The popular modern worldview is one of relativistic secularism. God is thrown out of the window as an invention and/or a tool rather than an actual being. As there is no “correct way of acting”, different cultures are seen as “interpretations” that cannot truly be right or wrong. This is why secularists are all for diversity and immigration, in their worldview, there is no right or wrong. The modern/post-modernist worldview is complete nonsense. Relativism and secularism are cancers that are the main source of the problem that our world has and until we tackle it, we will go nowhere.
Although seeming strong under the modern worldview, relativism is quite easy to disprove. Relativism itself is a so-called philosophy that claims that there are no objective truths and that all is relative. This is a contradictory statement (not a paradox). Claiming that universally objective truth’s do not exist, is a universally objective truth claim. If relativism was true, then it would be universally and objectively true. A statement saying that “there is no universal and objective truth” being objective and true is contradictory, this means that objectives do exist, there are truths in this world. One could say “you disprove relativism, but have you proven any existence of objectivity?”, this is also a question that has a simple answer. Mathematical principles are objective and universal, 2+2 will always equal 4 no matter where you go, the same goes for logic. We universally presuppose that logic is universally true and trying to disprove logic would require the use of logic.
Secularism starts to show its cracks the moment you realize there are universal truths in this world. Initially, these truths would be “scientific”, but science cannot explain morality and ethics; metaphysics can. To be able to discern what is moral and what is not, we cannot depend on the average subjective human being, because we would fall into the relativistic trap. This is why Secularism does not function properly (and it is not supposed to function in the first place). The idea we should be able to empirically validate everything in this world is wrong, we simply cannot, there is a degree of “faith” in how we handle some things. Logic, as an example, cannot be empirically verifiable, we can only use some sort of a transcendental argument to prove that logic exists. When the Sophists asked Aristotle to prove the Principle of Non-Contradiction, he stated that “to be able to deny it, you would have to use it”, as we can see, Aristotle proves that the PNC exists without submitting an empirical evidence, the same can be said for logic. We are unable to disprove the existence of logic, because in order to deny its existence you would have to use logic. Not to mention, Empiricism, just like relativism, is self-defeating; you cannot empirically prove empiricism.
Secularism has a very difficult time explaining ethics -a very crucial part of civilization- because all of their ideas are countered with “that’s your opinion”. The secularist cannot prove us why acts of atrocities such as murder and rape are immoral, we just “assume” it is immoral; but can secularism show how is it immoral? What makes the act x right or wrong in a universal context is unexplainable for secularists. The one secularist that attempts to explain it is Stefan Molyneux with his Universally Preferable Behavior.
The fact that he contradicts his own UPB (stating that freedom is a moral good whereas ethics are inherently enforced is a contradiction) is one of the proofs, UPB does indeed exist, but secularly speaking we cannot truly understand what it is. Not to mention, Molyneux uses extreme examples such as;
“Stealing logically cannot be an act of good because you would have to repeatedly steal in order to be good”
This doesn’t prove anything. If X is good not X doesn’t necessarily have to be bad. Two examples I would like to use to demonstrate this. One of them is that killing someone is an act of evil depending on the context, so in different cases killing and not killing have different results, to say that “theft cannot ever be good” and then using examples where people constantly steal to be good is a red herring. Stefan would surely argue that granting freedom to the populace is a good thing, but we have to imprison wrongdoers also to maintain or ethics. That is an act that goes against freedom, you can then go on to say “alright, granting freedom to people that will act on my ethics is a force of objective good”, but what about the people who do act on your ethics except for the freedom part? Do you go remove their freedom if they are against your ethics? And if “free people” cannot even question at least some parts of ethics, are they truly “free”? The answer is no.
To use Stefan’s own logic as a transcendental argument, if secular objective ethics are wrong because of it being secular, that means the opposite of secularism is true: Religious objective ethics are indeed correct!
This is why the Christian worldview is inherently superior to the atheistic materialist worldview, it is consistent whereas the atheistic materialist worldview is inconsistent as demonstrated in this writing.