Sooner rather than later, shift the conversation from world-views to foundation level. That's where I want the convo to go anyway!
(Note: Ken defines world-views as based on foundations, whereas I define worldviews as including foundations, but he’s probably more correct. Anyway this foundational distinction is very helpful.)
If people are attacking you for your world-views (about say, abortion, gender, love), it only means they think you are inconsistent with THEIR foundation. But shift the conversation to foundations to help them see that you are very consistent with YOUR Biblical foundation, and they should be able to give you some credit for that.
And then let them ask, well WHOSE foundation is the right one, God’s word or man’s word...
The word of God really shines as an objectively reliable foundation. We have objective evidence of its historical reliability and its divine revelation. See apologetics for how we know the Bible is reliable (Core Stuff).
Compare that with how we know if naturalism is reliable…
.Naturalism refuses to acknowledge any supernatural phenomena, they only admit half the data.
.Don’t believe the hype about ‘science is self-correcting’ because it’s often biased by peer pressure, and financial pressure to conform, wherever scientists are wedded to their own unquestioned interpretation (evolution.)
.Note the crucial difference between observational science (which is simply recorded data), and historical ‘science’ which depends on interpretations of measured data. The Biblical interpretations work just as well with observations as any other interpretation, in fact better - eg it explains Design better, genetic entropy better, biology, geology, anthropology, cosmology, historical archaeology & manuscript evidences... better.
Anyway, if your protagonists don’t see that the foundations are different, they’ll not see why our world-views disagree with them, and that's why they might think we're just illogical, and ascribe some motive to us, like we must be hateful / primitive / conspiracy theorists.
But in fact we’re none of those things, our world-views logically come from a different (better, more solid/good/life-giving, but different) foundation, and one worthy of their consideration too. If they DO see that, they should be able to give us a little credit. If they DON'T, well that would be inconsistent of them.