is supported with references to relevant textbook chapter and topic

Resources.

3. Approaching 18.75 points

Explanation of scientism and description of two main arguments against scientism

demonstrate a basic understanding of the concepts. Explanation is supported with

references to relevant textbook chapter and topic Resources.

2. Insufficient 16.25 points

Explanation of scientism and description of two main arguments against scientism

are a copy of information from the textbook chapter and topic Resources that

demonstrates a poor understanding of the concepts.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Explanation of scientism and description of two main arguments against scientism

do not demonstrate knowledge of the concepts as presented in the textbook

chapter and topic Resources or explanation is not provided.

https://www.gce.com/

3. a. Personal Worldview – Ultimate Reality 5 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of ultimate reality

5. Target 5 points

Explanation demonstrates a thorough, concise, and exceptional understanding of

ultimate reality.

4. Acceptable 4.25 points

Explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of ultimate reality.

3. Approaching 3.75 points

Explanation demonstrates a basic understanding of ultimate reality.

2. Insufficient 3.25 points

Explanation demonstrates poor understanding of ultimate reality.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Explanation does not demonstrate an understanding of ultimate reality or

explanation is not provided.

https://www.gce.com/

3. b. Personal Worldview – Nature (Origin) of the Universe 5 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of the nature (origin) of the universe

5. Target 5 points

Explanation demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the nature (origin) of

the universe.

4. Acceptable 4.25 points

Explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of the nature (origin) of the

universe.

3. Approaching 3.75 points

Explanation demonstrates a basic understanding of the nature (origin) of the

universe.

2. Insufficient 3.25 points

Explanation demonstrates poor understanding of the nature (origin) of the

universe.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Explanation does not demonstrate an understanding of the nature (origin) of the

universe or explanation is not provided.

https://www.gce.com/

3. c. Personal Worldview – What It Means to Be a Human Being 5 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of what it means to be a human being and if there is purpose in human

life and existence

5. Target 5 points

Explanation demonstrates an exceptional understanding of what it means to be a

human being and if there is purpose in human life and existence.

4. Acceptable 4.25 points

Explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of what it means to be a human

being and if there is purpose in human life and existence.

3. Approaching 3.75 points

Explanation demonstrates a basic understanding of what it means to be a human

being and if there is purpose in human life and existence.

2. Insufficient 3.25 points

Explanation demonstrates poor understanding of what it means to be a human

being and if there is purpose in human life and existence.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Explanation does not demonstrate an understanding of what it means to be a

human being and if there is purpose in human life and existence or explanation is

not provided.

https://www.gce.com/

3. e. Personal Worldview – What Knowledge Is 5 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of what knowledge is and what the sources of knowledge are

5. Target 5 points

Explanation demonstrates an exceptional understanding of what knowledge is and

what the sources of knowledge are.

4. Acceptable 4.25 points

Explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of what knowledge is and what

the sources of knowledge are.

3. Approaching 3.75 points

Explanation demonstrates a basic understanding of what knowledge is and what

the sources of knowledge are.

2. Insufficient 3.25 points

Explanation demonstrates poor understanding of what knowledge is and what the

sources of knowledge are.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Explanation does not demonstrate an understanding of what knowledge is and

what the sources of knowledge are or explanation is not provided.

https://www.gce.com/

3. e. Personal Worldview – Ethics, Right, and Wrong 5 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of ethics and where the knowledge of right and wrong comes from

5. Target 5 points

Explanation of ethics and where the knowledge of right and wrong comes from

demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the related concepts.

4. Acceptable 4.25 points

Explanation of ethics and where the knowledge of right and wrong comes from

demonstrates a deep understanding of the related concepts.

3. Approaching 3.75 points

Explanation of ethics and where the knowledge of right and wrong comes from

demonstrates a basic understanding of the related concepts.

2. Insufficient 3.25 points

Explanation of ethics and where the knowledge of right and wrong comes from

demonstrates poor understanding of the related concepts.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Explanation of ethics and where the knowledge of right and wrong comes from

does not demonstrate an understanding of the related concepts or explanation is

not provided.

https://www.gce.com/

3. f. Personal Worldview – Purpose of Personal Human Life and Existence 5 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of the purpose of personal human life and existence

5. Target 5 points

Explanation demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the purpose of personal

human life and existence.

4. Acceptable 4.25 points

Explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of the purpose of personal human

life and existence.

3. Approaching 3.75 points

Explanation demonstrates a basic understanding of the purpose of personal human

life and existence.

2. Insufficient 3.25 points

Explanation demonstrates poor understanding of the purpose of personal human

life and existence.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Explanation does not demonstrate an understanding of the purpose of personal

human life and existence, or explanation is not provided.

https://www.gce.com/

4. Professional Practice 10 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of the influence of personal worldview values in decision-making within

current or future professional practice

5. Target 10 points

Explanation demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the influence of

personal worldview values in decision-making within current or future professional

practice.

4. Acceptable 8.5 points

Explanation demonstrates a deep understanding of the influence of personal

worldview values in decision-making within current or future professional practice.

3. Approaching 7.5 points

Explanation demonstrates a basic understanding of the influence of personal

worldview values in decision-making within current or future professional practice.

2. Insufficient 6.5 points

Explanation demonstrates poor understanding of the influence of personal

worldview values in decision-making within current or future professional practice.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Explanation does not demonstrate an understanding of the influence of personal

worldview values in decision-making within current or future professional practice,

or explanation is not provided.

https://www.gce.com/

Mechanics of Writing 6 points

Criteria Description

Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence

structure, etc.

5. Target 6 points

No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence

structure are used throughout.

4. Acceptable 5.1 points

Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence

structure are used.

3. Approaching 4.5 points

Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally

appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2. Insufficient 3.9 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language

choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language

choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.

https://www.gce.com/

Format/Documentation 4 points

Criteria Description

Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level;

documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,

appropriate to assignment and discipline.

5. Target 4 points

No errors in formatting or documentation are present.

4. Acceptable 3.4 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.

3. Approaching 3 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious

errors.

2. Insufficient 2.6 points

Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors

in documentation of sources are evident.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.

Total 100 points

https://www.gce.com/

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

1. Foundational Issues in Christian Spirituality and
Ethics

Without a biblical worldview, all the great teaching goes
in one ear and out the other: There are no intellectual

pegs … in the individual to hang these truths on. So they
just pass through. They don’t stick. They don’t make a

difference [in how humans interpret existence and order
their lives]. George Barna (as cited in Colson & Pearcey,

1999)
By David W. Bogue, Manny Cota Jr., Valerie De La Torre, and Michael Hogan

Essential Questions

What difference does your worldview make in daily life and in how you
perceive your future?

What is the definition of spirituality from a Christian perspective? How
does this compare to your own definition of spirituality?

How would you categorize your worldview: atheism, pantheism, or
theism?

After reading this chapter, does your current worldview pass the three
tests (coherence, correspondence, and practical)? If not, what might you
need to change?

How does ethics influence one’s worldview?

Does right or wrong depend on individual subjective opinions, or is it
about something deeper?

How does ethics relate to medicine and health care?

Can one know what is right or wrong, or is it just what one is feeling in
the moment?

Introduction
The world is complex and sometimes confusing. Information is created and
disseminated at a rate no one can completely comprehend. It is like trying to drink
from a fire hose. Ethical dilemmas clamor for resolution. How can one make
decisions that are right and morally good, beneficial and not harmful? How does one
make sense of this fast-moving world’s experiences and events?

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

Medical practitioners make decisions
every day that are laden with moral
and ethical importance. Patients’ lives
may be at stake, such as the elderly
whose last days are near, children who
are born with severe disabilities, the
unborn and their anguish-filled
mothers, and people who suffer from
chronic pain or mental illnesses.
Ethical questions abound, such as is
euthanasia a morally acceptable
choice? If not, then why not? If yes,
then on what basis? Is it ethical to
remove lifesaving treatment from a
dying patient and administer palliative
care if needed? Is abortion a moral
and ethical option, and if so, what
limits, if any, should be imposed?
Medical professionals at all levels of

decision-making face these dilemmas regularly. How are nurses, with direct access to
patients’ needs, to decide what is right and wrong? How one answers these questions
matter in all areas of life. Professional morals cannot be separated from personal
conduct. The importance of having a foundation and a framework from which to
make true and good ethical decisions in both one’s personal and professional lives is
the reason for ethical and spiritual decision-making in health care.

This chapter will help nurses think through how they view and interpret the world
and the events and experiences of life. Nurses will come to understand how to
answer ethical questions and address patients, families, and others when crises
arise.

What Is a Worldview?
A worldview is a point of view for
understanding one’s personal
experiences and the events of
societies and history (Vidal, 2008).
Every person who has ideas about
what reality is and how to interpret
the experiences of the world is
operating out of a worldview. This is
true whether the person understands
his or her worldview or not; everyone

has one (Taves, Asprem, & Ihm, 2018).

Think of the lens of a camera: a photographer places the lens against his or her eye
and views the world through the lens. The photographer assigns meaning to what
the lens reveals. A worldview is not a physical lens but, rather, a philosophical and

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

intellectual lens though which a person sees and interprets everything one
encounters. It helps a person accumulate and interpret how human beings gain
knowledge, the area of study known as epistemology, and what one knows to be
true about the world, others, and oneself. Worldview determines what one does and
does not value and find meaningful in life.

A worldview includes underlying, often unconscious, assumptions about reality that a
person holds. These assumptions inform how a person determines what thoughts
and actions are morally right and wrong. They also influence whether a person has
positive or negative thoughts about the future. Sandy Gibson (2011) conducted a
study on male prisoners of various ages and discovered that internally held
worldview assumptions informed how they viewed both their present circumstances
and future possibilities. To put it simply, worldview will influence one’s sense of
hopefulness or lack thereof.

Why do some people look forward to the future, while others do not? Such worldview
assumptions are shaped over a lifetime (Gibson, 2011) and may be additionally
influenced by adult experience, such as religious experiences or traumatic events.
Other studies (e.g., Edmonson, Chaudoir, Mills, Park, & Bartkowiak, 2011)
demonstrate that trauma can play a significant role in worldview formation. When a
person cannot integrate a traumatic event in his or her worldview, then
posttraumatic stress disorder may occur, which can change the person’s ability to
handle daily activities and shape how the person interprets events and assigns
meaning to experiences (Edmonson et. al., 2011). According to Clément Vidal (2008),
those who possess coherent, practical, and consistent worldviews tend to experience
less stress, are more open to encountering others in the world, and have a greater
sense of trust and hope (Vidal, 2008).

When it comes to working directly with patients, the first questions to ask include:

What is a worldview?

What is my worldview?

How does my worldview shape my spirituality?

The next questions often include:

How do the three major worldviews, atheism, pantheism, and theism,
see the world?

How can one determine one’s worldview using the six basic worldview
questions?

How is one to test one’s worldview for coherence, practicality, and
correspondence?

What is the basic Christian view of the world (i.e., the Christian
worldview)?

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

What is the foundational meaning of the biblical narrative, which is the
heart of the Christian worldview?

Following these initial questions, one must further ask, what are ethics, in general,
and what is the basis of Christian ethics portrayed in the biblical narrative? What is
the Christian moral order in the practice of medicine, and how does the resurrection
of Jesus Christ inform this unique moral order in a holistic manner? These, and many
other concepts, will provide valuable tools, in the form of understanding worldviews
and ethics, to enrich and bring clarity to one’s life and to benefit patients who need
thoughtful, ethically informed medical practitioners to assist them.

Hence, it is important to think through and hold a worldview that is clear, consistent,
and matches reality. Worldviews come under two broad categories: religious and
nonreligious. This text has further divided those two worldview categories into three:
atheism, pantheism, and theism. Most people hold worldviews compatible with these
three.

Atheism

The word atheism comes from two words: A, which means “lack of” or “no,” and
theism, which means “god.” The simple rendering of the word is “no god.” Atheism is
a philosophical worldview, the central feature of which is a lack of belief in a deity.
Atheists come from a variety of backgrounds and may hold divergent views from one
another; they do not always agree with each other in the areas of politics, ethics, and
cultural issues (American Atheists, n.d.a). For example, the atheist response to
religion is not unified. Some atheists are indifferent to religion and are not disturbed
that others believe in a deity. Others are adamant and assert the nonexistence of a
god (Coleman, Hood, & Streib, 2018) and make it a cause to disprove the existence of
god. According to the American Atheists (n.d.a), “The only common thread that ties
all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods” (para. 13).

Some atheists claim that their worldview is not a belief system or religion. They state,
“If Atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby” (American Atheists,
n.d.a, para. 3); however, Coleman et al. (2018) disagree with this assessment because
a belief system is a part of every worldview. It simply means that a person has
particular beliefs about the world, meaning that believing that there is no god is a
belief about the world. Beliefs shape how a person assigns meaning to the world and
the events of life. In the atheistic worldview, there is no god. The belief that no deity
exists is, in fact, a lens for viewing the world, and it shapes how atheists interpret life
events (Coleman et al., 2018).

Looking at the world through the lens of a godless existence, atheists believe that the
material world is all that exists; there are no outside forces or entities influencing the
world. Whereas Christians hold that a personal God created everything that exists,
atheists believe that the world came into existence as a result of natural forces alone.
If there is no god, then there is no creator. If there is no creator, then how did the
universe come into existence? To answer this question, atheists hold to the concept

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

of naturalism, which states that the physical universe is the entirety of existence
(reality); therefore, only what can be discovered through the empirical sciences can
be called truth.

Atheism holds that there is no life beyond the physical world. This means that
atheists believe that humans themselves invent morals and ethics, thus determining
what is right and wrong. There is no god to reveal and teach right from wrong. For
example, Caldwell-Harris (as cited in Coleman et al., 2018) says, “Without belief in any
divine authority, atheists are more likely to view morality and meaning in life as self-
constructed” (p. 204). Atheists look to culture and human reason, including science,
to construct a moral and ethical framework; therefore, unlike theists, who look to a
deity to learn about right and wrong, good and bad, atheists look to themselves to
create such values and virtues. Humans, then, are responsible only to themselves.
Ancient philosopher Protagoras reflects this perspective in his still famous phrase,
“Man is the measure of all things” (Taylor & Lee, 2015, para. 4). If human beings are
the highest authority (the measure of all things), then humanity must create its own
morals and values, which the atheistic worldview, in fact, advocates (Coleman et. al.,
2018). This leads to the charge against the atheist worldview of moral relativism.
Moral relativism holds that no truth applies to all people. This view claims that truth
is created from one’s circumstances and culture; therefore, what is true varies across
cultures and groups.

Moral relativism states that one group may not be qualified to judge the ideas of
another group because the first group has not experienced life in the same way as
the group they are judging. This view becomes problematic, for example, when
dealing with issues of life and death. If one group or culture believes that it is right to
murder people of different ethnicities or religions, then those who hold to moral
relativism have no ground to argue that this kind of action is genuinely wrong.
Because that particular culture believes murder is right, that belief is true relative to
them. Because there are no broader standards by which to judge besides that which
is relative, moral relativism is, on its face, a dangerous view to hold (Davis, 2016).

Many atheists deny that their worldview leads to moral relativism, asserting that their
worldview possesses the foundation for objective morality. Objective morality
refers to moral codes that apply to all people in all times and places, regardless of
culture or religion. The website for the Atheist Alliance International (n.d.) states,
“there are objective moral truths that can be discovered using reason (and science),
and the process does not require belief in a god” (para. 20). Arguably, the assertion
that God is not needed for the existence of an objective morality is hard to maintain.

If humans formulate their own morality, then humans are free to change what is
right and wrong as they wish, which is arguably the logical outcome of the atheist
worldview. And if humans are free to change what is right and wrong, then
oppression of an unwanted minority group in a culture can be justified by those in
the majority. For example, if a religious or ethnic group that makes up the majority of
a population decides to rid their society of a minority religious or ethnic group, then
on what grounds can one say that this is wrong? Humans decide based on their own
subjective preferences and nothing deeper. Consider the oppression people endured

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

in Germany under the Nazi regime, the African nation of Uganda under Idi Amin, or
the North Korean nation under Kim Jong Un because human beings determined what
is right and wrong without the guidance of God.

This demonstrates the importance of one’s worldview when considering human
value. Christians believe that every human is made in the image of God, which
causes human individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, to
possess innate dignity and worth. These unique traits of dignity and value are given
by God, and they cannot be removed. When there is no outside authority (i.e., God)
who assigns human beings’ their value, then assigning human worth is left to other
persons.

Although atheists might claim to assign value based on science, there is not an actual
basis to do so. Science is limited to claims about what may be tested using empirical
methods. Values cannot be tested using scientific instruments or mathematics.
Atheistic attributions of value work well when those who make such assignments are
good and a positive influence on individuals and societies. It has had tragic
consequences when leaders are tyrants who rule their people with absolute power.
When human worth is assigned by God, it cannot be taken away. When it is assigned
by human authorities, it is never secure.

Pantheism

Pantheism is a family of worldviews that focuses on the intertwining of god and
nature. The word pantheism is a composite of two Greek words: pan, which means
“all,” and theism, from the Greek theos, which means “god.” The intent here is to say
that god and nature are one and the same. In other words, nature is god (Drees,
2017). According to pantheism, mountains, trees, rivers, and anything one may
encounter in nature are deities.

In the pantheistic worldview, god is nature, such that god’s action is simply the
natural operations of nature. This means that because nature is malleable, god is
also malleable. As nature changes, god also changes. As nature progresses and
evolves, god also progresses and evolves. This means that god is incomplete and still
growing. One outcome of this view is that god cannot ensure a particular future,
either good or evil. The world might end in a perfect paradise, in a fiery disaster, or in
a quiet, slow death as its energy dissipates. In the end, one is left with the full
responsibility to make the future turn out right based on personal belief.

Likewise, god may sympathize with human suffering, but god is unable to intervene
and relieve that suffering. In the pantheistic worldview, god is loving but is not all
powerful. Although morals and ethics and right and wrong may come from god,
because god is constantly in flux, as is nature, notions of right and wrong will also
change over time. With the evolution of nature and the accompanying evolution of
god, what was once immoral may become moral. Pantheism is not consistent with a
Christian biblical worldview, which holds that God is transcendent and not

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

enmeshed with creation. God is sovereign and omnipotent. God does not change,
nor do God’s commandments.

Theism

Theism is a worldview that focuses on the existence of a knowable, personal deity to
whom humans are accountable and with whom they may have a relationship.
Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are examples of theistic religions. God is perfect in
essence and morality. God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, all-good, and
eternal (Swinburne, 2016). God is not in process but is complete in himself. God is in
no way limited, unlike the view of god in the pantheistic worldview. God is outside of
time-bound creation, although he exercises providential authority and guidance over
all things and creatures he has made. This separateness from the creation is called
God’s transcendence (Pinto, 2018).

As Creator, God is never to be confused with what he has created. God’s sovereign
rule of the universe and all creatures in it comes from the mind and person of God,
which is distinct from what God created. Christians look to the Bible to understand
the attributes of God, in which there are numerous supporting passages that speak
to God’s independence from the creation, including his independence from human
beings. First Chronicles 29:11 (English Standard Version) states, “Yours, O Lord, is the
greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty … Yours is the
kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all [emphasis added].” Psalm 8:1
says, “O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your
glory above the heavens [emphasis added].” In Isaiah 55:8, God speaks to the people
of Israel, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts neither are your ways my ways.”
While God may reveal himself through creation—”The heavens declare the glory of
God; the skies proclaim the work of this hands” (Psalm 19:1)—God is not to be
confused with nature.

Nevertheless, this generic form of theism requires more information. The views of
the nature and character of God in theism are different from religion to religion.
William Drees (2017) is right to state that the generic concept of God does not offer
much practical or spiritual help unless God is described. Theism believes in only one
God, and a Judeo-Christian understanding of God is that God is personal,
transcendent, and love.

Islam also believes in one god, but this god does not have a son and did not come to
sacrifice himself for the sins of the people. The god of Islam, known as Allah (the
Arabic word for God), is not known as a god of love nor is he known as Father. Both
are distinctive descriptions of God as a person in the Bible. Muslim theology
emphasizes obedience of human beings to gain Allah’s favor. There is no emphasis
on Allah’s love and grace as a free gift. The Qur’an, the Islamic sacred text, does not
explicitly promise individual salvation. Rather, Allah sent prophets, the foremost and
final of which was Mohammed, and the Qur’an to teach his followers obedience and
proper worship (Schirrmacher, 2012).

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

The Christian faith is described far differently. Christians believe that God is one, and
this is similar to the Islamic understanding of god; however, Christians believe that
God has revealed himself through both the created world and the Bible, which
contains both the Old and New Testaments. God brings individual salvation through
the sacrifice of his Son, Jesus, on the cross. Through the incarnation of his Son and
the coming of the Holy Spirit, God revealed his triune nature. The above description
demonstrates the need, as theists, to define and describe the specific attributes and
teachings of one’s God. This text will focus on the Christian understanding of God.

The transcendence of God evokes awe and worship from God’s people. As Christians
worship God, they can experience an uplift of spirit and sense the wonder of the
transcendent God (Sproul, 2012). Christians believe they can approach God with the
deepest respect and stand in awe of His holiness and majesty because God is both
the Creator of life and complete essence of love. Christians know God through the
experience of holy and redeeming love in relationship with the spiritual presence of
God. The opening paragraph of the Nicene Creed (325 AD) speaks of the Christian
view of God: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible” (Schaff, 1998, p. 27).

Although God is separate from the world, the world relies upon God for all of life.
God is intimately involved with the world, and God’s Son, Jesus, holds the universe
together with the power of his word (Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3). This close
involvement of God is known as God’s immanence, meaning that God has come
near in order to save his people who have fallen into sin and death. God’s
immanence is demonstrated throughout the Bible, when God communicated directly
to human beings, such as Adam and Eve (Genesis 1–3), Abraham (Genesis 17), and
Moses (Exodus 3). The central example of God’s immanence is seen in the birth, life,
and death of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus is God come in a human
nature and form. In this way, God enters fully into the broken world of humanity.

At this point, a more in-depth study of the Christian worldview will provide a fuller
understanding of how Christians view the world and find meaning in the events of
life.

The Foundations of Christian Spirituality
The Christian worldview is founded upon certain ideas about God and humankind.
This chapter will examine each of these ideas briefly.

The Trinity

Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Adherents look to what is called the Shema,
the Hebrew word for “listen” or “hear,” based on the first word in Deuteronomy 6:4,
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” This is considered to be the
central monotheistic declaration of the Bible. This is the clarion call of both Judaism
and Christianity. For Christians, there is only one God, the God revealed in the Bible.

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

In ancient Israel, the monotheistic declaration stood against the polytheistic
religions in the ancient Near East.

Christians believe in this same God, but over time and through the study of the Bible,
they came to comprehend the one God as three distinct persons known as the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: God in three persons. Through the incarnation of his
Son, God revealed his triune nature, and by God sending the Holy Spirit, the three
persons of the Trinity are made evident. Theologian Wayne Grudem (1994) explains
that each of these three statements is true and essential to a Christian
understanding of God:

1. God is three persons.

2. Each person is fully God.

3. There is one God.

Christians describe God as one essence in three persons, not gods.

An essence is an entity about which something can be said. A person is a
distinct bearer of an essence. Applied to the Trinity, it means that Father, Son,
and the Spirit are distinct persons, each with his own personal attributes, while
each share equally the attributes of deity (i.e., the divine essence). (Horton,
2011, p. 97)

The Nature of Jesus
Christians believe that Jesus is both the Son of God and fully God at the same
time. This understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ is described in more
detail in the Nicene Creed from 325 A.D.:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of
the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very
God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by
whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was
incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and
was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was
buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and
ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He
shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose
kingdom shall have no end.

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds
from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one
baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the
dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. (Schaff, 1998, p. 27–28)

Note: The word “catholic” with a lower case “c” does not mean the Roman
Catholic Church but the universal Christian church as a whole.

Simply put, the Nicene Creed describes the unity of the three persons of the
Trinity. It describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as coequal with one
another. It also defines the nature of the Son, Jesus Christ, as possessing both
fully human and fully divine attributes. These attributes cannot be separated.
They are both always a part of who Jesus is.

Michael Reeves (2012) uses the Gospel of John as an example of trinitarian unity:

John wrote his gospel, he tells us, so states, “but these are written so that you
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you
may have life in his name” (John 20:31). But even that most basic call to believe
in the Son of God is an invitation to a Trinitarian faith. Jesus is described as the
Son of God. God is his Father. And he is the Christ, the one anointed with the
Spirit. When you start with the Jesus of the Bible, it is a triune God that you get.
(p. 37)

The person of Christ is known as the second person in this unity of persons, within
what is also called the Godhead. Jesus is described as the “word made flesh” (John
1:14)—that is, God’s active voice that brought all of creation into existence from the
beginning of time. Jesus had always existed as the second person of the Trinity
having no beginning or end; however, he was known as the Christ, which is the Greek
word for the Hebrew word Messiah, until his incarnation. The incarnation was when
Jesus the Christ was introduced into the world, to save the world, allowing God full
access to all peoples who would believe.

The Christian understanding of the Trinity, then, is the basic doctrine for the Christian
faith (Horton, 2011). From this understanding of God comes the Christian view of
how the Trinity exists and interacts with human beings through the person of Christ
in both an individual and corporate experience. Now, consider how God reveals
himself through the Christian sacred text: the Bible.

Christian Scripture

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

The Scriptures of the Christian worldview are called the Bible. The Bible is a
collection of 66 books, comprised of the Old Testament and New Testament.
Christians view the Scriptures as the sacred Word of God, a special means by which
God has revealed himself to the world. The Scriptures bear witness to God’s creation
of the world, the fall of humanity through sin, the redemption of sinful humans
through Christ, and the restoration of all things to come in Christ.

In the Scriptures, a true, but not exhaustive, picture of God is found. Throughout the
Bible, the attributes of God, the great works of God, and the commands and love of
God can be learned. One can learn what God loves and what he does not love.
Knowledge about God’s Son, Jesus, and his work on behalf of humanity, as well as the
power and work of the Holy Spirit in the world and in the lives of people is given.
Knowing this, God’s Word is sufficient for the Christian believer, bringing hope when
facing all challenges, including evil and suffering in the world.

Christians believe that God inspired human authors to write both for their own time
and historical setting and, in some cases, for future generations. The Scriptures are
the most authoritative source from which Christian morals and ethics can be learned
(Horton, 2011). According to 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and
profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”
The Bible serves as the primary authority and representative of God’s Word and will
(Horton, 2011).

The Christian Biblical Narrative

Creation

Christian believers who believe in the Bible as God’s Word believe that God created
the universe ex nihilo (from the Latin meaning “out of nothing”), meaning God did not
use already existing materials to bring the creation into existence. Genesis 1–2
describe the events of creation (Grudem, 1994).

God created the universe to display his glory. The created world is of such
magnificence and complexity that human observers stand in awe of what God has
made. A sense of the grandeur of God, his power and creativity, is seen in creation.
Creation also gives a sense of how worthy God is of worship and gratitude. In the
creation, God provided an environment in which all his creatures could prosper and
enjoy a relationship with him. Psalm 29:1–2 says, “Ascribe to the LORD, O heavenly
beings, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength. Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his
name; worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness.”

When God first created humanity, he set them in the garden of Eden (Genesis 1 and
2). The garden was perfect in every way and stands as a metaphor for the perfection
that existed between God and God’s highest order of creation, human beings,
fashioned after God’s own likeness. This was intended to be a life that served God’s
desire to love and brought forth everything that was delightful and right for all time.

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

This garden contained all plant and animal life necessary to sustain life in all aspects.
In this perfect place, there was no pain, illness, or wrongdoing to cause anxiety or
suffering. The first humans, Adam and Eve, enjoyed a life of peace and harmony with
the earth, all animals, and with God. God and the first humans enjoyed a close
personal relationship unmarred by sin and death. Life in the garden overflowed with
more than physical abundance; it was full of spiritual satisfaction, as nothing came
between Adam and Eve and their Creator. None of the sin and wrongdoing that
interferes with human peace and joy was present.

Human beings did not argue or hurt one another. They experienced no guilt or
shame because no sin existed in the garden to destroy God’s magnificent work.
Instead, truth, beauty, and the loving ways of God saturated life in this glorious place
God created for the benefit of humanity. The created order was incredibly good in
every sense of the word. Unfortunately, this ideal state would not last.

The Fall

Genesis 3 records the occasion on which temptation, sin, and death entered the
perfect world. Adam and Eve disobeyed God. God had told Adam and Eve to enjoy
the fruit of every tree in the garden, except one: the Tree of the Knowledge of Good
and Evil. God told Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate of the forbidden tree,
but by obeying God, they would live forever in bounty and peace (Genesis 1–2). Here
is how temptation and sin occurred. Genesis 3:1 says, “Now the serpent was more
crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the
woman, ‘Did God actually say, “You shall not eat of any tree in the garden”?'” (NIV).

The enemy, known to Christians as Satan or the devil, came to Eve and tempted her
to question God’s rule and commandment. The enemy called into question the truth
of what God had told her. Eve gave in to temptation and ate from the forbidden tree.
She then took the fruit to Adam, and he ate. Both Adam and Eve were equally guilty
of disobeying God. Immediately after they had eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge
of Good and Evil, “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were
naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths” (Genesis
3:7, ESV). They sinned; guilt weighed them down and made them afraid of God (with
whom they had shared a good and wonderful relationship), and they hid from God.

God found them hiding and confronted them with their sin. They admitted their
disobedience, but sickness as both physical and spiritual death would now be a part
of the entire world and all its inhabitants. This is why and where sickness and illness,
and all that is wrong in the world, came about. Adam and Eve were banished from
the garden of Eden and were sent to live in pain and toil (Genesis 3:23). They would
eventually die, as all humans do today. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they
effectively tried to become their own gods; they believed that they knew best what
was right and wrong, with tragic consequences. Michael Reeves (2015) writes, “Adam
did not do what God had commanded, precisely because he no longer loved the
Father” (p. 36) in purity and perfection. Adam’s sin brought a distortion of love into
the world that ultimately chose to do things without God. While Adam could still love,

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

he and all humans after him could no longer love perfectly. This is known as the fall
because humans fell from their sinless state.

The image of God (see Chapter 2) in humanity, while not destroyed, was distorted
and broken, leading to subsequent generations of broken and sinful people.
Historical and present ramifications of Adam’s sin, including murder, abuse, greed,
and manipulation, show that humanity has had a significant problem with evil and
sin. One must only watch the evening news to see the ongoing effects of the fall. In
the fall, all of creation was influenced by death. The human body became susceptible
to disease, aging, and death. The human mind became able to conceive of and carry
out evil deeds. Lies, manipulation, murder, racism, and other attitudes of hatred and
jealousy changed human life in devastating ways. The fall distorted the human ability
to decide what is right and wrong. Sin became a prison from which humans could not
escape on their own. Human attempts to rise above the fall have failed. Evil still exists
both in the human heart and, consequently, in human societies. Humanity needed
someone to take away the guilt and punishment of sin; they needed a savior to
rescue them.

Redemption

God did not leave his creation, including humanity, to simply receive his punishment
and die in sin without hope. God sent his Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans
8:3) to deal with sin once and for all. The incarnation occurred when Jesus was born
to a young woman named Mary in the city of Bethlehem in the land of Israel. This is
how God entered the world as a human (Reeves, 2015). Jesus grew up experiencing
every form of human existence except one: he did not sin (Hebrews 4:15). In John
1:1–2, 14, the Bible describes both the eternal nature of the Son, the second person
of the Trinity, and human nature of the Son in Jesus Christ:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. He was in the beginning with God … and the Word became flesh and dwelt
among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father,
full of grace and truth [emphasis added].

The means by which God redeemed his people from guilt and punishment for sin is
through atonement. God is holy, which means that sin and evil cannot exist in the
presence of God. God is pure and possesses no evil. The word atonement means that
God became a man for the purpose of restoring people to relationship with God. The
Bible teaches that all people have sinned and need God’s forgiveness (Romans 3:23).
The punishment for sin is death, but God made a way of forgiveness by sending his
Son, Jesus, to take on the punishment himself: Romans 6:23 says, “but the free gift of
God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” When Jesus was born in Bethlehem, God
became a human being to bring back eternal life to those separated from him by sin.
How did the Son of God, Jesus, accomplish this?

Jesus Christ, God become a man, lived a sinless life. Christians believe that the Son of
God’s life in human flesh was central to the plan of God to bring redemption to
humankind (Horton, 2011). Jesus submitted himself to crucifixion at the hands of the

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

Roman authorities who occupied Israel in the first century AD. Rather than doom
humanity to punishment for their rebellion and sin against him, God took the
punishment on himself, in his Son, Jesus. First Peter 2:24 states, “He himself bore our
sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his
wounds you have been healed [emphasis added].”

The sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross is at the heart of the atonement. He
took the penalty for sins and suffered the punishment of death on behalf of all
humanity. He was the perfect sacrifice, the sinless lamb who took the sins of
humanity on himself (John 1:21). When Christ shed his blood, he made a way for
people to enjoy reconciliation with God again and to have eternal life (Grudem, 1994).
As the Apostle Paul stated in Romans 10:9, “because, if you confess with your mouth
that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you
will be saved.”

Jesus, The Lamb of God
The roots of understanding that Jesus Christ is the sinless lamb of God who
was sacrificed to save his people from their sins comes from the story of the
ancient Israelites. For 400 years, the Hebrew people were held in slavery by the
Egyptians (Exodus 1). God chose Moses, a Hebrew who had been raised in
Pharaoh’s (the King’s) palace, to lead the people out of slavery. After inflicting
many plagues as motivation for Pharaoh to release the slaves, all of which were
unsuccessful, Moses told the Hebrew slaves to dress for their escape; sacrifice
pure, spotless lambs; paint the blood of the lamb on the door posts of their
houses; and take shelter inside. The blood of the lamb on the house would
protect them from the death that would come that night and take the lives of
all the firstborn livestock and children of the Egyptians as both judgment and
punishment. After this final plague, Pharaoh released the Hebrews, but only
temporarily. As they traveled, Pharaoh’s army chased the Hebrew people
across the desert to the shore of the Red Sea. Pharaoh’s army drowned when
the miraculously parted waters of the Red Sea collapsed on his men after the
Hebrew people had safely escaped to the other side. This event is a
foundational account for Jews today, as God provided safety through this
symbolic blood anointing. Jesus Christ is said, by Christians, to be the perfect
lamb, sacrificed to set his people free from the slavery of sin and eternal death
because of his symbolic blood shed for those who choose to trust in him.

Christ’s death constitutes a legal transaction in that he paid the condemning
penalty for all sin. It is also substitutionary in that the sin for which he received
punishment belonged to the entire human race. Substitutionary atonement

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

lies at the heart of the Christian worldview, which reverses what was inherited
by all persons since the fall.

The resurrection completes the understanding of redemption. Three days after the
death of Jesus Christ, God the Father, in the power of the Holy Spirit, raised Jesus
from the dead (John 20:1–10). The death and resurrection of Jesus are inextricably
linked. Christians hold that both are of equal importance. In his resurrection, God
demonstrated his power over death and “Hades” (Revelation 1:18). Jesus said,
“Because I live you also will live” (John 14:19). Those who are in Christ possess eternal
life and, although they will eventually undergo physical death, they will be raised up
to eternal life by the Holy Spirit—the same Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead
(Romans 8:11).

The atonement and resurrection serve as the core, or foundation, of Christian hope
(Horton, 2011). This hope gives one confidence in the face of worldly challenges and
empowers the Christian to live in love and new possibilities for service and mercy
(Fortin, 2017). Although humanity continues to live in a fallen world, and this life
contains suffering, God has promised his followers that through his grace and
forgiveness, demonstrated in the work of Jesus Christ, their sins are forgiven.
Followers of Christ will enjoy life with him forever because of the resurrection of
Christ (Revelation 21; Horton, 2011). Through Jesus Christ and his saving work on the
cross and resurrection from the dead, people have access to new lives, an entirely
new inner nature, not only in the present, but in the world to come.

Restoration

The Christian worldview, informed by the Bible, looks forward to a new heaven and

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

a new earth. Not only will human souls be saved from death and given eternal life
but also the entire creation will be restored in Christ (Romans 8). In this restored
condition, there will be no more sin, pain, death, war, greed, or sin of any kind.
Rather, Christ will usher in a new world order, the fully realized Kingdom of God.
Restoration is not a human-designed and enacted utopia, as all such attempts have
failed and usually ended up in death. The restoration brought by and through Jesus
Christ will be God-designed and Spirit-enacted. Christ will rule directly, and his people
will join him for an eternity of joy and peace.

The Christian biblical narrative provides a clear, consistent, practical worldview that
answers the major questions of life’s meaning and purpose as well as the hard
questions of life that seem to have no answers in this lifetime. The gift of full
restoration is given to us by God out of an abundance of grace and love for fallen
humanity.

How Do People Determine Their Worldviews?
The three major worldviews encompass a range of ideas about how the universe
exists and operates. They offer different answers to life questions of the past,
present, and future:

How did human beings come to be?

What purpose, if any, does life in the world have?

Is humanity accountable to an outside being or accountable only to
themselves?

What lies ahead for the universe and human existence?

One’s worldview also determines how one understands whether objective good, evil,
right, and wrong exist. A worldview answers questions such as:

Is it right or wrong to take the possessions of others?

Is it better to care for those who suffer or simply leave them to their own
devices?

How are people to live a good and virtuous life?

These remarks demonstrate the importance of formulating a good worldview.
Christian worldview shapes how Christians are to act in the world.

This text uses six questions to help students determine their worldviews. These
questions are designed to help them create a clear and coherent worldview. By
answering these questions, students can understand what they believe about the
world and adjust their worldviews to give it strength and clarity.

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

What is Ultimate Reality?

History shows that people have sought to understand ultimate reality since ancient
times. The first recorded account for the search of ultimate meaning occurred some
5,000 years ago (Swidler, 2013). To consider ultimate reality, one must engage in the
field of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of what exists and what the nature of
existence is. How one answers this question will shape the entirety of one’s
worldview, as they influence what one thinks is right or wrong, what a human being
is, and whether human life has innate value.

Ultimate reality is the search for the highest authority—the overarching principle of
the world and life. It is the primary source of what is right and wrong, good and bad.
It is a person, object, or foundation beyond which no one can appeal for truth and
knowledge. It is the answer to the questions:

From where, or from whom, does the source of highest and final
meaning come?

What is really real?

How one answers these questions necessarily shapes all subsequent questions
about life and meaning.

For example, atheism holds that ultimate reality is found in the material world. This
shapes how they view everything from ethics to the nature of human and animal life.
This nonreligious worldview holds that the physical universe is the sum of existence.
There is nothing beyond what science can measure using empirical research
methods. In this view, human beings are the highest moral authority. Some believe
that the human conscience is ultimate reality (Tolson, 2012). The human mind
determines what is true or false, right or wrong. There is no outside or higher
authority than the human mind.

Others believe that an energy exists that forms a unifying ultimate reality. Such a
view of ultimate reality is not a person but, rather, an impersonal force. The
American form of Buddhism is one such worldview (Han, 2017) that can also be
categorized as a philosophy. Another distinct view is pantheism, which believes that
god operates in concert though nature. Pantheists attribute spiritual forces to nature
and find ultimate meaning in the natural world.

There are others who look to a personal God. This is called theism. Christians believe
that ultimate reality is the person of God, with whom they have an individual and
unique relationship. Christians believe that one God created all from nothing. Human
creations are able to be in relationship with God and are accountable to God for how
they live. God is the author of morals, for all that is right and wrong. Christians stand
in awe of the creation, but they do not believe that the creation is God, as they see it
is the product of God’s creative power. Human beings might be made in God’s image,
but they are not divine. Human persons look to God for all of life, including the ability
to work and make a living, love, forgive, demonstrate mercy, and show compassion.

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

They also look to God for the ability to think and reason and explore the world
around them, even to understand the workings and diseases of the human body and
mind to help alleviate suffering. Christians also look to God for eternal life without
pain, disease, or the existence of evil and the hope that God will deliver on his
promises.

What Is the Nature of the Universe?

The nature of the universe is closely tied to the question of ultimate reality. One may
see the universe solely as natural matter. Atheism usually believes that atoms make
up all the objects that exist in the world. Was the formation of the universe a purely
natural process, unrelated to God’s action, or is it the result of a deity who created all
that is but then stepped away and has no more to do with the universe and those in
it? This is the view of deism, which holds that god exists, but is completely absent
from the workings of the universe and life.

Is the universe the result of a god who not only created all that is, but also rules over
all? Theists believe that God is personal. For theists, existence consists of both the
physical world and the spiritual world. Theism states that while humanity occupies
the material reality of the earth and uses its resources, there is a greater portion of
existence, which consists of the Spirit of God and the spirit of human souls
interacting with one another. This is the view of the three major world religions:
Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

What Is a Human Being?

In the atheist worldview, a human being is the result of purely natural biological and
chemical evolutionary processes without god’s actions. In this view, human persons
do not possess a soul that is eternally upheld by god. Their existence is limited to this
life only, and after physical death, life is extinguished. There is no afterlife, ongoing
consciousness, or existence. If this is true, it is arguably difficult, if not impossible, to
assign innate value or worth to human beings in the atheistic worldview.

In contrast, the Christian, theistic, worldview holds that human beings are a part of
God’s creation. God caused humans to exist and desires to be involved in every
aspect of their lives. God instilled in each person what is called the image of God. God
is Spirit; therefore, the image of God does not mean that people physically look like
God. Rather, they have in their being attributes of God, which are freely given by God:
the ability to love, forgive, reason, possess wisdom and knowledge, and enjoy a
personal relationship with God (Horton, 2011).

What Is Knowledge?

How does one know what he or she knows? Is knowledge strictly limited to the
physical world? Is what one knows strictly the result of what science has discovered,

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

or does knowledge come from both physical and spiritual/divine sources? Atheism
tends to rely on a combination of empiricism, which states that knowledge can only
be known through the senses and human reasoning to “know” the world. This view
has limits. It cannot speak to issues of morality and ethics.

Theists look both to the natural sciences and to a deity for knowledge, believing that
God has given humans the intellectual capacity to explore and understand the
physical universe. This method of knowing includes both empirical discovery and
knowledge that is revealed in sacred texts, such as the Islamic Qur’an, the Jewish
Tanakh and Talmud, and the Christian Bible containing the Old and New Testaments.

The Christian view holds that the empirical method can provide accurate knowledge
of the physical universe. Humans’ ability to access this knowledge is in itself a gift
from God. This is why Christians do not view science and Christianity as inherent
foes; however, science has its limits. Science cannot speak to issues of morality and
ethics—that is, issues of right and wrong. While science can design technology, it
cannot answer the question of whether the use of such technology is morally right.
Christians look to God for guidance. Although Christians do not believe that they can
fully comprehend God, they do believe that what God has chosen to reveal about
himself is true and sufficient for life and redemption. God has revealed himself both
through creation (the grandeur, complexity, and power of God) and through the Bible
(the personal, saving love of God through Jesus Christ).

The Basis of Ethics

Ethics form the basis of what is right and wrong and how humans ought to think and
act. How humans formulate their ethics depends on their worldview. If a person
holds an atheistic worldview, then the basis for ethics will be human reason. This is
generally true of all nontheistic worldviews. Without a knowable, personal deity to
offer ethical standards or guidance, humans must decide for themselves how they
ought to act toward others and nature.

This way of determining how to act is largely subjective or relative to individuals or
societies; however, subjective truths change based on the thought of the individual
who holds them. For example, one group may decide that it is good and right to raid
a neighboring society and take possession of its people and property. Truth, here, is
subject to individual or societal desires and thinking; it is not guided or governed by
an outside, or objective, authority. In this worldview, no truth is universal, and truth
may differ from individual to individual and society to society. Subjective truth
provides no solid foundation on which to base one’s worldview and life. It leaves its
adherents to make up morality as they go through life.

Theistic worldviews hold a divine foundation for ethics. This means that Christians
believe in objective morality. Truth is universal and applies for all people. For
example, Christians ask the questions: “What does God want me to do? What kinds of
attitudes does God want me to have?” (Grudem, 1994). This is seen in the Bible
passage from Micah 6:8, “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with
your God?” This is an ethical mandate from God to humanity. Christians believe that
truth is universal and applies to all people in all times and places. For example, the
blatant killing of other humans, stealing, and dishonoring parents are always wrong,
while protecting the weak and attributing innate value and dignity to others are
always right.

The Purpose of Existence

One may have many missions in life that bring purpose, such as finding a good job,
living in a nice home, and taking care of family. The question, however, asks about an
individual’s primary or highest purpose for living.

The answer to this question also hinges on how a person responded to the preceding
question. In the atheist worldview, humans decide for themselves what their purpose
is. Some who hold this worldview believe that life has no ultimate purpose and that
any purpose that does not harm others is valid. This could be living to the fullest by
enjoying as many positive experiences as possible, such as traveling the world,
finding a loving friend or partner, and raising children to pass on the family name.
Some pursue wealth and fame and want their names to live on after they have died.
Some people live to serve others; they find satisfaction in helping people succeed in
life in a variety of ways, such as becoming nurses or firefighters. They may or may not
be motivated by conscious spiritual or religious reasons.

For theists, the purpose of existence is central to their view of God’s character and
nature. For example, Christians see the highest purpose of life as serving and loving
God, even as they experience similar desires of life. One Christian teaching tool, the
Westminster Shorter Catechism (Boyd, 1649/1854), first published in 1649 and still in
use today, explains this foundational belief in its first question and answer which
reads, “Q: What is the chief end of man? A: Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to
enjoy him forever” (p. 19).

Under this overarching purpose, Christians believe that all activity should serve this
purpose, which is demonstrated through one’s worship, vocation, relationships, and
use of resources; it is a total reliance upon God. Because God is the Creator of
human beings, humans operate in greatest harmony and in greatest fulfillment when
they honor God with their lives. Christians hold that a life lived loving, worshiping,
and obeying God is the highest form of life possible. Flowing from this love and
honoring of God comes love of people (Matthew 22:36–40).

Life in Christ, which means loving, honoring, worshiping, and obeying God through
faith in Jesus Christ, includes all of life’s good existence in all that humans experience.
This may also be seen in ordinary life while traveling the world, finding a loving friend
or partner, raising children, firefighting, and in a health care profession such as
nursing. However, these are not done only for the sake of personal gain and
pleasure, but they also point to a still higher purpose, which ultimately brings
tremendous benefits to one’s psyche—that is, the soul. A person receives personal

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

satisfaction not only in what he or she does, but in the person that he or she is and
becomes in Christ.

Christians similarly see in the Bible that the way God relates to human beings is
through covenants, or binding agreements. A covenant consists of promises between
two parties, and biblical covenants are uniquely made between God and humanity.
God promises to do something for man (e.g., benevolence, care, salvation), and in
return, people act in a particular way toward God (e.g., love through worship and
obedience) (Horton, 2011). God reveals how humans are to act in the world through
the Bible. When a man asked Jesus which of the commandments was the greatest,
Jesus replied,

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is
like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments
depend all the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 22:37–40)

This latter commandment is also an ethical mandate.

How Is Worldview Tested?
Many have not given much thought to their worldview and its implications. They
operate under a set of unconscious assumptions that determine their view of the
world. It is important, though, to think through what one believes to be sure that the
worldview is reliable and true. There are three tests for determining the veracity,
value, and utility of worldviews.

The Coherence Test

The coherence test evaluates the internal consistency of a worldview. The answers
to the previous six worldview questions should be consistent with one another. The
answer to one question should not contradict the answer to another worldview
question. For example, someone with a naturalist view of the universe cannot
logically state that humans are made in god’s image. These answers contradict one
another. The naturalist perspective holds that only the physical universe exists. There
is no god to assign value to anything, including human beings. The physical world
does not speak to issues of value. The examination of the world reveals only the
physical attributes of what is observed or measured. It does not reveal information
about right or wrong or what is valuable and what is not.

In the naturalist worldview, persons decide what is valuable. They may say that the
human race, as a species, has evolved over time to possess superior intelligence;
therefore, humans possess value. However, this value cannot be an innate value
because it is based on a human judgment. Persons may well change their minds
about whether certain people do not have value, such as determining value for those
who do not meet a particular IQ threshold. They may even change their minds about
whether intelligence is the right category to be measuring for value, and, perhaps,
value is more a matter of power, wealth, or physical strength. This means that the

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

value assigned to human beings by other human beings is not innate. For example,
individuals could decide that physically or mentally challenged persons are a drain on
society’s resources. Such thinking is not merely theoretical but is currently advocated
by some. Professor Peter Singer’s view of human value allows that one may hold that
mentally challenged infants are not truly human persons. His view permits the
involuntary killing of mentally challenged infants (Pauer-Studer, 1993).

Innate value is different. It is not assigned by individuals or people; therefore, it
cannot be removed by any personage or party. This value is given by God to every
person based simply on a person’s existence (Reeves, 2015). Therefore, it is not
consistent for an atheist to state that there is no god, but then claim that all beings
have innate value. A strong, true worldview is coherent.

The Correspondence Test

How does a person’s worldview correspond to what really is, to what human’s
experience in the real world? For example, if one holds the atheist view of the world,
which states that only the physical is real, true, and reliable, this person must ask if
that view explains all of life. For example, an atheist worldview that holds to
naturalism can explain how stars form in the universe. Such phenomena are
observable and measurable by scientific instruments; however, can the atheistic
worldview explain why evil exists? Can a worldview explain why people fall in love?
Historically, love has been a far more powerful motivation for human action than
simply a biological urge to reproduce.

Can one’s worldview explain why people feel guilty in the depth of their hearts when
they have done wrong? They are ashamed of doing wrong, not just being caught.
Humans view people who commit vicious crimes but feel no guilt as evil. Can one’s
worldview explain why? Why is any person so concerned with right and wrong, good
and evil? Science alone does not speak to morals and values, right and wrong, yet
people know that morals and ethics exist and play a significant role in human life.
Humanity concerns itself with issues of right and wrong each day. Everyone makes
moral decisions. If one’s worldview states that only what can be known through
empirical evidence is real and true, then one’s worldview does not explain the
entirety of human experience, and it does not pass the correspondence test. If such
gaps are found, then one might need to pause and rethink his or her worldview.

The Practical Test

The practical test asks the question, “How does one’s worldview work in the world?”
Is deep and satisfying meaning found because of one’s worldview? Are the big
questions of life answered:

Who are we?

How did we get here?

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

What has gone wrong with the world?

What can be done to make things right again?

Can one’s worldview provide rich and satisfying answers to these
questions?

One’s worldview should provide meaning for life. It should give a solid foundation
and intellectual framework for understanding life and interpreting the events that
are experienced. For example, the news is filled daily with accounts of suffering and
tragedy. One’s worldview interprets the meaning of these events: A shooter kills
students who are exiting a school. An observer’s worldview may ascribe the shooter’s
actions to natural phenomena alone, such as mental illness or a dysfunctional
upbringing, or an observer’s worldview may ascribe the actions to evil, a moral failure
due to the sinful nature of humanity, which introduced suffering and death into the
world. Of course, both could be causes for the terrible event. One’s worldview gives
an intellectual framework by which to make sense of life’s events.

The results of putting one’s worldview though these three tests will determine
whether the worldview is reliable, true, and good. A consistent, clear, and practical
worldview provides people with the intellectual means to evaluate what is right and
wrong, how the world operates, who they are, and what purpose their lives have.
Answering these questions in a thoughtful, consistent way will help people to live
meaningful and good lives.

Case Study: Death, Dying, and Worldview
Karen is a 29-year-old single woman with a younger brother, Max, and parents
Louise and Bill. Karen lies in the intensive care unit (ICU) of a Level 1 trauma
hospital with a severe brain injury suffered during a car accident three days
earlier. She is intubated and unconscious. Her body is battered and bruised,
and her family has been at her bedside since her admittance.

Her parents and brother return to the waiting room of the ICU to speak with
the doctor away from Karen’s presence. The attending physician, Dr.
Alexander, tells them that there is no hope of Karen surviving her injuries. In
his professional opinion, it is the humane approach to remove all support and
let Karen die in an unconscious state. He asks them to think about their
decision and leaves them to consider this grave step.

Alone, the family’s tension rises. Max paces back and forth while Bill and Louise
sit next to one another holding hands. The family has swung between hope
and fear, but now dread and terror seem to prevail. Max blurts out that they
should do what the doctor advises. There is no sense, he says, in allowing
Karen to suffer if the situation is hopeless. She has had a good life even though
it has been cut short. Louise begins to pray softly, lowering her head and

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

asking God for help. Max tells her to stop. If God cared, says Max, he would not
have let this happen in the first place. Karen, he says, wasn’t religious anyway
and would not want any prayers. She did not believe in magic. Louise protests
that Karen was raised a Christian. Max responds that that was a long time ago,
and since college, Karen had outgrown superstitious notions of God and
miracles. The world is what we can see, feel, smell, and hear with our senses,
Max states as he paces back and forth.

Bill puts his arm around his wife’s shoulder and tells Max that prayer will not
do any harm. Who knows, says Bill, there might be a God, and if there is, isn’t it
better to be on God’s good side? Bill tells his son to leave Louise alone. Louise
cries harder and prays louder. She pauses and looks at both her husband and
her son; she tells them that she knows there is a God and that he loves Karen.
She says that although she cannot explain why this is happening to Karen, she
has faith and believes that God is there in the room with Karen. She tells them
quietly that Jesus died for their sins. If God loved them enough to send his Son
to die on the cross to save them, God wouldn’t let them down, no matter what
happens in the hospital. Louise looks up through tear-filled eyes and tells Max
that God is still able to save Karen. Max leaves the waiting room, clearly
frustrated.

Bill says that he doesn’t know what to believe; he just wants his daughter to be
all right. He puts his arm around Louise again, as she continues to pray for
Karen.

Reflection Questions

1. Based on what you have read, and the six worldview questions,
describe the worldviews of each of the three family members and
the physician. Specifically, how would each person answer the
questions, “What is ultimate reality?” and “What is your basis of
ethics?”

2. How would Christian spirituality and atheism address the issues
the family is facing?

3. How might the nurse offer comfort to this family given the
differences in worldviews between the family members?

Answers

1. Louise: Karen’s mother clearly believes in God and is a Christian,
which comes under the general category of theism. Max: Karen’s

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

brother seems to hold an atheistic worldview. He does not believe
that God exists and refers to prayer as magic. Bill: Karen’s father’s
worldview is unclear. He is neither a Christian nor an atheist. He is
open to prayer but as a kind of gamble just to be on the right side if
it turns out that God does exist.

2. Postmodern relativists would hold that the decision of whether to
remove Karen from life support is subjective; whatever decision the
family makes will be right for them. There is no set path of right or
wrong here. Christians would look to God and their understanding
of what God has commanded to guide them in how to make this
important decision. The answer could vary among Christians, some
holding that God does not want them to use technology to keep
Karen’s body alive when she has no hope of recovery. Others
believe that the family should do everything they can to preserve
Karen’s life. This would include Karen’s mother, who asks for more
time hoping that God will intervene.

3. A nurse could begin by offering general compassionate care. The
nurse could then ask Louise if she would like a hospital chaplain, or
if she can call a clergy person for her. If the nurse believes in God,
then the nurse could quietly encourage the parents to trust God
and gently suggest that no matter what happens, Karen is in God’s
care. Max, who does not believe in divine intervention, would need
nonreligious compassion. The nurse could ask Max about his sister
and say something like, “You love her very much. It sounds like the
two of you are very close.” This could give Max an opportunity to
share with someone the relationship he has with his sister.

Ethics

The previous sections laid out a detailed picture of what goes into a worldview. It first
presented the three major worldviews—atheism, pantheism, and theism—and
highlighted important aspects of the Christian worldview. This led into the six basic
worldview questions that any worldview must answer. Some of those questions
included asking what ultimate reality is, what is the nature of the universe, and what
is the purpose of one’s existence. One of the six questions addressed the basis for
ethics—that is, having to do with what is right and wrong. This had to do with
providing a foundation for ethics.

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

The focus of the next two sections is to think more deeply about what ethics is and
the relationship between ethics and the Christian worldview. The first section dives
into the field of ethics. It looks at what ethics is and what it is not. It also presents
whether ethics is based on personal opinion or rooted in something deeper. This
section also looks at how one can know right from wrong. With so many people
seemingly holding conflicting moral beliefs, how can anyone know right from wrong?

The second section focuses specifically on the relationship between ethics and the
Christian worldview. It looks more deeply at how humans are created to know right
from wrong and how God is the basis for right and wrong. In the latter part of this
section, the connection between Christianity, healing, and medicine is made. In a
world filled with hurt, pain, and destruction, Christianity can shine a light and bring
true healing and restoration.

Defining Ethics

The complexity of the world challenges one’s understanding of what is morally right
and wrong. Some actions, such as genocide and rape, are clearly wrong, while others,
such as self-sacrifice and saving another’s life, are clearly right. But what about
actions such as terminating the life of a patient who is experiencing great pain and
suffering? Or what about saving the life of a mother by performing an abortion?
These are challenging moral questions for which one needs an ethical framework in
which to determine an outcome. The term ethics is often used rather broadly. It is
sometimes used to refer to a company’s code of ethics, which are the rules
employees of the company should follow. It is also sometimes used in reference to
the law, as in, “It is wrong to kill an innocent person, according to the law.”

This text will use ethics more narrowly. Understood here, ethics means a branch of
philosophy that provides a systematic understanding of concepts of right and wrong,
principles of moral behavior, and the intentions and actions of moral agents. The
terms ethics and morality are used equivalently throughout the book. The definition
rules out many examples of the way ethics is often understood, in which ethics is
equated with the law, tradition, and cultural etiquette; however, ethics is deeper than
these three.

Consider first the law. While most laws, at minimum, have a moral component, what
is moral does not always make something legal. Exceeding the speed limit could
cause an accident and harm someone. Yet, on freeways, it is common for cars to
drive well over the speed limit without getting ticketed. Law enforcement sometimes
allows drivers to exceed the limit because of the flow of traffic and other times not.
While the limit has some wiggle room, the underlying moral component is the safety
of all drivers.

Furthermore, what is legal does not always make something moral. For example,
consider slavery. At one point in the history of the United States, it was lawful to own
people of color as slaves. Surely, the laws of that time did not make slavery moral. It
was morally wrong regardless of what the laws said. Or consider a more

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

contemporary example of abortion. The legal status of abortion has been in flux in
the U.S., yet the legality of abortion is different from its morality. Many people believe
it is morally wrong. For these people, making abortion legal does not mean it is now
somehow morally right.

Sometimes, even the law has nothing at all to do with morality. For example, in the
United States, it is illegal to drive on the left side of the road because drivers are
supposed to drive on the right side of the road; however, in England they drive on the
opposite side of the road, and it is illegal to drive on the right side. Of course, if one
knowingly decided to drive on the left-hand side of the road here, they might
endanger the lives of others and themselves, which would be morally wrong. But
there is nothing moral about which side of the road a society decides one should
drive on. A society’s decision about which side of the road they want people to drive
on is merely a matter of convention.

Next, consider tradition. There have been traditional cultural practices that are
deeply immoral. The ancient Chinese practice of foot-binding produces a much
smaller foot by curling a young women’s toes under her feet and then tightly binding
them to produce a much smaller foot (Yen-Wei, 2015). It was typically done for
reasons of beauty (Yen-Wei 2015). The practice causes major damage to the women’s
feet and bodies. It should be quite clear that such a tradition was wrong and harmful,
despite being practiced for millennia. This is one of many examples of other
comparable practices that are part of a culture’s tradition but deeply harmful to the
people of that culture making it immoral.

Figure 1.1

Image of Foot-Binding

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

Note. Adapted from “Foot Loading Characteristics of Chinese Bound Feet Women: A comparative Analysis,” by Y.
Gu, Q. Mei, J. Fernandez, J. Li, X. Ren, and N. Feng, 2015, PLoS One, 10(4), p. 13. Copyright 2015 PLoS One. Adapted
with permission.

Finally, consider cultural etiquette. Often in different cultures, one’s manners are
equated to what is morally right and wrong. For example, it is proper etiquette in
some cultures to place the silverware on a specific side of the plate during mealtime;
however, where the fork or knife are positioned does not determine anything
specifically moral. One has not done something wrong by inadvertently placing the
fork on the left side of the plate instead of the right side.

Notice that in all these examples, ethics is more than just what is legal, cultural, or
conventional. Ethics is grounded in something deeper than all of these. Ethics is
primarily about what is right or wrong, but rightness and wrongness are not
ultimately dependent on what the law, culture, or convention says. Right or wrong
may be reflected in the law or a culture’s values, but it is, nevertheless, deeper than
them. It is also deeper than one’s individual subjective beliefs about the law, cultural
beliefs, or traditional beliefs. The next two sections lay out how ethics is so different.

The Is/Ought Distinction

Facts about the way things are or physical facts give descriptive information about
the world. However, descriptive information alone cannot tell one what is the morally

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

right or wrong thing to do. Moral facts do not simply describe the way the world is,
but rather, they prescribe the way the world ought to be. This is known as the
is/ought distinction. The is/ought distinction in ethics says that no amount of
descriptive facts can tell someone whether it is morally right, for example, to help a
person in danger or morally wrong to break a promise. Descriptive facts merely
describe the world, while moral facts tell what one ought to do. Ethics, then, is about
right and wrong. It is beyond the bounds of what science can determine because
science can only describe what is the case, but it cannot prescribe what morally
ought to be the case.

To illustrate, imagine a paratrooper dropped from a plane into Nazi Germany just
after the German government surrendered to the United States at the end of WWII.
This paratrooper comes across one of the concentration camps where the Jews were
gassed and killed. No one from the outside world at this point knew what exactly
these camps were like. There was no social media or even the kind of journalism of
today’s news. When the paratrooper returns from war, he begins to describe what he
saw down to the minute detail: the skeletal-like bodies of the starved Jewish
prisoners, the stench of bodies just gassed and burned.

Critical Thinking Questions
1. If you were the paratrooper, what would a scientific description of

what you saw mean about whether those things described were
good, bad, right, or wrong?

2. If you were the paratrooper, imagine what would be going through
your mind and body. What feelings are present? Would those
feelings alone determine whether what you saw was right or
wrong?

3. Does it make a difference that these events happened years ago, in
a different time, place, and culture? Is what happened still wrong
today? Think about why that might be the case?

Clearly, such events make one recoil with anger and moral outrage. This event in
human history was deeply immoral; however, where is the fact that “genocide is
wrong” to be found? It is not merely in the descriptive details of what is being
witnessed. The point is that no amount of descriptive information can say anything
about the morality of an action. The fact that genocide is wrong is vastly different
from what the concentration camp looks and smells like. This is because wrongness
has to do with moral value; however, moral value is not something one can physically
describe. Thus, something being wrong, such as genocide, states what morally ought
to be the case (i.e., one morally ought not commit genocide), while something
smelling or looking a certain way tells about what is the case (i.e., that is a starved
body, or those are German soldiers fleeing). These are entirely different kinds of
facts.

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

The examples of what ethics is and what it is not show that ethics is about right and
wrong. It is not about cultural etiquette, societal convention, or what the law says.
Ethics is much deeper than these things.

Consider next a framework overview of ethics and its relationship to worldviews.

The Worldview Foundations of Ethics
Recall that the question of ethics is one of the six worldview questions. As such, how
one answers the other worldview questions will affect what one thinks about right
and wrong and vice versa. In this sense, one’s worldview is truly the foundation for
thinking about right and wrong. In what follows, it will be seen that the question of
what it means to be human is fundamental to ethics. In addition, this section will
survey three general areas or subdisciplines of ethics—metaethics, normative ethics,
and applied ethics—to see their influence on one’s worldview. The atheistic
worldview will be contrasted with the Christian worldview to show such influence.

The Question of Human Nature

A fundamental question for ethics has to do with human nature—that is, what kind
of a thing is a human being? This is not to be confused with what is often called the
“sin nature” of human beings, which is a way to describe the human tendency toward
evil and away from God. This is because the kind of thing something is determines
whether it has a proper function and purpose and what that proper function and
purpose might be. In regard to ethics, this question is really asking whether human
beings have a proper function and purpose and, if so, what that might be. To put the
point differently in terms of ethics, the question asks whether there is a way that
human beings ought to live (i.e., proper function) and why (i.e., purpose). Are human
beings merely the blind product of mindless natural evolutionary forces that
happened over millions of years, or are human beings created with a special and
unique purpose? An atheist who does not believe in the existence of God would likely
say that human beings are purely the product of naturalistic evolution and are
animal organisms like anything else, while a Christian would say that human beings
are special and uniquely created in the image of God.

Which view one takes matters a great deal ethically. For example, an atheist who
thinks that human beings are products of random chance evolution will likely think
that morality is just about one’s survival and self-interest, similar to how animals act.
In this view, a person is simply an animal organism such that one’s proper function is
that he or she ought to ensure survival and reproduction by any means necessary
because there is no grander purpose in life other than seeking one’s self-interest
before dying and ceasing to exist. However, the Christian who thinks human souls
have been created on purpose by God will have a vastly different view of right and
wrong. First, God has not only created all people, but he has designed them for
specific purposes. Things that are designed have a nature that reflects their function
or purpose. For example, when a skilled craftsman designs and creates a knife, the
nature and design of the knife reflects its ultimate function and purpose, which is to

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

cut things. Analogously, the nature and design of all humanity reflects their ultimate
purpose, which primarily is to love God and enjoy him forever.

Second, when a human being lives in accord with his or her nature, the result is joy
and flourishing. Joy and flourishing, in this context, do not simply mean happiness or
selfish pleasure but, rather, living in the fullness of what one was created to be,
which certainly leads to a sense of wholeness and satisfaction and may include
happiness and pleasure.

Consider that sometimes physicians describe the state of premature babies who are
not growing, receiving nutrients, or otherwise maturing, as “failing to flourish.” In
their weakened state, these children are not physically moving toward the proper
function of their design, which includes, but is not limited to, physical growth,
maturity, and health. In the same way, failing to live morally according to one’s
nature will not lead to flourishing but to a kind of damage to the person or a failure
to flourish in every aspect of one’s being and design.

In the Christian worldview, a human being’s nature is what describes the ways in
which human beings can flourish in every aspect of their being. Thus, the way human
beings ought to live reflects the kind of thing human beings are and the grander
purpose of human life, meaning that human beings are creatures made in the image
of God who ought to live in relationship with and in obedience God. Whether there is
a genuine design and purpose for every individual, and how one can come to have
knowledge of that design and purpose, are questions addressed in branches of
ethics.

Metaethics

Metaethics includes the study of the nature and being of

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

right and wrong as well as how one can come to have knowledge of right and wrong.
In this sense, metaethics asks questions of right and wrong that are deeper than
what one might be used to asking but that are, nevertheless, important. Instead of
asking “what is the right thing to do?” or “what is the wrong thing to do?”, metaethics
asks questions such as, “does right and wrong even exist?”, “what kind of thing is
right and wrong?”, or “how can I know what is right and wrong?”. These are deeper or
meta questions of ethics.

A major issue in metaethics is whether morality is objectively true. In this sense,
objectivity has to do with whether right or wrong is dependent on one’s beliefs,
desires, or preferences about what is moral. Recall that right and wrong are not
dependent on tradition, cultural norms, and the law. In the same way, it seems that
right and wrong are not dependent on one’s beliefs, desires, or preferences but are
rooted in a deeper reality.

To give an example, imagine someone said, “I do not believe that violating one’s
rights is morally wrong.” Even if one actually believes this, it is still wrong to violate
another person’s rights. That is because objectivity has to do with the way the world
is in reality. This is similar to scientific claims such as the earth is round, or gravity is
real. Imagine a person decided not to believe in the existence of gravity and jumped
off a tall building believing he or she could fly. Not believing in gravity does not make
gravity somehow not real. Morality being objective is like this. The alternative is that
morality is subjectively true. Something is subjectively true if it depends on the
beliefs, desires, and preferences of an individual or culture (see relativism).

Thus, there is an important distinction here between the reality of right and wrong
and the knowability of right and wrong. Describing morality as being objective here is
not the same thing as knowing moral claims are true. Gravity existed even before
physicists discovered its existence. Likewise, morality existed even before there were
ever humans on this planet. From the Christian point of view, this is because morality
depends on God, and God has always existed, even before the creation of the world
and human beings with it. Knowing whether something is true involves, at least,
having a good reason for the belief that something is true.

For example, one can know that it is wrong to violate another person’s rights because
people have value, but people have value regardless of whether one knows this to be
the case. It would be rather odd to think that people’s value depends on whether one
knows people have value. Thus, metaethics investigates ethics itself and asks
questions about the reality and knowability of right and wrong.

Consider first the atheistic worldview in relation to metaethics. Atheism states that
there is no personal creator that exists beyond the universe. For atheism, the
universe or the physical domain is all that exists. This means that most atheists are
naturalists. Naturalists think the only things that exist are physical things such as

24250061 – Grand Canyon University ©

tables, rocks, and electrons. There are no ghosts, demons, gods, or souls. These are
all nonphysical things that cannot exist in a naturalistic framework.

How might this affect an atheistic view of morality? For the atheist, morality must
somehow depend on human beings because there is nothing beyond the world that
forms the basis of morality. For atheists, the usual explanation for morality’s origin is
human evolution. A common story is then told that as human beings evolved, they
somehow learned to cooperate with one another to further each other’s long-term
survival. Over time, people made agreements with each other that would further
each other’s long-term self-interest. This resulted in the formation of societies and
eventually civil societies. Because people cared about their survival—the central
focus of evolution—civil society arose because it maintains members’ long-term
survival through the means of mutual cooperation. According to this view, right and
wrong came to exist simply because human persons began working together for the
sake of survival (American Atheists, n.d.b).

Notice that, according to this view, morality is dependent on the forces of evolution
and the beliefs, desires, and preferences of human beings agreeing to live a certain
way. There is no independent source of morality that dictates what is right or wrong.
And in order for individual people to want a civil society, there has to be something
good about it in the first place. People, as individuals, must have recognized there is
something independently good that makes them want to live in that society. Thus,
one needs to presuppose that civil society is good before one agrees to live in it.
Otherwise, how would one explain those parties whose preferences, beliefs, and
desires were not to work together but to dominate and rule over others at all costs?
This story of evolution, then, does not adequately explain the basis for morality.

The Christian worldview, however, can appeal to God’s existence to explain the basis
for morality. There is an independent source of goodness apart from physical
creation that grounds morality—namely God. Morality is dependent on a perfectly
good and loving God not on human beings and the process of evolution. William
Lane Craig (n.d.) makes this point writing,

If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by
homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what
is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of
nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust
lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to
perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. (para. 17)

Craig is saying that only a being like God can provide the basis for the objectivity of
morality. Evolution, on the other hand, has nothing to say about right or wrong. It
cannot form the basis for the objectivity of morality. The “herd morality” (Craig, n.d.,
para. 10) is nothing more than what different hunter-gatherer tribes believed about
the people of the tribe and how each person related to one another among the tribe.
It had nothing to do with how one tribe should treat another tribe. It was merely
about the self-interest and survival of a particular tribe.

Normative Ethics
Normative ethics is more straightforward about what makes actions right or wrong.
Recall, the distinction was made between what is the case and what ought to be the
case, or the is/ought distinction. Normative ethics deals with the ought part of this
distinction and attempts to give an account of the correct moral system that
establishes what one ought to do. Thus, if something is “normative” for someone, it
means that this is something a person ought to do, otherwise they would be acting
immorally. This has to do with the moral obligations and duties one has toward
others.

There are several general theories that fall under this area of ethics. Utilitarianism is
a theory that says that the consequences of an action are what make an action right
or wrong. According to this theory, the “right” action would be trying to get the best
possible consequences for the most amount of people, while the wrong action would
be one that ends in bad consequences. By contrast, deontology is a theory that holds
that what makes actions right or wrong are duties, principles, or rules. According to
this view, actions are right and wrong in and of themselves, and the consequences of
actions do not matter.

For example, most people think they have a duty to not lie or break a promise
regardless of the consequences that may follow from doing so; however, imagine
helping slaves escape to the North during the Civil War. Would it be wrong to lie to
protect them if word got out of aiding them? A third theory, which is distinct from
utilitarianism and deontology, is virtue theory, which holds that a person’s character
is more important than both the consequences of an action or even duties and
principles. According to this view, the right thing is not just a matter of getting good
consequences or acting according to principles but about becoming a virtuous
person who acts out of genuine integrity. These are just some of the normative
theories possible.

For any worldview, its normative views about how people ought to live morally will
flow from its metaethical views about the reality and knowability of right and wrong.
Consider, then, an example: Why ought a physician relieve the suffering of a patient?
Or why ought people not be racist? Under atheism, given that all of reality is
fundamentally physical and driven by the evolutionary drive for survival and
reproduction, there does not exist an independent source of morality for how one
ought to live besides evolutionary forces and the beliefs, preferences, and desires of
human beings; however, this makes morality dependent on what human persons
believe, think, or feel. Morality, then, becomes subjectively true. In this view, then,
whether a physician ought to treat a suffering patient or whether a person ought not
to be racist depends on the subjective preferences of individual human beings or
societies. Thus, the view that right and wrong depend on the subjective preferences
of individuals or societies—as opposed to objective realities that transcend
individuals or societies—is called moral relativism.

However, according to the Christian worldview, this world is created and designed by
a good and loving God who is the transcendent source of goodness and love, making

right and wrong objectively part of the very structure of the universe. It could not be
the case, for example, that, at one period in time, slavery is morally right, but later, it
is morally wrong, or that in one society, it is morally right to treat suffering patients,
and in another society, it is wrong or optional to treat suffering patients based on
socioeconomic status. Rather, slavery was and always has been truly and objectively
morally wrong, even if many did not recognize or believe it was wrong. In addition,
treating patients who are suffering was and always has been truly and objectively
morally right, even if many did not recognize or believe it was right.

To use an analogy, God’s universe has moral laws, just like the universe has physical
laws. These moral laws govern the behavior of his human creatures. God’s moral
laws are normative for human beings in that they must live according to them. Just
like humans must live according to the physical laws because they cannot be
escaped, they must live according to God’s moral laws. Furthermore, as Creator, God
has the authority to issue commands to his creatures, such as what one ought or
ought not to do. Indeed, God is the Creator of everything and is the one who brought
the world into existence (Genesis 1:1), which gives God the right to issue commands
to his creatures.

Applied Ethics
Applied ethics takes the conclusions of normative ethics and applies them to
concrete situations, such as moral decisions in professional settings such as
medicine, business, and technology. Applied ethics tries to address important
questions using the theories and ideas of ethics. For example, applied ethics would
consider whether it is wrong for a business operating overseas to bribe officials to
get a building permit passed when that is the culture of many other parts of the
world. Bioethics is one part of applied ethics that deals with the ethics of medicine
and issues surrounding modern technology, such as human cloning and embryonic
stem-cell research. For example, what should a person do when a loved one is on life
support at a hospital and shows no signs of recovering? Should he or she “pull the
plug,” as they say? Is it morally right to simply abort a fetus if it is highly likely the
fetus will have Down syndrome?

Challenges to Moral Knowledge
The Christian worldview assumes that right and wrong exist and that it is actually
possible to have knowledge of right and wrong. This is an extremely reasonable
assumption to make, yet there are two philosophies that, essentially, deny this. The
influence of scientism and postmodern relativism on contemporary society is the
topic of this section. Both deny that one can have objective knowledge of right and
wrong; however, both come with their own set of problems.

Scientism

Scientism is the view that the best or only way to have any knowledge of reality is by
means of the sciences (Moreland & Craig, 2003). To many, this statement seems to
be obviously true and common sense; however, a closer look is needed. Scientism is
a philosophy about what can and cannot be known; it claims that whatever is not
properly scientific cannot be known, or perhaps does not even exist so that it could
be known. It follows that the only way to hold true beliefs about anything is to know
them scientifically. It is crucial to note that scientism is not the same thing as science.

Science is a good and powerful way of coming to knowledge of the world. Science’s
focus on careful empirical observation, testability, and other well-known features
have allowed humanity to travel to the moon, eradicate certain diseases, and
develop nuclear technology. Nevertheless, scientism is not science; rather, it is a
philosophy about the nature and limits of science and what human beings can know.

If scientism were true, it follows that either knowledge of right and wrong would have
to be scientific knowledge, or right and wrong cannot be known at all because they
would not be scientific in category. However, scientism is false for at least two
reasons:

1. Science has clear limits.

2. Scientism is a self-refuting philosophy.

First, while science is a powerful way of gaining knowledge of the natural world,
science is limited and is not the only way of gaining knowledge. For example, two of
the many limitations of science is that it cannot be used to determine anything about
ethics or how one ought to use the results of science (Understanding Science, n.d.).
Recall the is/ought distinction presented earlier. Science falls into the category of “is”
and is wonderful at describing the way things are, but it has no authority to tell
people what they ought to do morally. Science cannot tell people whether they ought
to love their spouses, keep their promises, or give to the poor. Even when it comes to
ethical issues that involve science, science cannot determine what the right thing to
do would be.

For example, science might be able to describe the nasty effects of a terminal disease
on a person or explain the state of a person’s brain if that person is in a vegetative
state, but science cannot determine whether euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide
is good, bad, right, or wrong. Science also cannot determine how scientific data and
results ought to be used. Science might enable the discovery of chemical processes
or structures, but science cannot determine whether these discoveries ought to be
used for creating biotechnology to engineer human DNA. Should the results of
scientific research be used to create bioweapons for military purposes? Such
questions are beyond the bounds of what science can answer.

Second, the proposition of scientism itself is contradictory because it cannot be
proven scientifically. Philosophers call such propositions self-refuting because they
invalidate themselves by definition, which is similar to someone claiming, “I cannot
speak a word of English,” while speaking English. In trying to assert these statements,
one is contradicting oneself. Remember scientism is not science; it is a philosophical

thesis that claims that science is the only methodology to gain knowledge and that
every other claim to knowledge is either mere opinion or false. According to Nicholas
Rescher, “to take this stance [of scientism] is not to celebrate science but to distort it”
(as cited in Moreland & Craig, 2003).

Scientism has wide-ranging negative effects in culture. Not only is science distorted,
but when blindly accepted, scientism also denigrates the status of both ethics and
religion.

Consider philosopher J.P. Moreland’s (2018) analysis:

[according to scientism] scientific knowledge is vastly superior to what we can
know from any other discipline. Ethics and religion may be acceptable but only
if they are understood to be inherently subjective and regarded as matters of
opinion. According to scientism, the claim that ethical and religious
conclusions can be just as factual as science, and therefore ought to be
affirmed like scientific truths, may be a sign of bigotry and intolerance. (p. 26)

Moreland (2018) points out that if one accepts scientism, ethics and religion become
merely subjective, private opinion not objective knowledge about the world. This view
of ethics and religion is the called postmodern relativism.

Postmodern Relativism

If one were to do a Google search of the term postmodernism, a variety of different
definitions would come up involving fields such as architecture, literature, and art.
For the purposes of this text, postmodernism is defined as a broad philosophical
view that denies that one can have objective knowledge or truth about the world.
Relativism is a subcategory of postmodernism that claims that anything called
“truth” will simply be a matter of subjective preference, opinion, or, perhaps, the
creation of cultures and societies. Every claim about the nature of reality is simply
relative to either an individual’s preference or the beliefs of a society/culture.
Another way to put this is to say that truth is invented by people—whether it is
individuals or entire societies—instead of being discovered. According to this way of
thinking, there is not genuine truth to be had or known, only subjective opinions or
beliefs.

While certain questions—such as “what is the best flavor of ice cream?”—are, no
doubt, matters of subjective opinion, not all questions are; some questions are about
objective truth and the real world, not simply matters of subjective opinion.
Postmodern relativism thinks that truth functions like one’s favorite flavor of ice
cream. Because flavor is truly relative to one’s preferences or tastes, there really is no
objective truth about what the best flavor of ice cream is for all persons. In the same
way, according to postmodern relativism, there is no objective truth about what is
right or wrong; truth is left up to an individual’s or a culture’s beliefs, desires, and
preferences.

This is most clearly seen when moral or ethical propositions about right or wrong are
considered. It would be a serious mistake to claim that the propositions “murder is
wrong” and “racism is evil” are mere subjective matters of opinion; however, that is
what relativism implies. If all truth, including morality, is simply a human invention,
then there is no standard for genuine truth, and it follows that there is no genuine
right or wrong. This is false. Whether the Nazi party, made up of thousands of
individuals, believed that killing six million Jews was a good thing, they were
genuinely wrong. But it is not possible to be wrong unless there is genuine objective
truth to be known.

The problematic nature of scientism and postmodern relativism is why
understanding one’s worldview matters. Having this understanding allows one to get
better insight on how to categorize reality and gives a proper foundation, which is
ideal when considering how one’s worldview relates to such things as medicine and
health care.

Science and Ethics in Medicine
Strictly speaking, science and ethics are two different fields of knowledge, yet both
play a crucial role in medicine. The following discussion will clarify how science and
ethics relate in the field of medicine by (1) carefully outlining a fundamental
difference between the domains of science and ethics, (2) providing a definition of
medicine, and (3) distinguishing three kinds of questions that health care providers
will likely face. It will be seen that medicine is a special type of scientific practice that
is inherently ethical yet relies on a worldview for the ethical principles and values that
guide it.

Recall that science has clear limits—one of them being that it cannot tell us anything
about what one morally ought to do. One way to describe this limit is to point out
that science is largely descriptive, while ethics is inherently prescriptive. This is related
to what was called earlier the is/ought distinction. The basic idea is that science is a
great way of describing the way the world is and yet has no power to tell us anything
about (i.e., prescribe) how the world ought to be ethically and morally. If one starts to
think about this claim, an apparent issue arises. Doesn’t science actually have a lot to
say about what one ought and ought not to do? For example, doesn’t science say that
one ought not to walk off the ledge of a building, that one ought to not smoke
around gasoline vapors, or even that one ought to titrate certain chemicals in a
certain way? This complication is clarified when one realizes that there are actually
two kinds of “oughts” at work. The first is called the practical ought and the second
the (2) moral ought. The practical ought concerns what one ought to do if one wants
to achieve a practical end. Science is filled with all sorts of practical oughts or
directions for how to achieve a practical goal. For example, if one wants to send a
rocket to the moon, one ought to use a certain aeronautical design and certain fuels;
if one wants to build a bridge, one ought to use certain architectural designs and a
particular kind of steel, etc. These directions for how one ought to achieve certain
practical ends is not necessarily moral knowledge, it is, rather, more like technical
knowledge concerning one’s field. And the practical goal in question, such as sending
a rocket to the moon or building a bridge, may or not be projects that are morally

required. The moral ought, by contrast, concerns moral questions or requirements.
For example, one ought not to commit murder is a clear moral ought that does not
simply concern one’s practical goals. The moral ought is directly related to questions
of morality and the correct (i.e., moral) treatment of persons.

The claim that ethics is beyond the bounds of science can, thus, be understood as
the claim that science cannot tell us anything about the moral ought. This is not to say
that scientists never think about or face moral questions in their work; they surely do
all the time. It is just to point out that when anyone, including scientists, are engaging
with moral questions of good, bad, right, or wrong, they are asking questions that
science itself has no power or authority to answer. Consider, for example, the
Manhattan Project, the secret project funded by the U.S. government to develop the
atomic bomb during World War II. This project took millions of dollars and years of
work by some of the world’s top scientists. They had a certain practical goal in mind—
namely, to find a way to split the atom and harness the incredible power that would
be unleashed to create a super weapon. This practical goal involved the scientific
discovery and description of all kinds of practical oughts. Thus, if one wants to split
the atom, one ought to do it a certain way; if one wants to build a bomb, one ought
to design it a certain way and use certain kinds of materials, etc. Yet nothing about
the science of building an atomic bomb revealed anything about the moral oughts
involved, such as whether one ought to build such a weapon to begin with or
whether this type of bomb (or any other, for that matter) ought to be dropped not
once, but twice, on tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Once again, the point is that science and ethics are two distinct fields, with
distinct kinds of knowledge, such that science cannot tell us anything about the
moral ought.

When it comes to medicine, however, science and ethics meet in unique and
unavoidable ways, primarily because one is dealing with patients, and the
fundamental goal is to provide care for them, even if healing is not always possible. It
would be incorrect to portray medicine as simply another purely descriptive kind of
science; rather, medicine involves both the practical and moral ought. In some sense,
medicine has “inextricably linked technical and ethical dimensions” (Tapper, 2013).
The definition of medicine provided by Edmund Pellegrino and David C. Thomasma
(1981), pioneers in the fields of bioethics and the philosophy of medicine, is a precise
and helpful description: medicine is

an activity whose essence appears to lie in in the clinical event, which demands
that scientific and other knowledge be particularized in the lived reality, of a
particular human, for the purpose of attaining health or curing illness, through
the direct manipulation of the body, and in a value-laden decision matrix. (p.
26)

Consider the components of that definition. First, the claim that medicine is an
activity “whose essence appears to lie in the clinical event” is to say that the core of
medicine is the relationship between physician and patient (i.e., the clinical event).
Thus, medicine is immediately distinguished from being a pure method of research
and science. Patients themselves are not research or science projects, and the

physician is not merely analogous to a “mechanic” of the body. Unless one is entering
into a sacred doctor–patient relationship, one is not doing medicine. Perhaps one is
doing science and research; that is a good thing, but medicine is, at its core, a
relationship. Second, while medicine is more than just science, it is not necessarily
less because the clinical relationship “demands that scientific and other knowledge
be particularized.” Good medicine will require the use of good and sound science. Yet
notice that the inclusion of “other knowledge” is an implicit rejection of scientism
because there are other kinds of knowledge that are possible and required for
medicine. Third, such knowledge is to be applied to the individual needs and
circumstances of each unique patient (i.e., is particularized). Patients are to be
treated with dignity and not simply like a statistic or set of data. Fourth, the
fundamental purpose of this relationship is the “attaining of health or curing illness.”
Again, carefully note that while good medicine will depend on good science and
research, its own purpose is not scientific but relational and, in a sense, moral. The
clinical event is a unique relationship in which a person in a vulnerable state of need
is seeking the wisdom, skill, and goodwill of one who’s profession is the calling to care
and cure. Fifth, the goals of this relationship are sought “through the direct
manipulation of the body.” Medicine is not merely an abstract kind of knowing but
involves technical skill and is directly related to the proper functioning of the body.
Sixth, this relationship of caring and curing all take place within the context of “a
value-laden decision matrix.” All the choices and decisions that are made in this
healing relationship, both by the physician and the patient, are implicitly moral
decisions (i.e., they are value-laden) and not merely scientific, technical, or practical
decisions. While the technical dimension of medicine is scientific in nature,
remember that science cannot tell us anything about the moral ought. The reality is,
nevertheless, that science and medicine are never practiced in a vacuum; rather, they
are always practiced within the context of a worldview. Thus, one might say that all
medical decisions are made within the context of a worldview (i.e., the value-laden
decision matrix) from which the values and ethics that drive it come.

In light of the above definition, when approaching questions of ethics in medicine,
three kinds of questions should be carefully distinguished: questions of (1) technical
competence, (2) ethics, and (3) ethical dilemmas. First, questions of technical
competence concern one’s ability to carry out one’s profession, which usually
requires specific technical knowledge and skill. For health care professionals, this
involves the relevant scientific knowledge and skills to carry out certain tasks such as
prescribing medication, blood draws, surgical procedures, etc. Health care workers
always have a moral responsibility to practice their skills competently and in
accordance with sound scientific principles. Second, questions of ethics include, but
are not limited to, matters of technical competence. Recall that ethics concerns the
“moral ought” and is going to have to draw on matters of worldview. Knowledge of
worldviews in general, and the ways in which worldviews provide foundational ethical
ideas and values, is crucial in answering questions of ethics. Thus, it follows that
possessing technical expertise does not automatically mean one has moral expertise
or authority. An ethical problem that is especially difficult is sometimes referred to as
an ethical dilemma. Some authors even describe a dilemma as an ethical problem
that has no solution (Jonsen et al., 2022). Typically, an ethical problem becomes a

dilemma when none of the available options seem to be ideal or ethical and is
generally brought about when the goals or interests of two or more parties are at
odds and cannot both be achieved at the same time. Though ethical questions or
problems can be quite controversial and complex, many have reasonable solutions,
and the majority are not genuine dilemmas.

Important decisions in the care of patients are usually made by physicians and
patients together, yet as Jonsen et al. (2022) note, “the growing complexity of the
ethical issues in clinical care has stimulated the development of ethics committees
and ethics consultation” (p. 244). Ethics committees are outside parties made up of
diverse members (including physicians, nurses, social workers, chaplains, and
community members) that serve an advisory role and function including “[1]
providing clinical ethics consultation, [2] developing and/or revising policies
pertaining to clinical ethics and hospital policy (e.g., advance directives, withholding
and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments, informed consent, organ procurement),
and facilitating education about topical issues in clinical ethics” (Pearlman, n.d., para.
4). Nearly every hospital in the U.S. today has an ethics committee, and, indeed, they
have become “the primary mechanism for dealing with ethical issues in hospitals in
the United States today” (Aulisio, 2016, para. 1). The quality and involvement of an
ethics committee will differ among institutions, but the primary goal is to “offer
assistance in addressing ethical issues that arise in patient care and facilitate sound
decision making that respects participants’ values, concerns, and interests” (American
Medical Association, n.d., para. 1). Moreover, according to the American Medical
Association’s code of ethics, if an ethics committee is serving a faith-based or
mission-based institution, then the committee also has the dual responsibility to
“Uphold the principles to which the institution is committed [and]…Make clear to
patients, physicians, and other stakeholders that the institution’s defining principles
will inform the committee’s recommendations” (para. 12).

In regard to the atheist and Christian worldviews, the moral decisions that are made
in real life will reflect the underlying worldviews. Thus, the subject matter of this text
is ethical and spiritual decision-making in health care from the Christian worldview. In
order to understand such decision-making, it is important to understand the
foundations of Christian ethics.

Foundations of Christian Ethics
The previous section detailed all the ingredients that go into an ethical framework for
one’s worldview. It highlighted what ethics is and what it is not, how ethics relates to
human nature, and whether morality is objectively true. In addition, the relationship
between science and ethics in medicine was clarified, and it was seen that all science
and medicine is practiced out of the context of a worldview. The following section
builds on the previous by unpacking the Christian worldview in more detail.
Specifically, the focus will be on what foundation the Christian worldview gives ethics
and its explanation of the reality and knowability of right and wrong.

Christian Metaethics

The Reality of Ethics—God’s Character as the Standard of
Goodness in Scripture
The Christian worldview says that the reality behind morality is God; he is the
ultimate standard of goodness. The Bible speaks of the goodness of God (Psalm 34:8;
Luke 18:19; James 1:17), his lovingness (Numbers 14:18; Psalm 100:5; 1 John 4:8),
mercifulness (Nehemiah 9:31; Ephesians 2:4), and justice (Deuteronomy 32:4;
Romans 3:25–26). These traits refer to God’s character, displaying the qualities of
what God is like. As Christian bioethicist Scott Rae (2009) puts it,

At its heart, Christian Ethics is a blend of both virtues and principles. Morality is
ultimately grounded in the character of God—that is, the ultimate source of
morality is not God’s commands but God’s character. The virtues, or character
traits, which are made clear by God’s character and further clarified by Jesus’s
character, are the ultimate foundation for morality from a Christian worldview.
God’s commands are derived from his character. (p. 24)

Rae (2009) makes it evident that there is no other source of goodness apart from the
character and being of God. Even God’s commands and the principles in the Bible
themselves derive their goodness from God’s character. Thus, the objective reality
behind right and wrong, which provides the ultimate standard of goodness and truth,
is God himself.

While God’s character is primary because he is the source of goodness and truth, it
would not be helpful for living life if human beings could not come to know God or
his character. God and his character would still be a present reality, but if humans
had no knowledge of him, it would be analogous to human beings who lived in the
world with no knowledge of gravity or germ theory. These human beings might figure
out ways of more or less getting along in the world without this knowledge, but the
reality would, nevertheless, not change, and ignorance of this reality would likely lead
to hardship, pain, suffering, and even death. Consider the person who ignores the
reality of gravity and jumps off a bridge or the person who comes into contact with
the Ebola virus. Whether they believe or accept the reality of gravity or of viral
infections, this reality will affect them.

The Knowability of Right and Wrong—Human Nature, the Bible,
and Natural Law
Fortunately, the Christian biblical narrative makes clear that the triune God goes to
great lengths to reveal himself and make himself known. Three things are true
regarding the knowability of God and, thus, the knowability of right and wrong:

1. God created and designed human beings for the very purpose of
knowing God.

2. God has revealed himself in a special and authoritative way through the
Bible.

3. God has embedded into his creation a moral structure and design that
can be discovered by anyone who is looking for it, whether they are
religious or not.

Human Beings Created in the Image of God
Human creations can know what is right or wrong because they are created in God’s
image, often referred to as the imago Dei. This means human beings bear certain
marks of the divine in at least two ways. First, as discussed previously, they are
created by design and with a purpose. Second, they have certain abilities, which
include the use of reason and the ability to understand and grasp moral truth.

Explaining this further, God has designed human nature with a specific purpose and
function such that it is oriented toward living a flourishing life. Flourishing does not
preclude suffering and pain; indeed, God’s Son, Jesus, was humiliated, beaten, and
hung on a cross to die in order to reconcile the world back to God (Matthew 27: 24–
56; John 3:16). Rather, a flourishing life is what Jesus called the abundant life (John
10:10). It is a grateful life filled with peace, joy, and serenity, even in the face of
suffering and evil. In fact, many Christians experience suffering and persecution all
over the world, yet they flourish in their obedience and fidelity to Christ (Open Doors,
n.d.).

Morality is not a list of random rules or laws to make people feel guilty or to
arbitrarily control them. On the contrary, right and wrong is just a description of how
life ought to be lived; it is uniquely suited for human beings given the kind of things
that they are. Acting immorally or against God’s standards would be akin to pouring
chocolate milk into the gas tank of a Ferrari. Such action would destroy a perfectly
good car because putting chocolate milk in the gas tank is treating it contrary to its
design and purpose. Ferraris are not designed to run on chocolate milk. That is not
the kind of thing that they are. In the same way, human beings are not the kind of
thing that was meant to lie, cheat, steal, hurt others, or live apart from God.
Positively, all persons were designed to function according to all of God’s commands
and to reflect the characters traits and virtues of God, which include things such as
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-
control (Galatians 5:22–23).

According to Christianity, barring disability or cognitive impairment, human beings
were created with a mind that can reliably understand the world and what is right
and wrong. The ability to think rationally and critically is a reflection of the image of
God. Human beings are the only species who study things such as philosophy,
religion, and science. As discussed previously, ethics is not just a matter of feelings or
emotions. While it certainly involves feelings and emotions, knowing right from
wrong is still a rational activity. For Christianity, then, one’s human nature is tied to
being moral and knowing what is right from wrong. This is essential to what a human
being is (Besong, 2018). It is what makes human beings human. In addition to the
design and purpose of human nature itself, God has provided two other sources for
knowledge of right and wrong to rational beings created in his image: the Bible and
natural law.

The Bible
The Bible, a collection of 66 books comprised of the Old and New Testaments, is
considered the sacred Word of God and a source of knowledge of right and wrong.
The Bible is considered special revelation of God and his works for at least three
reasons. First, it is special because God supernaturally inspired human authors to
pen its contents, making it the most authoritative source of Christian morals and
ethics (Horton 2011). The Bible serves as the primary authority and representative of
God’s Word and will (Horton, 2011). Second, the Bible is considered special revelation
because much, though not all, of its content includes truths that could not have been
discovered by pure human reason. In other words, it contains truths that are beyond
the limited intellectual ability of humans’ finite minds. Humans could not have known
these truths by just thinking hard or doing science; rather, God has specially revealed
them and made them known to human beings through the Bible. Third, it is special
because it records the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who “is
the radiance of the Glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Hebrews 1:3).
Thus, in the Bible, people can learn about the attributes, works, commands,
character, and love of God.

While the Bible is the most authoritative source for knowledge of God and ethics, this
does not mean that only Christians or those who accept the authority of the Bible can
know right or wrong or live generally moral lives. The Bible is a special revelation, yet
there is a more general revelation or source of knowledge of right and wrong that
God has made known to all people, whether they are religious or not.

Natural Law
Natural law refers to moral rules or principles that are built into God’s creation.
Such moral rules and principles are more general, can be known by all, and are not
derived from Scripture. God’s universe operates according to moral rules and
principles similar to how it operates according to physical rules. Everyone has the
ability to know what these rules or principles are because everyone is created in the
image of God and has a human nature.

Natural law is God’s general revelation of morality and expresses the most
fundamental aspects of morality. It is called “natural law” because it is revealed
through the natural world that God created and ordered, which includes human
nature. Thus, the natural, created world is described as a source of knowledge in
Psalm 104:14–15, and 24:

You cause the grass to gro

w for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food
from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face
shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart. …O Lord, how manifold are your
works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.

Similarly, the Apostle Paul argues in Romans 2:1–16 that God has built into human
nature a knowledge of the moral law such that those,

Who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires…even though
they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on
their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting
thoughts accuse or even excuse them. (Romans 2:14–15)

Thus, human beings are equipped to understand basic moral rules that God has set
up in his creation. One does not have to be a Christian or religious to know that
premeditated murder is wrong or that actions such as rape or genocide are morally
abhorrent; it is evident that these things are wrong because such moral truths are
built into God’s creation and “written on the human heart” (Romans 2:14–15).

Natural law should not be confused with naturalism, which says that only physical
things exist. Naturalism would rule out God’s existence entirely. It is important to
recognize that natural law has some limits. For starters, natural law does not lay out
all of what God has for human beings in Scripture. Natural law may tell people that it
is wrong to violate another person’s rights, but it will not tell people their need for
salvation from their sins.

Additionally, because of the fall of humanity in Genesis, human beings are marred by
sin. Sin distorts one’s ability to always know what is right from wrong or even want to
do the right thing. Sin does not make it impossible to know about morality, but it
does bring confusion with it. For example, sin distorts humankind’s effort to
understand their need for reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ. Often, human
beings think they can save themselves through human will and effort, without God,
to overcome their deficiencies in life. Scripture shows this is deeply mistaken because
human beings are tainted by sin and do not have the ability to reconcile themselves
to God solely through human effort.

To sum up Christian metaethics, the foundation for the reality of ethics is the being
and character of God. God himself is the standard of goodness, beauty, and truth.
The knowability of this reality involves the fact that God created and designed human
individuals to know him and provided two other sources of knowledge of right and
wrong: the Bible and natural law. What exactly then does the Bible teach about what
is actually good, bad, right, and wrong as well as how human beings ought to live?

Christian Normative Ethics

Human beings were created to know and love God in perfect relationship to him.
More than that, they were meant to reflect the character and goodness of God in all
of life. This is a description of the way things ought to be. Yet sin and the fall broke
the intimate relationship with God and corrupted the character and heart of all
humanity. In effect, sin and the fall are not the way it’s supposed to be. The Bible
teaches that human beings ought to live in obedience to the commands of God and
be transformed in their character to reflect the goodness of God.

In the Old Testament, morality is primarily connected to Old Testament Law or the
first five books of the Old Testament, called the Pentateuch. This is summed up in the
Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–17), which form the foundation for the Old
Testament Law. It is important to realize that there was no difference between law
and morality in the Old Testament. In its history, Israel was a theocracy, which meant
they were governed by the law of God in all aspects of their lives. Today, many
governments, such as democracies, are governed by the rule of law, which comes
from the will of the people, many of whom may or may not be religious. Such
societies may be considered to be pluralistic in nature. As Scott Rae (2009) points out,
“All morality was legislated. No distinction was made between law and morality, as
one could find in a pluralistic society” (p. 30).

While the New Testament still focuses on the law of the Old Testament, it places
more emphasis on virtues rather than principles. Virtues are those character traits
that have to do with one becoming a certain kind of person. In the New Testament,
one becomes more like Christ as a result of taking on the mind of Christ and his
attitudes. For example, in Philippians 2:1–5, Paul writes that Christians are to have
the mind of Christ and emulate the virtues of Christ, specifically Christ’s humility. One
of the main virtues displayed in the New Testament is love. For example, when
responding to a question about what the greatest commandment is, Jesus said, “You
shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all
your mind. This is the great and first commandment” (Matthew 22:37–38). The
Apostle Paul focuses on the true nature of love in 1 Corinthians 13, listing of all the
characteristics of true love.

Virtue Ethics and Christianity
In ancient Greek philosophy, character traits such as compassion, intellect, and
temperance referred to what Aristotle called virtue. Hence, an area of ethics
called virtue ethics is often traced back to him. Aristotle thought that
achieving virtue was the highest good for humans. For Aristotle, this is what
determines right and wrong; to act wrongly is to fail to act in accordance with
virtue, and to act rightly is to act in accordance with virtue (Aristotle, ca. 350
B.C.E./2009).

It is likely that Aristotle thought that goodness is something impersonal and
abstract, whereas the Christian worldview sees God’s character as the standard
of goodness, which is not something impersonal and abstract. According to the

Christian worldview, to be virtuous is to act according to God’s standard of
goodness and to become like the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus showed the way
by fulfilling the law and dying in the place of sinful humans so that his followers
could have the power to become loving and compassionate people. Aristotle,
however, thought that human intellect and reason were enough for people to
teach themselves that it is better to live according to virtue than not. The
human condition is such that it does not have the ability to do this alone; God
must come into a person’s life and restore it from the inside out. This is what
virtue means from a Christian perspective.

In both the Old and New Testaments, it is clear that the commands given and the
virtues described fundamentally reflect the character and goodness of God himself.
In Exodus 20:1, right before God lays out the Ten Commandments, God said, “I am
the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
slavery.” Here, the emphasis is placed on what God is like, and then the
commandments are given. Similarly, in the New Testament, during his famous
Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly
Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). The principle to be perfect is based on God being
perfect. This is not an exhaustive list, but it suggests that the commands and virtues
presented in the Bible are good because their source is a compassionate and loving
God.

Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments by noting that loving one’s neighbor was
the “first and greatest” commandment (Matthew 22:37–38). The source of Jesus’s
love is God’s everlasting love. All goodness and righteousness flow out of God’s love.
In fact, 1 John 4 makes clear that the Christian God is more than simply good or
perfect in the sense of having never done anything wrong:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has
been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know
God, because God is love … Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God,
God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and believe the
love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in
God, and God abides in him.

In addition, the Bible speaks about the place of the most vulnerable in society. This
has to do with justice toward those who are poor, weak, or oppressed. God is deeply
concerned about how the poor and the weak of society are treated. In many of the
Psalms, God is described as the rescuer of the poor and oppressed (Psalm 10:16–18;
35:10, 72:12–14, 82:2–4, 103:6, 140:12, 146:5–9). Interestingly, in the Old Testament
(Isaiah 1:21–23; Jeremiah 5:26–29; Ezekiel 22:6–13, 29), a sign of spiritual decline in a
society is a lack of care for the poor and weak primarily because that society has
“given itself over to idolatry, a key evidence of which is institutional injustice” (Rae,
2009, p. 38). As for the New Testament, there are numerous instances of caring for
the poor and vulnerable (Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 8:1–7, 9: 1–15; James 2:1–13).

A crucial aspect of the Bible’s teaching about morality is the person of the Holy Spirit.
God’s spirit is evident throughout Scripture with more of an emphasis in the New
Testament. The Holy Spirit helps Christian believers live in obedience to the
commands of God such that they grow spiritually (John 13–17), produce the “fruit of
the spirit” (Galatians 5:16, 22–23), and live sanctified lives (Romans 8). Without the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Christian believers’ lives, the church would be a hollow
religious structure, not a vital spiritual lifeline.

In God’s kingdom morality is not about arbitrary rules or laws but about something
deeper; it is about becoming more like the person of Jesus. Human flourishing means
becoming more like Jesus and being transformed in one’s desires and motivations.
This requires living a life of virtue through the power of God and the work of Jesus
Christ who modeled an ethic of love, which is ultimately based upon God’s character.

Case Study: Facing an Ethical Decision
Imagine working in a hospital as a nurse in the neonatal intensive care unit
(NICU). A patient 26-weeks pregnant comes in complaining of strong abdominal
pains. It turns out the patient is having strong contractions and delivers the
baby early. The baby is alive and immediately placed in the NICU. The doctors
realize that the baby has a rare brain lesion that is causing part of the skull to
be exposed. The doctors do not think the baby will live a normally functioning
life when fully developed due to the brain lesion. The doctors believe the baby
could survive at the very most for two to three years if the lesion does not grow
larger. As the doctors consult with the mother and the family, the mother
makes the painful decision to end the life of the baby. Her reasoning is that it
will not experience any quality of life and may die eventually. As a nurse on call,
you are asked to help perform the procedure to end the baby’s life.

Now, suppose you are a Christian who values the sanctity of life or even from a
different religion that values the sanctity of life. If you object to performing the
procedure, you could potentially lose your job, but if you do not object, you
could be violating your religious beliefs. Using what you now know of ethics
and its relationship to a Christian worldview, address how you would respond.

Question 1: From a Christian perspective, is it ethically wrong to end the life of
a 26-week-old baby in this condition, based upon doctor recommendations?

Possible responses from the Christian worldview

a. Because Christians believe in the sanctity of life and that all people
are made in the image of God, then yes, morally speaking, it would
be wrong to end an innocent life. Quality of life indications may be

part of the medical decision-making process, but they never do
away with or change the intrinsic value and dignity of human life.

b. Medical indications that a condition is terminal, likely terminal, or
will result in severe disability create some of the most difficult and
painful decisions in health care. In these situations, quality of life
factors may influence the program of treatment or perhaps call for
varying levels of palliative care. Comforting the sick, suffering, and
dying is at the heart of the Christian call to love one’s neighbor.
Nevertheless, loving one’s neighbor would never include the
intentional termination of innocent life. Thus, while the Christian is
called to be present and provide comfort and care in the midst of
suffering and death, ending the life of the baby would not be
justified according to the Christian ethic.

Question 2: In light of the presentation of ethics, how would someone who
holds a virtue ethic respond? How would an atheist logically defend his or her
actions based on his or her worldview?

Possible responses from a Christian worldview

a. Because much of morality is dependent on the mutual agreements
of the interests of the members of society in an atheistic worldview,
what is normative or right or wrong depends on what the social
norms of society are. The social norms say that it is morally
permissible to end the life of the baby if the baby will not
experience much quality of life but more pain and suffering.

b. A person who holds a virtue ethic would wonder what the virtuous
thing to do is. Acting virtuously is acting like some model examples
of virtuous people, such as Jesus, Gandhi, or Mother Teresa. It is
doubtful that Jesus or Mother Teresa would be acting virtuously by
ending the life of the baby. It is unclear what Gandhi thought of
such scenarios, but, perhaps, he would have thought it would be
compassionate to alleviate the suffering of a person who may not
experience much quality of life. Or at least that is one way a virtue
ethicist could argue.

Resurrection and Moral Order in Medicine

The crux of the Christian worldview is Jesus’s resurrection. None of what Jesus did
matters if he did not truly rise from the dead. It is the miraculous event that
demonstrated Jesus was who he proclaimed to be. This is why the cornerstone of
Christianity is Christ’s death and resurrection. In writing to the Corinthian churches (1
Corinthians 15), the Apostle Paul presents an argument that without Christ’s
resurrection, the Christian faith does not make any sense; it is futile or in vain
according to Paul. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then the Christian faith is
meaningless (1 Corinthians 15:14). Paul, then, connects the resurrection of Christ to
the fact that those who believe in Christ will rise from the dead, too. Christianity is all
about the restoration of God’s creation to a life in which physical and spiritual death
will no longer exist. The restoration process means God is working to make things be
at peace beginning now, both internally in each person, and in the larger, visible
things of the world. God’s creation will undergo a transformation process in which
old things pass away, and all things become new. The New Testament describes this
state as a “new heaven(s) and a new earth” (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1).

The new heaven(s) and earth, however, clearly refer to a future state. In the current
state, God’s restoration is both continually beginning and always occurring. It will be
brought to completion at this future and permanent state. The current restoration
taking place is for those who have been reconciled to God based on the work of
Christ on the cross and his death and resurrection. Reconciliation has to do with
restoring peace between human beings and God after the fall. God’s perfect life-
giving and life-sustaining moral order will then be established in which everyone can
live in peaceful existence. In this time and place, there will be nothing in all of
creation that will bring harm or death to human beings ever again.

In the Christian worldview, medical technology is considered a good gift from God,
insofar as God has created the kind of world that has a structure that can be
discovered and manipulated to bring about good for human beings (Rae & Cox,
1999). However, for many in modern society, medicine is often seen as the true
savior of life’s ills. Without it, people could not live the lives they want to live. With the
rise of new medical technologies, medical interventions, and advancement in medical
research, the human body can live much longer than previously anticipated. This is a
great good that medicine can offer. Nevertheless, medicine has not been able to cure
everything, including death and dying. Of course, according to Christianity, things are
not supposed to be that way. When God establishes a new heaven(s) and earth, the
whole of creation will be restored, including one’s physical body. The hurt, pain, and
suffering will be no more, as believers in God will also be resurrected with new
bodies, experiencing fellowship with the God of the universe. Christ’s death and
resurrection are a sign that there is now peace with God on earth as well as a sign
that there will be peace with God in the new heaven(s) and earth through one’s own
resurrection. Christ’s resurrection resulted in bringing sustaining and everlasting
peace to all.

The relationship between Christianity and medicine reveals something quite different
about the approach Christianity takes to applied ethics. A Christian applied ethic
takes seriously the idea that God cares deeply about dignity of life. Both the physical
and spiritual are unified in the human body and should be treated with proper and

due respect. Thus, issues such as the sanctity of life, the ethics of physician-assisted
suicide, and the ethics of medicine in general matter a great deal from the point of
view of a Christian applied ethic. Furthermore, a Christian applied ethic thinks there
are objective answers to some of the challenging questions because there is
objective moral knowledge.

Not all worldviews are the same and some will differ in how they address these
issues. Of course, this does not mean it is easy. Christians need to do excellent work
to demonstrate the moral considerations brought to bear on these issues. It just
means that a Christian applied ethic will have a much different approach.

Section Summary
According to Christian ethics, God’s character is the foundation of ethics. This
primarily means that because God is essentially good, God’s moral law is essentially
good. The rightness or wrongness of God’s commands issue from God’s good nature.
God set up the universe in a purposeful and orderly way that operates on natural
law. These are God’s moral laws that are part of God’s general revelation which
everyone can know and understand. This is because human beings are uniquely
created with the innate knowledge and understanding of what is right and wrong
based on their human nature. Christianity is first and foremost about becoming more
like Christ, forming one’s character from the inside out. Scientism and postmodern
relativism are two hindrances to this innate moral knowledge and understanding, as
they each lead to a contradiction.

The thread that ties Christian ethics together with medicine is Jesus’s resurrection
and God’s establishing reconciliation through his Son, Jesus. This reconciliation will
be completed when all those believers are resurrected and commune with the God
of the universe in the new heaven(s) and earth.

Conclusion
This chapter has described the importance of holding a clear, coherent, and practical
worldview. A worldview is the intellectual and philosophical lens through which one
views and makes decisions about the meaning of existence, the nature of the
universe, and one’s life and purpose. It provides meaning and purpose to help one
live a good and productive life. Three worldviews were considered.

1. Atheism: the belief system that is defined by the lack of a deity. This
worldview views the universe using naturalism, the understanding that
the physical world alone constitutes what is real. There is no creator and
humans create their own morality.

2. Pantheism: the belief that God and nature are one and the same, such
that nature is god. In this view, god grows and changes as the world
changes.

3. Theism: there is a god, and god created all that is. There is one god
(rather than multiple gods). Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are examples
of theistic religions.

Six worldview questions were considered, which assist in determining one’s
worldview:

1. What is ultimate reality?

2. What is the nature of the universe?

3. What is a human being?

4. What is knowledge?

5. What is the basis of one’s ethics?

6. And what is the purpose of one’s existence?

Because it is vital to test one’s worldview to ensure that it is clear, reasonable, and
functional, three worldview tests were discussed.

1. The coherence test examines whether a worldview holds together
internally so that answers to the worldview questions or other aspects do
not cause contradictions.

2. The correspondence test considers whether a worldview matches reality.
Does it fit with how the world actually operates? Does it match what one
experiences in the world?

3. The practical test asks how one’s worldview works in the world. This is
the test of whether a worldview gives its holder satisfaction and hope. If a
worldview brings hopelessness and despair, or cannot answer the
deepest questions of life, then it is not practical.

The foundations of Christianity were discussed through the examination of key
concepts, such as the Trinity, incarnation, and atonement. These concepts are
foundational to the Christian worldview, help Christians understand and interpret
events in the world, and provide answers to the six worldview questions. The key to
understanding Christian spirituality and the Christian worldview is the Christian
narrative.

The Christian narrative provides an overview of life and, again, provides answers to
the worldview questions. Through an understanding of the four parts of the Christian
narrative—creation, fall, redemption, and restoration—Christians understand who
they are, why they are here, what went wrong with the world, and how the world will
be made right again. All these elements make up a worldview that passes the three
worldview tests and provides a trustworthy understanding of life and its events.

The nature of ethics and its relationship to Christianity was clarified as well as the
difference between what ethics is and is not. Ethics is not about one’s cultural

attitudes, tradition, or what the law says. Ethics may inform these, but it is different
from them. The is/ought distinction and human nature were also used as examples
to explain the substantive nature of ethics. The three subfields of ethics were
presented. Metaethics dealt with questions about the nature of ethics, such as
whether morality is objective or not. Normative ethics dealt with the systematic
moral principles that govern human behavior. And finally, applied ethics dealt with
how normative ethical principles are applied to concrete moral contexts—stem-cell
research for example—or to any situation in which right and wrong must be
determined.

The philosophies of scientism and postmodernism were defined and then critiqued.
Scientism makes knowledge of things such as morality, God, and historical facts
impossible to know, while postmodernism denies morality is objectively true. These
factors create forces that are problematic for anyone. This is why understanding
one’s worldview matters. It provides a foundation that allows one to get better
insight on how to categorize reality. Science is a great way of coming to knowledge of
the world, but it is not the only way. Moreover, knowledge of objective right and
wrong is possible and necessary for ethics. The relationship between science and
ethics in medicine was clarified. It was seen that medicine in an inherently scientific
and moral practice and that the ethics and values that drive medicine are always
derived from a worldview.

Ethics Overall
Ethics is a challenging but rewarding field. It applies to so many areas of life that it is
easy to see how it applies in the world of medicine. From addressing issues of the
objectivity of ethics to why certain ethical principles ought to be followed, to even
how one knows right from wrong, ethics touches almost every aspect of life. The
rewarding part of ethics is seeing how much deeper it is than things such as culture,
etiquette, or law. Most have a strong sense of what is right and wrong, but
sometimes, societal or cultural standards cast confusion on what is right or wrong.
The pressure to conform to society becomes extraordinarily strong even if some of
the principles appear to be wrong.

This is why having a strong ethical foundation that allows for the possibility of moral
knowledge matters. Christianity and its ethical framework, rooted in the character of
God, provides such a foundation. God’s character forms the basis of ethics, and
human beings, created in the image of God, have the ability to come to know right
from wrong through the Scripture and natural law.

In the final part of the chapter, the relationship between medicine and Christian
ethics was presented. Christianity affirms the great good and benefit of medicine;
however, medicine cannot cure death and dying, and it cannot address the spiritual
needs of patients no matter how much it tries. Because of the resurrection of Jesus,
both of these can be addressed. The present period addresses the spiritual needs of
the patient who needs peace and reconciliation through God’s salvation work in

history. The future period addresses the resurrection of believers and peace in a new
heaven(s) and earth when all things are made new.

Additional Resources
Batzig, N. (2009, March 1). Spiritual blessings, blood bought redemption [Audio

file]. https://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/spiritual-blessings-
blood-bought-redemption

DeWeese, G. & Moreland, J. P. (2005). Philosophy made slightly less difficult: A
beginner’s guide to life’s big questions. Intervarsity Press.

Spurgeon, C. H. (1860). Christ—our substitute.
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols4-6/chs310 .

Stott, J. (2003). Why I am a Christian. Intervarsity Press.

Ackrill, J. L., & Urmson, J. O. (Eds.). (1998). The Nichomachean ethics (D. Ross,
Trans.). Oxford University Press.

Mill, J. S. (2004). Utilitarianism. Project Gutenberg.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11224/11224-h/11224-h.htm.

Shafer-Landau, R. (2017) The fundamentals of ethics. Oxford University Press.

Key Terms

Applied Ethics: A part of ethics that applies the normative ethical theories and ideas
to concrete moral situations such as bioethics, business ethics, and even journalistic
ethics. Issues that applied ethics tries to address include ethics of embryonic stem-
cell research, businesses exploiting employees, and conflicts of interest between
news media outlets and their advertisers.

Atheism: (from the combination of A meaning “no” and theism meaning “of God”) A
worldview, the central feature of which is a lack of belief in a deity. Atheism stands in
contrast to theism. The philosophy of scientism tends to be atheistic, especially when
it claims that knowledge gained only through empirical evidence can be considered
true. It denies the existence of god.

Atonement: A part of the section of the Christian narrative called redemption. Sin
caused a breach between God and humanity. The work of Christ on the cross placed
on him the punishment of our sin, also known as substitutionary atonement, which
occurred when Christ took the punishment due to humanity because of the
condemnation of sin. The punishment for sin is death, eternal separation from God.
Out of pure love and mercy, God sent his Son to take the punishment for all sin upon
himself, essentially removing all condemnation. Jesus was a pure sacrifice, and upon
him, the punishment of death fell. Through his death, humanity, by putting their trust
in Jesus and what he has done, will be redeemed.

Bioethics: A part of ethics that is particularly concerned with the issues raised by
modern technology, such as stem-cell research and human cloning. It also deals with
the ethics of medicine and ethical issues in the life sciences.

Character: Features of individual persons that refer to good qualities, such as
kindness, love, and mercy, or bad qualities, such as slothfulness, gluttony, and anger.
These qualities affect the whole person in motivation, thoughts, desires, and an inner
sense of well-being. They have to do with the inner being of the person, not merely
outer behavior.

Christian Narrative: The overarching Christian understanding of all of life. The
Christian narrative contains four sections: creation, the fall, redemption, and
restoration.

Coherence Test: The test of whether a worldview holds together internally so that
one aspect does not contradict another.

Correspondence Test: The test of whether a worldview matches reality and fits with
how the world actually operates.

Creation: The action of God creating all that is out of nothing.

Deism: The belief that a god exists who created all that is; however, this god is not
involved with the ongoing rule or operation of the universe. God is not knowable or
available for a relationship with human beings.

Epistemology: A branch of philosophy that is the study of knowledge. This includes
examining the ways of knowing what is known and by what means knowledge was
gained. Theists hold that revealed and discovered knowledge is gained from God who
reveals himself both through sacred texts and the world. An atheist might claim that
all knowledge is gained from empirical evidence and human reason.

Essence: The essence of something or someone is its intrinsic nature. The essence of
God, for example, is spirit.

Ethical Dilemma: An especially difficult ethical question or situation, which may not
have a definite resolution, typically brought about when the available options are not
ideal and when the goals and interests of two parties stand opposed and cannot
both be achieved at the same time.

Ethics: A branch of philosophy that provides a systematic understanding of concepts
of right and wrong, principles of moral behavior, and the intentions and actions of
moral agents. Christian ethics decides what is right and wrong based on standards
established by God. From the Christian worldview, ethics considers the question:
what does God, whose character and standards are revealed through the Bible,
conclude is right or wrong about a particular action.

Image of God: (Latin, imago Dei) The Christian doctrine explaining that all human
beings, regardless of age, race, gender, religion, or any other qualifier, were created
in God’s image and, therefore, possess inherent worth. This understanding is

grounded in the biblical creation account in the book of Genesis that describes Adam
and Eve, the first human beings, as created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27).
Theologians have understood the imago Dei to be related to a variety of human
attributes, including rationality, sociality, moral agency, and spirituality; however, the
significance of the imago Dei lies not in these properties but, rather, in the inherent
value of human beings.

Immanence: God’s interaction and closeness to the created order and the people in
it. Christians hold that God’s immanence is demonstrated when the Son of God
became a human being and lived as a man.

Incarnation: The act of God becoming a human being in Jesus Christ. In the
incarnation, the second person of the Godhead, the Son, left his place in heaven and
came to earth, born of a young woman named Mary, in the city of Bethlehem. The
incarnation is a part of the redemption of human beings. Jesus grew to adulthood
and atoned for the sins of humanity by his death on the cross.

Is/Ought: A distinction that indicates that there are two kinds of facts—those that
state what is the case and those that state what one ought to do. For example,
scientific facts describe what is the case about reality, whereas moral facts tell one
what morally ought to be done.

Knowledge: The information about the world, who and what people are, how people
are to live in terms of morals and ethics, how humanity came to exist, and where
humanity is going.

Metaphysics: The field of study related to the nature of existence. Metaphysics asks
questions about what kinds of things exist and the nature of existence.

Monotheism: The belief in one God.

Moral Ought: The ought that concerns moral categories (such as good, bad, right,
and wrong) and is beyond the bounds of what science can tell us. This is in contrast
to the practical ought.

Natural Law: The view that God set up the universe in an orderly and purposeful
way. God’s human creatures are created to act in a meaningful and purposeful way.
Human beings have a specific nature that guides and directs them to function in the
right way. This right way is how God set up the universe with purposeful intention
and design. When human beings operate outside the bounds of God’s law, there are
repercussions and consequences. For example, if one engages in a repetitively
harmful activity, such as doing drugs, one may become addicted and harm him or
herself. To be distinguished from naturalism, which is the distinct view that excludes
things such as God, souls, or the nonphysical from nature.

Naturalism: A metaphysical viewpoint that understands the world, including human
beings, as consisting of only physical matter. This view excludes the possibility of
nonphysical elements such as souls, god, or a spiritual realm. Any seeming
occurrence of nonphysical phenomena would be considered merely an illusion

rather than a substantive reality. In this view, the physical world is the only source of
reliable knowledge or truth.

Normative Ethics: A branch of ethics regarding what makes actions right or wrong.
It attempts to give an account of the correct moral system that establishes what one
ought to do. Thus, if something is “normative” for someone, it means that this is
something a person ought to do, otherwise they would be acting immorally.
Utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue theory are examples of normative ethical
theories.

Objective Morality: Standards of right and wrong that apply to all people,
everywhere, and at all times.

Objective Truth: Truth that comes from an outside authority and applies to all
people in all times and places. For example, the statement, “Murdering innocent
people is wrong for everyone in every time and place.” In contrast, subjective
knowledge is true only for the individual or for a particular group that has agreed
upon the truth in question. We hear subjective knowledge in the statement, “That
may be true for you, but not for me.”

Omnipotent: The Christian belief that God is all-powerful and may exercise his
power in ways that please him. There is no limit to God’s power.

Omnipresent: The Christian belief that God is everywhere in the universe at all
times. God is not limited to a specific location like human beings.

Omniscient: The Christian belief that God is all-knowing. God possesses all
knowledge at all times. This includes knowledge of the universe and the living
creatures therein.

Pantheism: The view that god and nature or the material world are one and the
same. This comes from the Greek words pan and theos which mean “all,” and “god,”
respectively. In the view of pantheism, a tree and god are one; they not only work
together, but they are also identical. In other words, nature is god. According to
pantheism, trees and rivers are deities. In the pantheistic worldview, god is nature,
such that god’s action is simply the natural operations of nature.

Polytheism: The belief in more than one god.

Postmodernism: The broad philosophical view that denies that one can have
objective knowledge or truth about the world. Relativism is a subcategory of
postmodernism that claims that anything called “truth” will simply be a matter of
subjective preference, opinion, or, perhaps, the creation of cultures and societies.
Every claim about the nature of reality is simply relative to either an individual’s
preference or the beliefs of a society/culture. In other words, whether it is individuals
or entire societies, people invent the truth rather than the truth of being discovered.

Practical Ought: The ought that concerns how to achieve a practical goal and
involves technical knowledge and competence. It is within the domain of science but
stands in contrast to the moral ought.

Practical Test: The test of whether a worldview gives its holder satisfaction and
hope. If a worldview brings hopelessness and despair or cannot answer the deepest
questions of life, then it is not practical.

Redemption: The act of God sending his Son, the second person of the Trinity, to
come into the world as a man named Jesus. Jesus allowed the punishment for sin to
fall on himself, thereby freeing humanity to be restored to a right and loving
relationship with God.

Relativism: The view that truth is not objective but depends on the attitudes, beliefs,
preferences, desires, and tastes of individuals or their cultures. This means truth is
subjective. For example, whether one has cancer or not is an objective truth. If one
has cancer, believing or desiring it to go away does not make it true that one does
not have it. Relativism does not treat truth like that. The truth of something is
dependent on what a culture believes, prefers, or desires.

Restoration: The restoration will occur at the end of human history when God
makes the universe whole again. Everything will be made new and perfect as in the
original garden of Eden. This will be a time of great celebration. No longer will sin,
sickness, suffering, and death taint human existence. This is what Christians refer to
as eternal life or heaven.

Resurrection: The act of God raising Jesus from the dead three days after his
crucifixion. Christ’s resurrection demonstrates his power over death and guarantees
that his followers will also be raised after death to live forever with him.

Scientism: The view that science is the best and only way to know things about the
world. It says that in order to know something, one must assess it only through the
methods of science. For example, if one wanted to know whether God exists,
scientism would say that this can be determined only through what sciences such as
physics, chemistry, or biology can reveal.

Scripture: The sacred texts that make up the Christian Bible: Old Testament and
New Testament. This is the highest authority for Christians.

Sin: The state in which every person is born and lives until redeemed by Christ. It is
any act of rebellion or disobedience against God, his ways, commandments, and
character. Sin separates humans from God and puts them under judgment.

Spirituality: Spirituality is a dynamic and intrinsic aspect of humanity through which
persons seek ultimate meaning, purpose, and transcendence and experience
relationship to self, family, others, community, society, nature, and the significant or
sacred. Spirituality is expressed through beliefs, values, traditions, and practices. This
search for meaning in life is often found beyond physical reality and may include
religious beliefs. Christian spirituality is the discovery of life’s meaning through a
personal relationship with God as revealed in the Bible.

Subjective Truth: Truth that is subject to the interpretation of the individual. It does
not apply to all people in all places and times, but, rather, because it is the creation of

an individual person or culture, it applies only to an individual person or culture.

The Fall: The occasion when the first human beings rebelled against God and
decided to live according to their own will and ways. This is called sin, and this act
fractured the relationship between God and humanity. Through their sin, the first
created human beings brought suffering and death into the world. They also brought
upon themselves punishment of eternal separation from God by which all humanity
has inherited their fallen spiritual DNA.

Theism: The belief in a God who is approachable, with whom human beings are in
relationship, and to whom human beings are accountable. Christianity, for example,
is a theistic religion. Christians hold that humans are accountable to the God found in
the Bible and with whom they may have, particularly through Jesus Christ, a personal,
saving relationship. Theism stands in contrast to atheism.

Transcendence: The existence of God beyond the universe and his independence
from all of the physical world.

Trinity: The Christian comprehension of one God in three persons—Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit. God is one in essence with divine attributes. The three persons of the
Trinity possess the same divine essence. The three persons work in unity while
holding distinct personhood. The three persons of the Godhead work together in
perfect harmony in the creation, redemption, and restoration of the world, including
the redemption of human beings.

Ultimate Reality: The location or source of life’s meaning and purpose. Ultimate
reality pertains to what is truly real and what truly exists. For Christians, ultimate
reality is found in God. God is the foundation of existence, having created all that is.
This means that, for Christians, ultimate truth about exis

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Worldview Analysis and Personal Inventory ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now