Users of the social media app “Tik tok” may be aware of a new sexuality called “superstraight”; as defined by the community, a “superstraight” is someone who is only sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex who were born that way. This has sparked outrage among the LGBTQ+ community as it considers the community “transphobic” and a fake sexuality. This is both ironically un-inclusive and philosophically inconsistent and yet another example of the folly of the naturalistic world view. But what is funny about LGBTQ+ community’s denial of the superstraight community for being transphobic is that they are correct, much of the superstraight community hates transgenders for existing, yet, their worldview does not allow for their denial.
Naturalism is the claim that the naturalistic world is all that there is, no God, angels, or demons, just matter, energy, and natural forces, therefore all reasoning and beliefs, including sexuality, are subjective. The LGBTQ+ community is naturalist, they reject the existence of a creator and objective morality, and embrace moral subjectivity; this “debate” as to whether superstraight is an actual sexuality proves the naturalistic position isn’t even true to begin with. Why? Let’s take a trip to “worldview town”.
There are two towns, the worldview in the respective town is 100% true. First let’s briefly explain the two opposing worldviews: Worldview 1: God exists and morality is objective. This worldview posits that God created the universe with a set of objective laws and humans with a conscience that knows right from wrong. Worldview 2: There is no God and morality is subjective. This worldview posits that each man creates his own morality and that beliefs are a result of physical processes that occur in our brains. Simply put, nothing created the universe and nothing created “morality” therefore to each his own. For a world view to be true, it has to be consistent with itself, in other words, it cannot contradict itself or else it has voided itself from being actual reality. An inconsistent worldview cannot be a true worldview because an inconsistent worldview presupposes the existence of a worldview greater than it, therefore voiding its own existence. According to the naturalistic worldview, naturalists have no right to question the sexuality of another, in fact, naturalists have no right to question the morality of another because one’s “morality” is a result of non-ethical chemicals (chemicals that care nothing about morality) moving around in our brains- so in the naturalistic worldview town if it to were remain seqitus (In order that it may not presuppose the truth of a greater worldview than it) not only does the naturalist have no ground to question someone else’s morality, if it were ultimately true he should have no interest in doing so in the first place. So even if superstraights were transphobic, if the naturalistic worldview was true, that should, and would mean absolutely nothing, not only with regards to whether or not superstraight is a sexuality, but as to whether being “transphobic” is wrong. This is the philosophical inconsistency, of naturalism, a self-refuting position.
What does the naturalist do to fix this hole that proves his position wrong? Nothing. He ignores it, Romans 1:20-23 says: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures.” This passage speaks directly to the issue at hand, as it turns out, the fact that naturalists even argue morality voids the truthfulness of their worldview- meaning, they have a bigger problem than “are superstraights a sexuality” on their plates, and the answer to the “bigger problem” greatly affects the answer of the “superstraight” problem, as in, neither community actually exists.
So what is the alternative? Christianity. Christians believe that humans were created in the image of God and He has given us the ability to learn everything up to, and including, our creator. Is there now a reason to call what is evil, evil and what is good, good? Absolutely! Our cognitive faculties aren’t contingent upon non-ethical chemicals forming in a certain way to come up with baseless moral positions; but rather, our ability to reason about ourselves, about the world, and morality is contingent on the objective moral standard that is God.
All text was written by Kwabena Duku sourced from God’s expressed word the Bible. March 2021
Recommended article: The Argument for The Existence of God From Reason.
Bible Answers by Bra Kwabena 