Is it still true? And is that a problem?

Falsifiability.  Try saying that 5 times fast.  It's a word that it is often used in scientific discussions.  Essentially it means a proposition or hypothesis or theory is capable of being proven to be false.  For science to consider something to be true it must be able to proven false.  Which is why science doesn't deal with the "why?" questions in life.  It leaves such questions to preachers, priests, prophets, philosophers, poets and parents.  Science deals with observable phenomena not with unprovable speculations.

There are various worldviews that people believe.  HERE is a good definition of what a worldview is.  Generally speaking a worldview isn't falsifiable, at least not in terms of the scientific method.

What I want to do is to present a hypothetical scenario and ask the following, if this happened would (fill in the blank) still be true?.  Insert any worldview where it says (fill in the blank). 

Here is the scenario.  A large meteor is traveling at a fast speed toward planet earth.  It hits earth and makes such an impact as to throw earth out of its orbit and spiraling toward the sun.  What humans didn't die in the impact will die as a result of the heat and of course eventually the earth will plunge into the sun and there will be no trace that the earth (or anything on it) every existed.  Furthermore, this scenario happened for no purpose at all.

So, if that happened could your worldview still be true?  Now, one could say that under the stated scenario it wouldn't much matter whether or not one's worldview is true or not as one would no longer be around to hold to it anyway.  That's true enough, but would the worldview be true, whether or not anyone still existed to believe in it?  Well, it would depend on several things of course.  But answering one question could help determine whether or not it could be true.  That question is.......Are human beings important?  If humanity isn't important, then their total purposeless annihilation isn't a problem for the correct worldview.  It would however be a problem for any worldview in which humankind has ultimate value.

For metaphysical naturalism and philosophical materialism the above scenario creates no problem at all.  In fact, most of those who adhere to these worldviews say that humanity will one day cease to exist, perhaps via the scenario described or perhaps a slower more gradual process, but humanity (and the universe itself) will one day be no more.

For any worldview rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition the above scenario would prove it to be false as humanity has value and importance in those worldviews.  In such a view humanity could not be destroyed for no purpose.  So, if it were they would be shown not to be true.

So let me go back to the naturalist and materialist for the moment.  Consider the title of this post.  "Is it still true?  And is that a problem?"  To the first question, as I've shown, they could easily answer yes.  Humanity's potential (and in fact probable) destruction proves to be no falsification to their worldview.  What about the second question?  Is that a problem?  It's not a problem for their worldview, but is it a problem that it's not a problem?  Perhaps it is.  It creates a problem if one holds to these worldviews while at the same time considering human beings to be important. 

The total annihilation of humanity creates a problem for a worldview that holds that humanity is important.  It doesn't if humanity is not important.

So the rather obvious question is "Is humanity important?"  If the answer to that is yes, then naturalism and materialism aren't true.  If the answer to that is no, then the Judeo-Christian traditions aren't true.

I say all this to point out that many people who hold to naturalism and materialism hold humanity to be important (others admit humans are not important).  However, to hold to both ideas is an absurdity as both can not be true.  Anyone who holds to one idea will have to logically reject the other.