Chapter2ChristianWorldview.docx

The Beginning of Wisdom:
An Introduction to Christian Thought and Life

2

Chapter 2: Evaluating Wisely

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

Chapter 3. Chapter 2: Evaluating Wisely By Jason Hiles and Anna Faith Smith

“Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.” —Proverbs 31:9 (English Standard Version)

Essential Questions

· How can one evaluate worldviews fairly?
· What are the essential elements of a worldview?
· What are the basic commitments of the major worldview families?

Introduction

Shortly after beginning to study worldviews, the careful student will realize that everyone has a worldview, and everything that humans think, say, and do flows out of an overarching vision of the world. This means that this paragraph and every other paragraph in this book are written from the perspective of a particular worldview. Similarly, the person who takes up worldview as a subject, reads this book, and begins to interact with the ideas found here is doing these things on the basis of his or her own worldview. The reader’s own worldview is shaping understandings and responses as the study progresses. Simple decisions about accepting or rejecting statements within the book result from personal convictions that are deeply rooted in a particular worldview. In short, the fact that everyone has a worldview means that no one thinks, speaks, or acts in ways that are entirely neutral. Rather, everyone lives in ways that are committed to deeply held understandings and convictions that operate at the level of a worldview.
How, then, should one decide which way of looking at the world and evaluating ideas about the world should be adopted? Proverbs 31:9 (quoted above) suggests that one will be wise if he or she learns to “judge righteously,” which means that a person should learn to evaluate the world and ideas about the world rightly. By learning to evaluate righteously, as the proverb suggests, individuals gain the wisdom needed to do righteous things consistently (e.g., “defend the rights of the poor and needy”) rather than acting in ways that are unrighteous (e.g., exploit the poor and disregard the needy).
This chapter focuses on learning to evaluate with wisdom by carefully considering the underlying worldview commitments a person is making when interacting with others’ ideas and proposals. It does so by exploring the ways that worldviews interact and compete with one another during the course of human interaction. The chapter also introduces the basic elements that make up a worldview and considers ways that worldview commitments can be tested to ensure that they are accurate and reliable.

Worldviews in Competition

People tend to hold their worldview commitments with what may be called universal intent. This means that they do not normally think that their deepest convictions merely apply to themselves in a personal and private way. Personal convictions surface when people interact with one another. During these interactions, the universal intent with which they hold their beliefs becomes obvious. This frequently happens when disagreements arise. For example, when a person tries to cut in line at a store’s checkout counter, people in the back of the line do not normally react as if their views about the matter are only a personal and private matter. Typically, they feel some urge to react negatively as if a universal rule has been broken. Some will roll their eyes, others will quietly murmur, and a few will verbally confront the individual who cut in line. However, no one believes that his or her convictions about such things only apply to the individual who holds them.
The same sort of response may be observed in a variety of other situations involving injustice or inappropriate conduct. Those who witness unjust behavior tend to react as if others should recognize that the behavior is unjust and that the offender should behave differently. Even those who claim that tolerance and acceptance must prevail at all points tend to become intolerant and unaccepting when others disagree. Simply stated, human action speaks louder than words on this matter. Everyone has a worldview and people tend to hold their personal worldview as if they expect others’ actions to align with their personal convictions at significant points.
To press this point a little further, note that worldviews compete in the marketplace of ideas daily. Those who speak into this marketplace do so because they intend to persuade others to embrace a particular understanding about some topic. And they hope to persuade others to value what they value and to align their thoughts and actions accordingly. Worldview commitments are commended through social media, cinema, music, newspapers, blogs, commercial advertising, talk radio, and so forth. Entire generations have been shaped by the power of television, movies, and the Internet because these media engage the senses powerfully at times when intellectual defenses have been lowered. A person normally goes to the movies, for example, in to be entertained. While enjoying this type of entertainment, people typically lower their guard and thus open themselves up to new ideas, often unconsciously. As a result, many drink deeply from the fountain of popular culture without consciously realizing that their values are being shaped by others’ views.
The crucial question this chapter takes up, then, is not “Who has a worldview?” but, rather, “How can one explore and evaluate worldview commitments fairly?” Because everyone has a worldview, and worldview assumptions shape human interaction at every point, developing the ability to recognize these assumptions and critically engage them is essential to living an examined life. This ability represents an important first step toward gaining self-awareness, self-understanding, and a capacity for self-examination.

Is It Possible to Evaluate Worldviews Fairly?

Worldview commitments frequently give rise to disagreements on particular issues, but it is more important at the start to delve into the underlying commitments that fuel disagreement rather than the issues themselves. This will require consideration of the basic elements of a worldview and an exploration of key criteria for evaluating a worldview. While evaluation is never entirely neutral, it is important to set forth some objective standards for analyzing basic worldview claims. In to make progress toward wisdom, a person must come to terms with the fact that worldviews shape every individual, including oneself and the communities that individuals form. Although no one is entirely neutral, to a large degree, objectivity is possible.
Neutrality normally is conceived of as a state in which a person is completely undecided about key issues, holds no convictions, and is unwilling to support any side in a conflict or disagreement. While this may be an ideal position for a referee at a sporting event or a judge who oversees traffic court, it is not a position that any human can presume to hold when it comes to worldviews. Some claim to be profoundly neutral but their style of life always betrays the fact that they live in ways that are very much committed in particular directions because of assumptions they hold at the deepest levels.
Objectivity, on the other hand, represents a goal that is, to some degree, attainable. It relates to fairness, evenhandedness, and an open mind that attempts to gain understanding of others’ views prior to assessment. Making progress toward objectivity requires a willingness to listen carefully, an ability to suppress personal biases and prejudices, and a concern for justice. It is possible to become increasingly objective even though it is not possible to be entirely neutral. For example, a person who does not believe that God exists is not neutral at all with respect to this central worldview assumption; however, the same person may believe that humans who believe in God should be free to gather each week in to worship him. This person is not neutral with respect to worldview commitments, but he or she remains objective enough to recognize that those who disagree should be granted the freedom to assemble and other freedoms necessary to live out their convictions.
This sort of objectivity is absolutely essential for productive dialogue about worldviews in spite of personal worldview commitments. Open-mindedness does not necessarily require that everyone involved in a conversation agree in the end; however, it does require care in listening to others when they express their views along with concern for their welfare and fair treatment.
Most people are not aware that they have deep underlying convictions until they are challenged in some way by someone whose assumptions differ from their own. Worldviews can be challenged in a variety of ways within social contexts. When one recognizes that a conversation partner is speaking based on convictions that differ substantially from one’s own, he or she must choose whether to accept those convictions and their implications. In to make wise decisions in these cases, knowledge and practical skill are necessary.

Elements of a Worldview

As noted in Chapter 1, worldviews begin to take shape from birth. Humans invariably begin the process of understanding themselves, other humans, and the world they inhabit upon entering the world. Understandings grow and take shape as people experience more of the world and reflect upon it. Of course, humanity as a whole is incredibly diverse in many ways, but, in some ways, humans exhibit a remarkable degree of similarity when it comes to basic experience and shared concern. For example, humans in all cultures, living at all times, have found it necessary to survive within a physical environment by securing food, shelter, and clothing. They do so, presumably, because they believe that self-preservation is of value. The fact that humans, as a species, have continued to survive throughout the centuries suggests that they also share a concern to preserve and perpetuate the larger race.
Men and women throughout the ages and across cultures have given expression to these basic concerns in various ways. Sometimes they are expressed in story or through art such as poetry, sculpture, or dance. At other times they are communicated more formally in a series of propositional statements that are carefully articulated as a philosophy, a theology, or an ethical system. One way or the other, when people give expression to basic human concerns, they are also giving expression to the fundamental elements that make up a worldview.
The following section outlines major categories of concern and the basic elements that make up a worldview. In what follows, these elements are expressed primarily as propositions for the sake of clarity and analysis. As these elements are unpacked throughout the remainder of the book, it should become clearer that they could be expressed in several other ways as well, including the stories one tells, the games one plays, and the art one makes.

Ultimate Reality

Arguably the most fundamental and definitive of all worldview commitments relates to the nature of 

. Ultimate reality refers to the absolute, supreme, and final person, power, principle, or substance underlying the universe. Conceptions of ultimate reality vary widely, but there are three fundamental ways of defining what is ultimately real:
1. A personal god or gods,
2. An impersonal force or principle, and
3. Nothing exists beyond the present space-matter-time-energy continuum.
Historically, as men and women have contemplated themselves and the world in which they live, they have raised a profound question: What is ultimately real? This question appears to stem from a nearly universal concern to understand the nature of the universe at the deepest levels. Even when an individual concludes that the physical universe is real, he or she has not settled questions about reality beyond what can be perceived through the senses. Raising the question of ultimate reality is like asking if God exists. If a person concludes that something or someone exists beyond the physical universe, that person’s view of the world will be shaped deeply by that conclusion. Similarly, although in opposite ways, a person’s view of the world will be shaped deeply if he or she concludes that nothing exists beyond the present space-matter-time-energy continuum that may be observed through the senses.
Basic answers to the question of ultimate reality fall into three major categories that give shape to what will be described below as worldview families. At this point, it is necessary to outline the major options for responding to questions about the nature of ultimate reality. One person may assume that nothing exists beyond the physical world. Another person may assume that something exists beyond the physical world as a spiritual reality, but that the something that exists is neither personal or relational. Similarly, one may believe that a powerful, personal being exists beyond the physical world. The precise nature of this divine being, or multiple beings in some cases, varies widely from worldview to worldview.
Each of these basic assumptions must be fleshed out more extensively within the context of a particular worldview. An individual who believes in a personal divine being must also consider whether that being is singular or plural, benevolent or evil, similar to humans or altogether different, finite or infinite, and how that divine being relates to human beings if at all. No matter what one believes about the nature of ultimate reality, it is important to note that the implications of this fundamental worldview commitment are significant because they substantially shape all the other elements of a worldview. Questions about human nature and 

, for instance, are intimately connected to this element.

Nature of the Universe

A second major element of worldviews stems from questions about the world that humans inhabit. Here, the focus is on the known universe and the investigation of its nature, but understandings at this point overlap significantly with conceptions of ultimate reality. Simply stated, understandings about the relationship between the physical universe and ultimate reality deeply shape convictions about the nature and purpose of the world. Essentially, human beings must answer the question: What is the nature of the universe, and how does it relate to whatever is ultimately real? Several related questions may be raised as well. Is the origin of the universe natural or supernatural? And, why does the universe seem to be ly rather than chaotic?
Also, it is important to consider whether the universe is a closed system or an open system that can be influenced significantly by the spiritual world. One possible response envisions a world that is merely physical in the sense that nothing exists beyond the material universe. In this view, the universe is conceived as a closed system that cannot be influenced by external forces or factors because nothing external to the system exists. This perspective leaves no room for miracles, angelic activity, or divine intervention.
By contrast one may conceive of the universe as a system that is open to spiritual influence. This view more naturally lends itself to an understanding of the universe in which God and other spiritual beings can play a decisive role in the world and in human affairs. This view also raises further questions about the nature of spiritual beings and their intentions in influencing worldly affairs. In either view, it is not difficult to see how an individual’s answer to this question relates to assumptions about ultimate reality.

Human Nature

A third major element of any worldview relates to questions about what it means to be human. Here, one may question what humans are made of (bodies, souls, or a body-soul complex), how they relate to the physical universe, and how they relate to the spiritual world if any such thing exists. These questions may also reach backward by considering origins or focus on the present by considering purpose. Similarly, they may look forward to the future by considering destiny.
When reflecting on issues related to humanity, it quickly becomes obvious that one’s fundamental convictions about ultimate reality bear directly on concerns about human origins, purpose, and destiny. To offer one example, in the absence of a personal, divine creator, an individual must account for human origins in a way that focuses on the natural world. Some who deny the existence of a divine creator have attempted to explain humans as the product of chance and blind forces within the natural world. According to this view, humans have not been created purposefully and, therefore, cannot hope to discover purpose within the natural . Instead, men and women must create purpose for themselves and decide what that purpose entails. Ultimately, then, humans need to fulfill the purpose they have devised within their lifetimes because they cease to exist when their physical bodies expire. In such cases, a consistent explanation of ultimate reality and human origins, purpose, and destiny must be confined to the physical universe.
By contrast, a worldview that makes reference to God may trace human origins to a personal creator who designed humans for specific purposes. These purposes vary widely, depending on one’s understanding of the creator’s nature and purpose. But, again, assumptions about the existence and nature of the creator will be closely connected to assumptions about human origins and purpose. This type of worldview may also involve the possibility of life after death as well as reward or punishment, depending on how individuals respond to the creator’s purposes and plans. In such cases, the prospect of reward and punishment tends to guide ethical reasoning. Typically, those who believe that a personal divine being exists conceive of human nature and purpose with direct reference to that being’s design and final judgment about what a person has done during the course of his or her life.

Knowledge

A fourth major worldview element relates to the nature of knowledge, reliable sources of knowledge, and the limitations of knowledge. Here, central issues include questions about what genuinely constitutes knowledge, which sources of knowledge are trustworthy, and what can be known. Major questions that arise in connection with this element include:
· What is truth?
· Which sources of knowledge, if any, are reliable?
· What roles do the five senses, memory, introspection, and reason play in the acquisition of knowledge?
· Are faith and reason compatible?
· Can anyone know truth in an absolute and objective way?
A great deal is at stake in answering questions about knowledge because the way people answer them determines which data they regard as plausible and, to some extent, how they interpret that data.
Significant attention has been focused on these issues throughout the modern era because of an increased emphasis on rational thought and scientific observation. This has also resulted from growing skepticism about the certainty of knowledge in general and increased doubts about the reliability of religious knowledge such as divine revelation. Divine revelation refers to the notion that God has made himself known, or revealed himself, to human beings. If God truly has communicated to humans, then what he has made known bears more authority than merely human ideas and opinions; however, if God has not made himself known in any way, then humans enjoy significant autonomy and authority over their lives because they are the highest form of intellectual life on the planet. Challenges are significant for this perspective because human opinion varies widely, and no single person seems to have the right to tell all others what is appropriate in a world where it is not possible to appeal to God and what he has revealed about right and wrong.
As with other major worldview elements, convictions about knowledge vary depending on assumptions about ultimate reality, the universe, and humanity. For instance, answers to the question “Is belief in God rational?” will differ significantly depending on convictions about the nature of ultimate reality. If an individual does not believe that God exists, it is unlikely that the individual will believe that divine revelation is possible. As will become obvious in subsequent chapters, the Christian worldview entails the convictions that God exists, he is capable of communication, and he has spoken clearly through the Bible because he desires to make himself known to human beings and to be known by them.
At times, the authority and reliability of the Bible is dismissed outright by those who do not embrace the Christian worldview before they consider its claims first hand. While some suggest that this is a rational response to the Christian Scriptures, it is difficult to understand how dismissive attitudes toward the Bible can be rational when they are poorly informed. Dismissing a text that has proven foundational to Western civilization and widely read by intelligent men and women for centuries suggests that some such decisions are rooted in worldview assumptions rather than any inadequacies within the Bible per se. In other words, what one counts as knowledge and what one discounts will depend significantly on one’s overarching view of the world.
Reliability of Scripture
The Christian worldview affirms the Bible as God’s Word and regards it to be the product of God who inspired the text of Scripture through human authors who “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). For these reasons, Christians believe that the Bible is the ultimate authority in all matters upon which it touches and is reliable in everything it affirms.
Christians have good reasons to believe that the text of Scripture is reliable and trustworthy including a strong manuscript tradition, remarkable efforts throughout history to preserve the Scriptures, the historical accuracy of its contents, and the uncanny accuracy of certain prophetic passages. Regardless, Christians generally trust the contents of Scripture because, as they have read it, they have personally encountered Jesus Christ and come face-to-face with the compelling teachings and flawless character that marked his ministry.
The claims that Jesus makes about himself in Scripture, coupled with the extraordinary story of his death, burial, and resurrection, offers a powerful antidote to contemporary skepticism. One must experience the wisdom and the power of Jesus Christ personally in to make sense of the compelling nature of the Christian way of life. Thus, rather than offering a lengthy argument for the reliability of the Bible, the authors of this textbook encourage readers to take it up and to read it themselves in to make an informed decision about it. Its authority is assumed throughout the material that follows.
Convictions about legitimate types and sources of knowledge are central to what can be called a plausibility structure. A 

 is a mental framework that functions like a filter by determining what a person counts as genuine knowledge and what should be disregarded. In this way, plausibility structures play a significant role as people attempt to make sense of the world and decide how to live within it. Because divinely inspired writings are unlikely to make it through a plausibility structure that doubts the existence of a divine author, a person who believes that belief in God is irrational will not likely consider Scripture to be a weighty source of knowledge.
In to grow in self-awareness and make progress toward self-understanding, it is critical for individuals to wrestle honestly with the issue of knowledge. An honest answer to the simple question, “How do I know what I know?” may prove a little unnerving initially, but honest answers are indispensable if one intends to get to the bottom of the basic convictions that shape his or her thought and behavior each day. In many cases people uncritically adopt the opinions and beliefs of their family and friends, for better or for worse. Without carefully considering how conclusions have been reached, it will be difficult to revisit those conclusions in a critical and constructive way.

Ethics

Another key element of a worldview relates to 

. Essentially, ethics may be understood as the systematic study of moral principles that guide human behavior. As an individual contemplates the difference between right and wrong, that person draws on deeply held values that flow out of a particular worldview. These values serve as criteria for evaluating particular actions and the morality of the people who perform them. Whatever one decides about ethical matters, those decisions will guide ethical reasoning and behavior.
Experience and intuition suggest that human beings are deeply moral creatures who are intensely interested in matters of right and wrong, especially those matters in which they have a vested interest. Moral conviction represents a strong impulse that has fueled major social changes such as the abolition of slavery in the United States and the end of apartheid in South Africa. But even in situations that do not permit careful reflection on ethical principles, humans demonstrate ethical impulses. Many, for example, sense a need to silence rowdy youth in movie theaters, report drunk drivers, contact child services at the first sign of abuse, and return library books on time, or they feel guilty for failing to do so. While motives for such activities vary somewhat from case to case, conduct of this sort can be explained in part by the fact that some actions just seem right, and others just seem wrong.
The study of ethics quickly raises questions that relate to the field of knowledge. Distinguishing right from wrong depends significantly on determining which sources of moral knowledge are reliable and authoritative. For instance, before drivers decide to hit the brakes when approaching a crosswalk full of pedestrians, they have already made up their minds about several issues that are more fundamental than stopping the car. The drivers have decided that the lives of those crossing the street are of value and that they bear responsibility for protecting those lives. The drivers have also determined that their desire to arrive at a destination quickly is not more significant than the pedestrians in front of them or their personal responsibility to protect them. But how do drivers know the relative value of human life and the nature of their responsibilities? The sort of understandings that impel drivers to hit their brakes are rooted deeply in values that stem from fundamental worldview assumptions.
Ethical determinations are closely connected to other worldview commitments; however, in the case of ethics, self-interest can become a major obstacle to consistent reflection and genuine understanding. People are not always as concerned about distinguishing right from wrong as they are about excusing and defending their choices. Humans are wonderfully complex creatures whose lives are driven by what they love and desire as much as what they know and understand. Honest self-examination, although difficult, is essential for gaining ethical knowledge and a clear understanding of one’s true moral character.

Purpose

One final worldview element worthy of mention relates to the underlying purpose for the existence and lives of human beings and the larger world. Worldviews typically entail concern about purpose as it relates in some measure to the world but especially as it relates to humanity. In the context of worldview studies, purpose refers to the underlying reason for which something was created and the ends for which it currently exists. Discerning the purpose of some thing or of a living creature can provide great insight into its nature and significance. For this reason, purpose has long been regarded as a matter of perennial concern among humans who cannot seem to resist asking, “Why are we here?,” and “What should we be doing with our lives?”
Purpose also provides a means of evaluation. For example, if one wants to determine whether a race car is a good race car or a bad race car, it will be important to decide the chief end or goal of a race car. If the chief end of a race car is to win races against other cars, then the relative goodness of any particular race car depends on the car’s ability to win races. Assuming the race car was not created for the purpose of providing transportation to and from the grocery store or for hauling boats to the lake, then evaluation of the race car should relate primarily to the winning of races; therefore, a race car that wins races may be considered a better race car than one that does not, because winning races fulfills the purpose for which the car was designed.
Although the matter becomes more complex when it comes to people, considering the purpose for human existence is similarly essential for evaluating individual lives including one’s own. As with other worldview elements, assumptions about purpose vary widely from worldview to worldview. When considering a basic question such as “Why are we here?,” a person will typically respond with some reference to other convictions related to ultimate concern, the nature of the universe, and …