An Introduction to Christian Worldview: Pursuing God's Perspective (PDF)

“This book offers a refreshing update of Christian worldview teaching for students of Scripture. It is rigorous and deep for serious students, yet accessible for the popular reader who wants to live a muscular Christian faith in our pluralistic marketplace of world-and-life views. One of my favorit...

“This book offers a refreshing update of Christian worldview teaching for students of Scripture. It is rigorous and deep for serious students, yet accessible for the popular reader who wants to live a muscular Christian faith in our pluralistic marketplace of world-and-life views. One of my favorite aspects of this book is its real world examples of worldview thinking and analysis from Scripture, life, entertainment, and culture—especially movies!” Brian Godawa, author of Hollywood Worldviews “It’s all here: a stellar introduction to (1) the concept of worldview, (2) the contour, content, and defense of the Christian worldview, and (3) explanation and critique of alternate secular and religious worldviews. There is little new here, but new notions of basic Christian belief and practice are often misleading and sometimes profoundly false. Here the truths of Christian faith gleam with clarity and conviction. I’m impressed.” James W. Sire, author of The Universe Next Door and Apologetics Beyond Reason “It’s become fashionable in some circles to downplay the importance of worldview. An Introduction to Christian Worldview counters this tendency by offering a clear apologia for the value of thoughtful worldview construction and evaluation to Christian faith. Moreover, it provides a concrete comparison of a Christian worldview to alternative models found in philosophical systems and world religions. The authors make their ideas readily accessible to readers, and it is a valuable resource for all Christians who desire a deeper understanding of the conceptual foundations of our faith.” Steve Wilkens, professor of philosophy and ethics, Azusa Pacific University APOLLOS (an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press) 36 Causton Street, London SW1P 4ST, England Email: [email protected] Website: www.ivpbooks.com © Tawa J. Anderson, W. Michael Clark and David Naugle 2017 Tawa J. Anderson, W. Michael Clark and David Naugle have asserted their rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher or the Copyright Licensing Agency. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version (Anglicized edition). Copyright © 1979, 1984, 2011 by Biblica (formerly International Bible Society). Used by permission of Hodder & Stoughton Publishers, an Hachette UK company. All rights reserved. ‘NIV’ is a registered trademark of Biblica (formerly International Bible Society). UK trademark number 1448790. First published 2017 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: 978–1–78359–597–6 eBook ISBN: 978–1–78359–598–3 Typeset in the United States of America Printed in Great Britain by Ashford Colour Press Ltd, Gosport, Hampshire eBook by CRB Associates, Potterhanworth, Lincolnshire Inter-Varsity Press publishes Christian books that are true to the Bible and that communicate the gospel, develop discipleship and strengthen the church for its mission in the world. IVP originated within the Inter-Varsity Fellowship, now the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship, a student movement connecting Christian Unions in universities and colleges throughout Great Britain, and a member movement of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. Website: www.uccf.org.uk. That historic association is maintained, and all senior IVP staff and committee members subscribe to the UCCF Basis of Faith.  Tawa Anderson To Mataeo, my beloved son, God’s gift—may you always seek to know and live by God’s perspective, whatever the world throws your way Michael Clark To Jenny, Scout, Brooks, Tayte, and Sonora David Naugle To Deemie, Courtney, Mark, and Kuyper  CONTENTS Acknowledgments Introduction: Worldview Matters PART I: INTRODUCING WORLDVIEW 1. What Is Worldview? 2. The Importance and Impact of Worldview 3. Worldview Analysis PART II: CONTOURS OF A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW 4. The Narrative Contours of a Christian Worldview 5. The Propositional Contours of a Christian Worldview 6. Testing a Christian Worldview PART III: ANALYZING WORLDVIEWS 7. Western Philosophical Alternatives 8. Global Religious Alternatives Conclusion: Pursuing (and Living) God’s Perspective in a Pluralistic World Select Bibliography Notes Search Names for Authors Search Items for Subjects Search Terms for Scripture References  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Coauthoring a book is like playing in a string quartet: it’s a wonderful interplay of talented artists who depend on a number of additional folks who make the whole work possible. We would like to thank some of the numerous teachers, guides, partners, friends, and encouragers who have helped bring this project to fruition. First, we are indebted to the worldview influence of academics who have gone before us. The writings of Abraham Kuyper, Al Wolters, James Sire, Michael Goheen, and many others have transformed our thinking. The classroom impact of Ted Cabal, James Chancellor, Jim Parker, and Mark Coppenger has helped refine our study of worldview comparison and analysis. Second, this book project began with the encouragement and prompting of the retired dean of the Hobbs College of Theology and Ministry at Oklahoma Baptist University, Dr. Mark McClellan. Mark encouraged a group of young faculty to explore writing their own material for a January term worldview course on campus. Without his leadership and prompting, the project would never have been conceived. Third, we thank Dr. Louima Lilite, tenor extraordinaire and theological guru, for his partnership in the project. Louima has spilled blood, sweat, tears, and considerable ink to help make this book a reality. Fourth, we thank external reviewers and commentators: Jamie Dew, James Sire, and other anonymous contributors. Our work has been strengthened by your insights and critiques. Fifth, we thank many students and colleagues who have provided private feedback, pointing out errors, inconsistencies, and areas for improvement; of those, a special mention to James Walters, Heidi Mann, Gunner Briscoe, Nicholas Hoffsommer, and Jonathan White for their valuable contributions. Sixth, we thank the editorial and artistic team at IVP Academic, who have been a thorough (and professional) pleasure to work with throughout this lengthy project. To Andy Le Peau (now retired)—thank you for taking on the project and buying into the vision of what we were trying to accomplish! To Dan Reid— thank you for taking over the project mid-stream and shepherding us through to the finish line. Finally, we thank our families, who have proven to be long-suffering during the many nights, days off, and vacations that have been consumed with research, writing, revising, reconceiving, rewriting, and revising again. Your love and patience (especially that of our wonderful wives, Vanessa, Jenny, and Deemie) has been a tremendous example of the patient and gracious love of God. We thank you for standing alongside us throughout.  INTRODUCTION WORLDVIEW MATTERS Everybody operates upon a philosophy in life, a worldview that defines for them the way the world works and how they know things and how they ought to behave. So philosophy is ultimately a practical reality for all of us. In this sense, everyone is a philosopher; some are just more aware of it than others. BRIAN GODAWA Christianity is a world and life view and not simply a series of unrelated doctrines. Christianity includes all of life. Every realm of knowledge, every aspect of life and every facet of the universe find their place and their answer within Christianity. It is a system of truth enveloping the entire world in its grasp. EDWIN RIAN Worldview is a contentious term. Some philosophers complain that it has become an abused and misused term. Others complain that worldview is regretfully neglected and overlooked in philosophical and theological conversations. Others still insist that its use is on the rise, that it has not yet hit its heyday. Still others do not even know what the concept is all about. Finally, some assert that worldview is simply an unhelpful term that can be dispensed with altogether without any profound loss. We are convinced that “worldview matters” matter. As the chapters that follow will make clear, we believe that thinking worldview- ishly is essential for responsible, intentional Christian discipleship. “All truth is God’s truth.” Arthur Holmes’s ringing words exhort institutions 1 of Christian higher education to pursue an integrated Christian worldview throughout their curricula. God is truth, and what God sees is what is true and real. As followers of God, we likewise seek acquaintance and familiarity with truth. To that end, we pursue God’s perspective on the world, for his perspective is true, reliable, and trustworthy. We desire to see things the way that God sees them—to understand ourselves, our sin, our redemption, our relationship with Christ, our relationship with fellow human beings and the rest of creation, our surroundings, and our terrestrial ball the way that God sees, understands, and knows things to be. We do not presume to have a corner on all of God’s truth; we take seriously the remonstration delivered through the prophet Isaiah: “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. (Is 55:8) Yet we strive and strain forward, alongside the apostle Paul (Phil 3:14), to attain a truer understanding of God, ourselves, and our world. God’s perspective on the world is, as chapter one will make clear, another way of designating God’s worldview or the divine worldview. The goal of the thoughtful Christian is to pursue God’s perspective—that is, to intentionally and consciously cultivate a Christian worldview. Our goal of becoming Christlike includes our goal of embracing God’s perspective, seeing the world the way God sees the world. The goal is not Icarus’s prideful sailing into the sun or Satan’s rebellious inclination to usurp the divine throne or Adam’s misguided desire to attain that which is forbidden; rather, our goal resembles a child’s devoted desire to become like his heavenly Father. This book, then, is an appeal for a continued revival in Christian worldview thinking. The book is split into three parts of approximately equal length. Part one, authored by Tawa Anderson, focuses on the theoretical side of worldview thinking. Chapter one explores the concept of worldview itself, tracing its philosophical origins and development, basic components, and universal existence. Four core worldview questions are identified as the heart of every individual and corporate worldview: (1) What is our nature? (2) What is our world? (3) What is our problem? (4) What is our end? Chapter two identifies the importance and impact of worldview on the thoughts and actions of human persons. Anderson argues that worldview exerts considerable influence through confirmation bias, experiential accommodation, the pool of live options, and life motivation. Six benefits of intentional worldview thinking are tentatively identified and explored. Chapter three outlines the process of worldview analysis, identifying three primary criteria that can help gauge the truthfulness of various worldviews and their individual components—internal, external, and existential consistency. Part two, authored by David Naugle, expounds on the contours of a specifically Christian worldview. Chapter four outlines the narrative core of the Christian story—creation, fall, redemption, and glorification. Chapter five approaches Christian worldview through the lenses of our four core worldview questions. Chapter six applies our three criteria for worldview analysis to Christian worldview, assessing how well it stands up to rational scrutiny. Part three, authored by Michael Clark, engages in comparative worldview analysis. Chapter seven explores three prominent Western philosophical worldview alternatives (deism, naturalism, and postmodernism), comparing them to a Christian worldview and applying the three worldview tests. Chapter eight explores two influential global religious worldview alternatives (Hinduism and Islam), comparing them to a Christian worldview and applying the worldview tests. The goal of these chapters is threefold: to better understand these significant worldviews, to subject them to intentional analysis, and to help the reader begin to gain competence at identifying worldview components and alternatives expressed by others. We then close with reflections on pursuing and living out a Christian worldview, God’s perspective, in our complex pluralistic world. Each of us writes unapologetically from within the orthodox Christian tradition. We have been transformed through our relationship with Jesus Christ and are persuaded that Christianity is true—not just true for us but true for all people at all times in all places. We have also been greatly stretched and formed by intentional worldview thought and consideration. Our hope and prayer is that you will be challenged, convicted, exhorted, and excited by the chapters that follow. In 2012, this project began as a way to help freshmen at Oklahoma Baptist University (OBU) pursue a biblical worldview in light of the countless worldviews that vie for their hearts. As the collaborators for the book and the reach of the book have expanded beyond the walls of OBU, our prayer remains the same: we pray that readers will be stirred to immerse themselves in God’s Word and allow it to transform their hearts and minds rather than allow the world to shape them into its image. The Christian worldview centers on Jesus of Nazareth, the God-man who was born over two thousand years ago in a humble stable in Bethlehem, lived a perfectly sinless life, was crucified on a Roman cross, and was raised from the dead in Jerusalem. We, as Christians, have embraced Jesus as Messiah and Lord. He has redeemed us, provided for us, and loved us constantly despite our flaws and failures. It is to him, and to his glory, that this book is both dedicated and devoted.  PART I INTRODUCING WORLDVIEW  1 WHAT IS WORLDVIEW? The unexamined life is not worth living. SOCRATES Three friends once went to a nature preserve in the African Serengeti and experienced the majestic beauty and diversity of native African wildlife—zebra, elephant, gazelle, lion, and rhinoceros. Each was awestruck by the diversity of creatures observed. The first friend, John Luther, commented boldly: “The Lord God has definitely created an amazing array of creatures that sing his praises and declare his glory to the ends of the earth, has he not?” The second friend, Charles Dawkins, immediately responded: “An amazing array of creatures, to be sure. But you err, my good man, in ascribing their existence to a Creator. No, these incredible animals are the result of the unguided, purposeless combination of random mutation and natural selection. We too are the product of a natural evolutionary process. Indeed, we are no different from the creatures that we see.” The third friend, Shirley Chopra, serenely replied: “I pray you both would be enlightened to the full reality disclosed by our brothers and sisters on the nature preserve. For they too bear the same spark of divinity that lies within you and me. Do you not sense them calling to you, seeking to communicate with your spirit? We are all potential gods and goddesses; we just need to awaken to our heightened state and take hold of the possibilities that lie before us.” The three friends see the same animals within the same nature preserve. Thus, they experience the same objective truth. Nevertheless, due to their vastly different perspectives, the three friends see different things. Why? Simply put, John, Charles, and Shirley are experiencing a clash of worldviews. A worldview, as we will define it, is the conceptual lens through which we see, understand, and interpret the world and our place within it. The three safari friends wear different worldview glasses; thus, although they see the same thing, they actually see the world and their place within it very differently. In 1999, the blockbuster film The Matrix was released. It was followed by two sequels in 2003 and ranks as one of Hollywood’s most successful trilogies. The Matrix (1999) envisions a hypothetical futuristic scenario where humans have made increasingly sophisticated computers, complete with artificial intelligence. Eventually, the computers develop sufficient independent intelligence to wage war against their human creators. The computers win the battle and subsequently enslave the human race. Humans, however, are generally oblivious to this reality. Why? Because they are trapped in the Matrix. The world that people experience is an illusion—the result of an intricate computer simulation. In the real world, computers breed human beings in order to hook them up to machines and suck the heat and energy out of their bodies. The real world sees human bodies grown in vast fields, hooked up to electrical inputs to harvest their resources, and also linked to visual simulators that treat them to a virtual reality. This virtual reality resembles human life on earth as we know it (in 1999, when the movie was released). The human beings attached to these machines have the vivid experience of working normal jobs, having relationships, and so forth. The virtual reality is so compelling that people do not realize they are being manipulated and deceived. However, a group of humans who have been awakened to the true nature of reality wage a quiet rebellion against the Matrix. In the movie, the focus is on Thomas Anderson (aka Neo), a computer hacker who questions his reality but has no concept of the true world. Morpheus and Trinity, two “liberated” humans, seek to enlighten Neo. They offer him two pills: one will return him to his virtual reality life; the other will show him what is really real. Neo famously takes the red pill, which opens his eyes to the illusion, and his world is forever changed. He will never look at things the same way again. He used to have one sense of objective reality but now has a very different perspective. Neo now sees the world through a new lens, a new theoretical structure. Basically, he has a new worldview. 1.1 Weltanschauung: The Origin of Worldview Thought The English term worldview is derived from the German Weltanschauung, a compound word (Welt = world + Anschauung = view or outlook) first used by Immanuel Kant to describe an individual’s sensory perception of the world. The term spread quickly in German idealist philosophy “to refer to an intellectual conception of the universe from the perspective of a human knower.” In the late 1 eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, German philosophers used Weltanschauung increasingly for the concept of answering pivotal questions regarding life, the universe, and everything. Very quickly, other German thinkers —von Ranke (history), Wagner (music), Feuerbach (theology), and von Humboldt (physics)—applied Weltanschauung to their own disciplines. Furthermore, Weltanschauung was quickly adopted in other European countries, either as a loanword or translated into the local language. The value of worldview language and thought was quickly recognized across disciplines and languages so that “since its inception in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgment in 1790, the notion of Weltanschauung has become one of the central intellectual conceptions in contemporary thought and culture.” 2 The roots of worldview thought are in philosophy. Nonetheless, worldview has become integral to other disciplines as well. Michael Polanyi, Thomas Kuhn, and Imre Lakatos have been instrumental in applying worldview thought to the natural sciences. Psychologists, including Freud and Jung, have utilized worldview terminology and thought. Worldview has gained importance in sociology, particularly as sociologists like Karl Mannheim and Peter Berger have raised awareness of the pretheoretical construction of individual worldviews. Other than philosophy, the discipline that has been most influenced by worldview thought is cultural anthropology. In the mid-1900s, Robert Redfield identified culturally prevalent worldviews, arguing that worldview “is the way a people characteristically look outward upon the universe.” He distinguished worldview from culture and ethos, suggesting that worldview “is an arrangement of things looked out upon, things in first instance conceived of as existing.” 3 Redfield suggested common components of worldview—distinction between self and others, distinction between man and not-man, and view of birth and death. Michael Kearney, writing a generation after Redfield, continues to draw out the importance of worldview for cultural anthropologists. A cultural worldview, according to Kearney, is “a set of images and assumptions about the world” and includes components of self and other, relationship (between self and other humans and nonhumans), classification, causality, and space and time. 4 Anthropologist Paul Hiebert defines worldview as “the fundamental cognitive, affective, and evaluative presuppositions a group of people make about the nature of things, and which they use to order their lives.” Hiebert sees 5 cognitive, affective, and moral aspects to worldview and identifies six worldview functions. Hiebert argues that the transformation of the 6 nonbeliever’s underlying worldview lies at the core of the missionary task. The importance of worldview thought in other disciplines cannot obscure its centrality in philosophy. It was particularly prominent in the work of nineteenth- century German philosophers, including Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Schelling, Georg Hegel, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Worldview thought and development continued in twentieth-century philosophy, with significant contributions from Edmund Husserl, Karl Jaspers, Martin Heidegger, Donald Davidson, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Worldview has been particularly prominent in Christian philosophy since the late nineteenth century. James Orr, Abraham Kuyper, and Herman Dooyeweerd were instrumental in bringing worldview into the evangelical Christian conversation. For Orr, seeing Christianity as a worldview helps focus philosophical discussion and debate. He argues that disagreement between Christians and non-Christians is not a matter of a particular doctrine or belief but a matter of underlying worldviews. The influence of Orr and other Christian philosophers can be discerned in this text, including James Olthuis, James Sire, Ronald Nash, David Naugle, Michael Goheen, Ken Samples, Arthur Holmes, Andrew Hoffecker, Doug Groothuis, Doug Huffman, Norm Geisler, and Brian Walsh. REFLECTION QUESTIONS 1. In the opening story, the three friends see the same animals but different realities. What are some other situations where you think people with different worldviews would interpret reality differently? 2. Why do you think worldview has had so much more prominence in philosophy than in other academic disciplines? 1.2 Christian Worldview Defined For the purposes of this book, the concept of worldview will be approached from the perspective of Christian philosophy and education. We acknowledge the existence and value of alternative conceptions of worldview and believe that they have their rightful place within other disciplines. For example, a student preparing for foreign missions would be well advised to focus on Paul Hiebert’s missiological exposition of worldview and to learn from what cultural anthropologists Michael Kearney and Robert Redfield have to say about worldview. Our primary purposes, however, are neither missiological nor anthropological. Rather, we are concerned with the holistic intellectual-spiritual formation of the Christian student—to nurture students toward loving the Lord our God with all their hearts, souls, minds, and strength. We are convinced that learning to think in terms of worldview can help students grow in their love for God. What, then, is a worldview, what does it look like, and why does it matter? 1.2.1 What is worldview? We have defined worldview, provisionally, as “the conceptual lens through which we see, understand, and interpret the world and our place within it.” There is, however, a multitude of ways to define and explain worldview; we will survey a few of them for helpful insights. Steven Cowan and James Spiegel define worldview as “a set of beliefs, values, and presuppositions concerning life’s most fundamental issues.” They argue 7 that the central goal of philosophy is constructing and developing a comprehensive worldview. For example, if you ask about the philosophy of René Descartes or David Hume or Socrates, what you are really asking is, what is their worldview? From this perspective, worldview is primarily an intellectual construction, a rational system of belief. Worldview certainly has a rational component. If nothing else, worldview necessarily involves an understanding of the world that can be expressed in terms of intellectual propositions. It is possible, however, to overintellectualize 8 worldview and to think of it strictly in terms of intellectual propositions or rational systems. When this happens, worldview is equated to a formal philosophical system and becomes an abstract concept that seems applicable only to an educated elite. More problematically, a strictly rationalistic presentation of worldview thinking misconstrues the nature of human beings by suggesting that we are primarily or exclusively thinking beings. There is no doubt that we are indeed thinking beings. Our ability to conceptualize, to theorize, to reflect, and to synthesize is an essential and nonnegotiable element of human nature. The problem arises with the implication that human beings approach the world primarily or exclusively rationally, evaluating competing truth claims and embracing those that they are convinced are the most logical and rationally compelling. It seems instead that our worldview is most commonly formed (at least initially) without intellectual propositions or rational deliberation. A purely rationalistic picture of human beings seems to miss the prerational (or pretheoretical) and sometimes nonrational nature of worldview and worldview formation. 1.2.2 James Sire’s understanding of worldview. James Sire, arguably the most influential evangelical worldview proponent over the past two generations, acknowledges that his early worldview thinking was stunted by hyperrationalism. His classic text, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, is currently in its fifth edition. The first three editions focused on worldview as primarily a set of basic concepts or intellectual presuppositions. 9 After rethinking his approach, Sire thoroughly revised his understanding and explanation of worldview. Sire no longer understands or explains worldview in terms of philosophical propositions alone. Instead, he provides a comprehensive and holistic definition: A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being. 10 Sire’s definition is helpful on several levels and deserves to be unpacked. 1.2.2.1 A matter of the heart. First, Sire notes that worldview is not simply a set of intellectual or rational ideas but rather reflects a “commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart.” The heart, on this understanding, represents the center of the human person. David Naugle notes that when worldview is reinterpreted in light of the doctrine of the heart, not only is its true source located, but it becomes a richer concept than its philosophical counterpart, being more than just a reference to an abstract thesis about reality, but an Hebraic expression of the existential condition of the whole person. 11 Many people are relatively unconscious of their worldview assumptions because they have developed these commitments internally and embraced them as orientations of the heart. 1.2.2.2 Propositions or narratives. Second, Sire notes that worldview can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions. There has been a tendency in modern Western philosophy to reduce worldview beliefs to a propositional format, a tendency that certainly has its benefits. In reality, however, the philosophical and religious beliefs of human beings are more commonly shared and passed down through story, not through a set of philosophical propositions. We are storied creatures, responding more readily to narrative than to doctrine. From a Christian perspective, it is worth noting that the Scriptures are predominantly narrative in form. Jesus of Nazareth preferred to teach through story, utilizing the unique teaching tool of parables—brief narratives packing a powerful rhetorical punch. Thus, while Sire notes that worldview can take a narrative or a propositional format, for the vast majority of people past and present, worldview is narrative in structure. 1.2.2.3 True, false, and in between. Third, Sire observes that our worldview presumptions may be true, partially true, or entirely false. We each hold a variety of worldview beliefs, but merely holding these beliefs does not make them true. The Christian understanding that all human beings are fallen and sinful gives us reason for significant pause and epistemological humility. Knowing that we are fallen creatures and that we do not have the mind of God reminds us that we are unlikely to possess an entirely correct worldview. Worldviews will inevitably be a mixture of truth and error. This is not to say that all worldviews possess an equal proportion of truth; rather, it is to insist that no one possesses a God’s-eye view of the world. 1.2.2.4 Conscious or unconscious. Fourth, Sire notes that many people maintain their worldviews consciously and explicitly while others are entirely unaware of the worldviews that they hold. Worldviews are pretheoretical in nature; they develop prior to or devoid of conscious reflection and rational deliberation. As children, our developing worldview is most strongly influenced by our parents—hence the fact that most teens inherit the worldviews of their parents. Other influences, including culture, education, media, and religion, help shape the unconscious worldview that develops. As Randy Nelson notes, “Most people take for granted the beliefs that they inherit from these sources, assuming them to be true without intentionally questioning them.” People are not 12 conscious of their worldviews unless they have been challenged to think explicitly about their core beliefs and commitments. Each person possesses a worldview, to be sure, but many people are unaware that they do and are equally unaware of what that worldview is. Along with Socrates, we hold that an unexamined life is not worth living. Accordingly, we also insist that an unexamined, unconscious worldview is not worth embracing. One of the 13 central goals in Christian philosophy is to encourage a conscious, in-depth examination of one’s worldview. We are convinced that we need not remain unconscious of our worldview, unaware of what our primary heart commitments are and how they direct our lives. 1.2.2.5 Consistent or inconsistent. Fifth, Sire insists that many people hold inconsistent worldviews; their fundamental presuppositions simply do not fit together logically. Another purpose of Christian philosophy is to develop a consistent worldview by identifying and eliminating logical inconsistencies.  1.2.2.6 Ultimate reality. Sixth, Sire explains that a central component of worldview is one’s perspective on “the basic constitution of reality.” The core of a worldview is one’s understanding of what constitutes the “really real.” For a Christian, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is ultimate reality. For a Muslim, Allah the Merciful and Almighty is ultimate reality. For some Buddhists, nirvana is the really real, in contrast to the desires and trials of this life, which are transitory and ultimately empty. For some Hindus, Brahman (an infinite, impersonal transcendent reality) is ultimate reality. For a materialist (atheist), the physical cosmos is the only really real. For a New Age spiritualist, the divine self is ultimate reality, or at least a part of ultimate reality. One’s worldview, whether in propositional or narrative form, is centered on an understood or implied foundational reality. 1.2.2.7 Life-directing. Finally, Sire notes that our worldview directs our life path by providing the foundation on which “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Naugle points out that worldview, as a deep-seated commitment of the heart, is a motivating factor in how we live. In the first place, our cultural and contextual circumstances help shape our worldview: “Into the heart go the issues of life.... The life-shaping content of the heart is determined not only by nature or organic predispositions, but very much by nurture.” Our14 worldview then proceeds to shape our experience of life and our daily motivation and direction: “Out of the heart go the issues of life. Once the heart of an individual is formed by the powerful forces of both nature and nurture, it constitutes the presuppositional basis of life.” The heart, the individual’s worldview, is first affected by conditions and influences; in turn it influences the direction of the individual’s life. Naugle identifies this interplay between one’s worldview and context: “Hence the sum and substance of the heart,... in short, what I am calling a ‘worldview,’ sustains an interactive or reciprocal relationship with the external world.” 15 A person’s worldview is developed during that person’s formative years, influenced and instilled by a myriad of sociocultural forces. But worldview, once in place, becomes a fundamental heart commitment, directing one’s life choices and values. Worldview beliefs, whether conscious or unconscious, serve as presuppositions on which the rest of life is based. In summary, Sire’s definition of worldview helps us grasp the strongly internal and pretheoretical nature of worldview. He points out that worldviews contain a mixture of truth and error and can be held with relative degrees of consciousness and consistency. Finally, worldview centers on a fundamental understanding of prime reality and gives direction to our life choices. James Olthuis provides a complementary definition of worldview. A worldview (or vision of life) is a framework or set of fundamental beliefs through which we view the world and our calling and future in it. This vision may be so internalized that it goes largely unquestioned; it may be greatly refined through cultural-historical development; it may not be explicitly developed into a systematic conception of life; it may not be theoretically deepened into a philosophy; it may not even be codified into creedal form. Nevertheless, this vision is a channel for the ultimate beliefs which give direction and meaning to life. It is the integrative and interpretative framework by which order and disorder are judged, the standard by which reality is managed and pursued. It is the set of hinges on which all our everyday thinking and doing turns. 16 Several pages ago, we provisionally defined worldview as the conceptual lens through which we see, understand, and interpret the world and our place within it. We will maintain that definition and use it going forward, as it concisely encapsulates the nature and scope of worldview. However, our concise definition should be understood within the enriching context provided by Sire and Olthuis. REFLECTION QUESTIONS How would you define worldview in your own words? Why provide that definition? What do you think of the authors’ claim that worldview is formed pretheoretically? Which aspect of James Sire’s expanded definition of worldview was the most helpful to you? Why? 1.3 Components of Worldview Philosophers, educators, sociologists, missiologists, and anthropologists alike can agree that worldview is an important concept to understand and apply. Furthermore, scholars in each discipline agree that there is an identifiable set of common components to worldview. Scholars differ, however, in regard to what those common components actually are. Their differences are sometimes related to their respective fields of study. Thus, for example, philosopher James Sire identifies classical philosophical questions as the common components of worldview. Anthropologist Michael Kearney, on the other hand, highlights 17 identification of the self and the other and sociological relationships. Scholars 18 also differ in terms of how worldview components ought to be identified. Some scholars propose categories of thought or belief as the common components to worldview. Other scholars suggest that all worldviews address a set of unavoidable common questions. For our part, we believe that it is best to approach universal worldview components with four core questions in mind: What is our nature? What is our world? What is our problem? What is our end? On one hand, asking such questions helps to bring worldview commitments to the surface in a way that categories or classifications may not; the route of questioning embodies the still- valuable Socratic method of philosophical inquiry. On the other hand, it also seems to us that approaching worldviews via questions is more attuned to the predominantly storied or narrative structure of worldview. Thus, we believe that our worldview—conscious or not, consistent or not—answers four fundamental questions (actually, four sets of questions) about life, the universe, and everything. Each question (or set of questions) has multiple possible answers that can be given in the form of stories or propositions; together, the answers compose a comprehensive view of reality. The questions posed for and answered by every worldview have been asked by thinking persons for millennia. A quick word of warning is in order, however. The way that we present these questions makes them seem independent of one another. In reality, this is far from the case. None of the questions exists in isolation. Like most questions and answers in philosophy and in life in general, these questions are intricately intertwined and interrelated. Answers to the first question have grave implications for the remaining questions; answers to the second question often entail necessary responses to other questions, and so forth. Hence, one’s worldview contains a holistic, wrapped-up-together set of answers to all the worldview questions. 1.3.1 What is our nature? We begin here because this is where thinking, reflective human beings begin. The question, what is our nature?, may not have logical priority, but it does have chronological and existential priority. In order 19 to ask questions about our place in the universe or the existence (or lack thereof) of a deity, one needs first to exist as a rational, reflective agent. I ask questions about my own nature and composition before asking questions about other human beings or a hypothetical deity. When I eventually ask questions about other human beings and God, I may refine or alter my understanding of who/what I am, but this does not change the fact that I ask the existential questions first. Thus, the first necessary component of worldview involves questions regarding the nature of the self, the human being. What is our nature? Who am I? What does it mean to be human? What distinguishes me from other living creatures? Are we the product of random mutation and natural selection? Are we the handiwork of a divine Creator? Are we purely physical, material beings? Do we have an immaterial soul or spirit as well? Do we have free will, or are our actions determined by our biochemistry? 1.3.2 What is our world? When a newborn baby is unceremoniously expelled from the warm comfort of the mother’s womb, I can almost hear the unexpressed words in the baby’s plaintive cry: Where am I? What is the nature of this strange, cold, and bright environment? As that infant grows and is nurtured, the child gains and develops an understanding of the external world. What is our world? What is the nature and character of the physical world? Is the physical world ordered or chaotic? Is it a closed system (deterministic) or an open system (orderable by free-willed creatures)? Is matter eternal and uncreated, divine and coeternal with deity, or temporal and created? Answering the question, what is our world?, involves an understanding of cosmology—the nature of the world. Our worldview, however, does not stop there. In answering this question, worldview proceeds to ask questions in the realm of philosophy of religion and theology. What is fundamental reality or ultimate reality? Is the universe all that is, all that ever was, and all that ever will be? Or is there a supernatural reality? Is this simply a physical universe, or is it a universe charged with the grandeur of God? If God exists, what is God like? Personal or impersonal? Unitary or triune? If God does not exist, what is ultimate reality? Note the inevitable relationship between this question and the previous one. If ultimate reality is the physical universe, and there is nothing beyond it, then of necessity human beings are strictly physical creatures. If there is no spiritual or nonphysical side to the cosmos, there cannot be a spiritual or soul-ish side to human beings either. SCENIC VIEW Contemporary Cultural Worldview Meditation Star Wars and the Worldview Questions Consider the worldview exemplified in the original Star Wars trilogy (now episodes 4- 6). What is our nature? On an individual level, Luke Skywalker’s identity and nature present a pressing question throughout the trilogy: he is a Jedi prodigy, the one destined to triumph over the Sith Lord. On a global level, human beings are portrayed as merely one among a myriad of intelligent beings inhabiting a vast universe filled with sentient life.  What is our world? Again, we are part of a massive universe where science and technology reign. There are no references to spiritual beings or divine entities, only the ubiquitous midichlorians (though we don’t find out that they are midichlorians until the release of episode 1), which govern the balance of the universe. What is our problem? The Force is currently imbalanced by the domination of the emperor and his Sith partner, Darth Vader. The Empire is oppressive and suppressing, seeking to stamp out independent free-minded peoples throughout the universe, particularly through the use of their weapon of mass destruction, the Death Star. What is our end? The purpose of humanity (actually, of sentient life) is somewhat unclear in the Star Wars films. Perhaps it is maintaining and living within the balance of the Force. Perhaps it is freedom from any autocratic government. Perhaps it is finding fulfillment in love or personal accomplishments. 1.3.3 What is our problem? The newborn infant experiences the external world as a place of discomfort. Warmth and security have been shattered by a forced move into a colder, insecure world. The child cannot help but ask, what’s wrong? One constant feature of human thought and civilization has been the unshakable impression that something is amiss in the human universe. Thus, we ask, What is our problem? What is wrong with us as human beings, and how can it be solved? What is wrong with the world, and how can it be solved? Every person and every worldview acknowledges that there is something wrong with both the world and with each person as an individual in the world. Things are not the way they ought to be. What is wrong with all human beings? Is it sinful rebellion against our Divine Maker? Is it ignorance, religious superstition, or lack of education? Is it the illusion of personal desires? Is it corrupting social, political, and economic structures? Furthermore, after identifying the problem, how can we go about fixing it? 1.3.4 What is our end? The Greek word telos (τέλος) carries connotations of purpose, end, goal, and destination. This final worldview question is best understood in the multifaceted light of telos. What is our end? Worldview addresses our origins: What is our nature as human beings, and where did we come from? Worldview must also address our end: Where are we going? Is there any meaning and purpose in life, or are we random creatures in a purposeless, meaningless universe? Do we create our own purpose and meaning? Or do we rightly seek to fulfill some purpose for which we were created? In addition to questions of meaning and purpose in this life, human beings also ponder their postmortem fate. What happens to us after we die? Is physical death the end of human existence? Are we absorbed into an infinite, impersonal ultimate reality? Are we judged at the throne of God Almighty for an eternity with him in heaven or an eternity without him in hell? The answers we give to these four worldview questions compose our worldview. REFLECTION QUESTIONS 1. Why do the authors approach worldview through core questions? Do you think it’s a valuable approach? Why or why not? 2. Think of a neighbor/friend who has different fundamental beliefs from yours. How do you think he or she might answer the four worldview questions? 3. Can you think of a worldview that does not acknowledge a problem with us or our world? 1.4 The Universality and Diversity of Worldview Worldview is the conceptual lens through which we see, understand, and interpret the world and our place within it. Worldview develops in and flows through the heart, the center of the human person, and necessarily involves answers (propositional or narrative) to four sets of questions: What is our nature? What is our world? What is our problem? What is our end? Furthermore, a worldview is a person-specific matrix—a perception of reality, a filter through which everything flows as we seek to make sense of external data. The answers, conscious or unconscious, consistent or inconsistent, to the four governing questions constitute one’s fundamental worldview. Each person has an answer to the four sets of questions, even if the person has never formed them into intelligible propositions or coherent narratives. Whether one looks at worldview as a set of beliefs about the structure of the world, an internal framework, or a set of glasses through which we look at reality, the bottom line is that every person possesses a worldview. We may not like it; we might deny it. We might insist that worldview is not even a rational concept. But that does not change the fact that each of us has a worldview and that one’s worldview strongly affects the way that one lives. Because everybody has a worldview, there are literally countless worldviews held by people across the globe. Each worldview is unique to its owner. No two people have precisely identical worldviews. Consider, for example, possible answers to the second worldview question, what is our world? Christians are going to answer that question with the same general answer: God’s. This is my Father’s world; the universe is created by and for God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To this point, Christians will universally agree. But if we delve deeper, there is much more to explore. For example, what else can we say about the God who created the universe? Some philosophers and theologians argue that we cannot say much else because God is utterly transcendent and beyond our knowledge, definition, and comprehension. Others insist that we can and should seek to understand God and that we can indeed come to know God truly (although not exhaustively). They might argue, for example, that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Imagine that we agree that God is omnipotent. Well then, what does omnipotence mean? Can God do literally anything? William of Ockham and others insist that yes, God can do literally anything. Thomas Aquinas and others insist that no, God cannot do some things. God cannot lie, because to do so would be to violate his very nature. How about God’s omnibenevolence, or all-goodness? How can we work that out? If God is all good, where does evil come from? Is evil, as Augustine argued, the absence of goodness that occurs when God’s creatures fail to practice his goodness in their lives? Does evil result strictly from the sinful rebellion of man? Does God desire evil to exist in order to bring greater glory to himself through redemption? Christians have differences in these areas. How about God’s omniscience, or all-knowingness? Most Christians affirm that God knows all things, including future actions that human beings, as free- willed creatures, have not even chosen to do yet. How can this be? Augustine and Boethius argue that God exists outside of time and space, such that he experiences what is future to us as already present to himself. Thus, our future free actions are already seen by God and enable his eternally present knowledge of those events. God sees our future in the same way that we see our present. Others, including Bruce Ware, argue that God’s knowledge of the future is grounded in his meticulous sovereignty, whereby he not only foreknows but foreordains what is yet to come. God knows future actions because God 20 determines what those actions shall be. Or, consider another aspect of the second worldview question from a Christian perspective. What is the nature of reality? Christians generally agree that God has created all that is. After that, agreement can break down. Did God create the universe and everything within it a very short time ago, less than ten thousand years ago? Or did God create the universe a very long time ago, perhaps fourteen billion years ago?  The point here is not to engage in discussion or debate about these issues; rather, the point is simply to demonstrate that within one broad worldview perspective (that of orthodox Christian theism), there exists a wide variety of ways to work out the answers to worldview questions. The moral of the story is simply that each person possesses a worldview that is entirely unique to that person. No two Christians are going to have precisely identical worldviews. This creates somewhat of a tension within worldview thinking. On the one hand, there is such a thing as a Christian worldview—propositions, answers, or narratives that are common to all Christians at all times in all places. Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians will affirm the overarching narrative of creation-fall-redemption: God created, humanity is fallen, and Jesus saves. On the other hand, Christian traditions nuance those worldview beliefs and work out other aspects of worldview differently. Examination of individual Christian believers reveals a great deal of diversity. Simply put, different Christians possess different manifestations of the Christian worldview. Despite the differences, however, there is such a thing as an overarching Christian worldview. In some ways, this diversity in the midst of unity should not surprise us; this is just one version of the classic philosophical problem of the one and the many. For example, a typical college classroom is filled with perhaps two dozen human beings; yet each student is a different and unique example or manifestation of humanness. We all share certain essential or nonnegotiable characteristics or properties that make us uniformly human. Yet we each have other, more incidental or accidental, characteristics or properties that make us a uniquely instantiated human being. The same is true with respect to worldviews. There are certain essential characteristics to a uniformly Christian worldview, yet there are also numerous secondary characteristics that mark a uniquely fleshed-out Christian worldview. Thus, the fact that everybody has a unique individual worldview does not prevent us from identifying a more limited number of overarching worldviews. Often these broad worldviews will be defined as philosophical systems or as religious worldviews. Some of the key worldviews prevalent in the world today include Christianity, Islam, Judaism, naturalism (atheistic modernity), existentialism, Buddhism, Hinduism, animism, New Age spirituality, and postmodernism. These overarching worldviews provide different large-picture answers to the fundamental worldview questions. For example, a naturalistic (or atheistic) worldview claims that there is no God, the universe sprang into existence with no explanation (or else has existed eternally), life arose on primordial earth through random chemical reactions, and human life evolved through random mutation and natural selection. There is nothing particularly special about human beings compared to the rest of nature, and our primary problem is enslavement to superstitious worldviews that promote religious belief. The solution to the problem is intellectual evolution and liberation from religious oppression. After we die, we entirely cease to be, so whatever purpose we choose to pursue for our lives is the only purpose and meaning there can be. The Christian worldview has substantially different answers. In the beginning was God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All that is was created by him out of nothingness; at its creation, everything was declared good by God. Humankind was created good by God and stamped with his very image. The problems in the world are the result of humanity’s rebellion and fall into sin. Instead of harmony and communion, human beings now experience broken relationships with God, self, fellow human beings, and God’s creation. God provides the means for redemption through the atoning death of Jesus; broken relationships can be healed and reconciled in Christ. After death, all human beings are judged on the basis of their relationship with God in Christ; believers experience eternal life in the presence of God. STOP & PAUSE Biblical Worldview Insight The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! (Mt 6:22-23) In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is insisting that one must choose between the things of heaven and the things of earth—the kingdom of heaven (God) and the kingdom of earth (man). He goes on to emphasize that “no one can serve two masters” (Mt 6:24). Given that, read Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:22-23 in the context of worldview thought. If your worldview lenses are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. That is, if you are looking at the world correctly, seeing things the way that God sees them, you will live an illuminated,  enlightening life. But if your worldview lenses are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. When one wears a distorted set of worldview glasses, nothing looks right, and life cannot be lived rightly. Check your prescription! Are you wearing the right worldview? Or do you need new lenses? The differences between the worldview matrices of naturalism and Christianity are significant and greatly affect the way that we perceive the world around us. You can, indeed, say with justification that the Christian theist and the naturalist inhabit different worlds. The conceptual lens through which the world is viewed is starkly distinct; thus, what is seen is also quite different. We consider Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount, understood through the filter of worldview thought, to be a fitting conclusion to this introductory chapter: The eye [worldview] is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! (Mt 6:22-23) REFLECTION QUESTIONS 1. Do differences of opinion between Christians regarding God’s omnipotence, or the way in which God created, have any importance? Why or why not? 2. What would you identify as the essential elements of an overarching Christian worldview? 3. What are the most prominent or influential worldviews in North America today? In East Asia? 4. What might be some broad differences between Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, and Anglican expressions of Christian worldview? MASTERING THE MATERIAL When you finish reading this chapter, you should be able to Provide a concise definition of worldview and explain its contours. Recount the rising importance of worldview thought, especially in Western philosophy. Identify the four core worldview questions and their subquestions. Articulate your own response to the worldview questions.  Differentiate shared contours of an overarching Christian worldview and denominational/individual elements of a personal Christian worldview. Glossary of Terms for Chapter One cultural anthropology—A nearly independent branch of anthropology that focuses on the study of cultural variations among the human race. inconsistent worldview—A worldview whose fundamental presuppositions do not fit together logically. missiology—Area of practical theology that focuses on the mission, mandate, and message of the church. narrative format—When something is told in narrative format, it takes on the framework of a story rather than a list of events. presupposition—A belief that is assumed before any argument is made for or against it. pretheoretical—something that arises before any theoretical considerations. propositional format—When something is presented in propositional format, it becomes a list of main points or events rather than a narrative or story. Weltanschauung—German word meaning “worldview” or “outlook.” worldview—the conceptual lens through which we see, understand, and interpret the world and our place within it. Possible Term Paper Topics Trace the development of worldview thought from Kant to Kuyper. Investigate the formative/transformative power of story as it relates to worldview. Choose a prominent Christian thinker and, using that person’s writings (or words), reconstruct his or her worldview at a precise level. Choose one of the core attributes of God (omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience). Research how various theologians and philosophers have understood that attribute. Articulate and defend your own position. Core Bibliography for Chapter One Goheen, Michael W., and Craig G. Bartholomew. Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Naugle, David K. Worldview: The History of a Concept. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog. 5th ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. Walsh, Brian J., and J. Richard Middleton. The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1984.  2 THE IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT OF WORLDVIEW Worldview is the conceptual lens through which we see, understand, and interpret the world and our place within it. Worldview develops in and flows through the heart, the center of the human person, and necessarily involves answers (propositional or narrative) to four questions: What is our nature? What is our world? What is our problem? What is our end? Every person possesses a worldview that provides an answer or set of answers to these core worldview questions, but these individual worldviews can be compiled under broad categories. 2.1 The Impact of Worldview I greatly enjoy mysteries and detective stories, from Sherlock Holmes to Hercule Poirot, Law & Order to NCIS. When cops or crown attorneys have a working thesis concerning a particular crime, their approach to evidence is affected by how that evidence relates to their governing thesis. For example, if they suspect someone of committing a particular crime, tiny bits of evidence will strengthen their position. One of my favorite shows was Monk, starring Tony Shalhoub as the obsessive-compulsive, brilliant, and dysfunctional detective Adrian Monk. In one episode, “Monk and the Astronaut,” Monk investigates the murder (a staged suicide) of a former call girl who was about to publish a revealing autobiography. Monk quickly becomes convinced that the murderer is a prominent NASA astronaut and rising politician. During the investigation, Monk discovers that the woman’s autobiography had included a chapter relating how, many years earlier, the suspect had been arrested and jailed for beating the now- deceased woman during their tumultuous romantic entanglement. When Monk hears this, it supports his thesis that the astronaut is “the guy.” The revealing autobiography (now mysteriously erased from her computer) provides motive for the murder. The evidence is not airtight: there are no surviving manuscripts of the autobiography, no solid proof that the woman was going to “out” the suspect, no concrete evidence that the call girl was beaten by the suspect. But it doesn’t take a big piece of evidence to support or maintain Monk’s theory; he now has his suspect’s potential motive. I am often asked why worldview matters: What does it impact? Why bother learning about it as a concept, and one’s own worldview specifically? What does it have to do with life? Throughout this chapter, I will come back to detective shows like Monk to help illustrate the importance of worldview awareness and thought. Simply put, worldview matters because one’s worldview affects everything that one thinks and does, through confirmation bias, experiential accommodation, the pool of live options, and life motivation. 2.1.1 Worldview and confirmation bias. First, worldview affects us through a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. “Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one’s beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one’s beliefs.” In other words, confirmation bias is the influence of 1 worldview guiding a person to affirm what fits with his preexisting worldview. As the English philosopher Francis Bacon wrote, “It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives.” We tend to see, dwell on, and be excited by what fits with 2 our existing worldview beliefs. Confirmation bias is the first way in which worldview affects our approach to external data. You can see confirmation bias at work in many different areas. For example, consider proponents of evolution. According to Darwin’s original theory, the fossil record should be filled with multitudes of intermediate species, transitional fossils that highlight the evolutionary process from one distinct species into another. While evolutionists acknowledge that the vast fossil evidence predicted by early Darwinists is simply not there, the theory persists. And every year or 3 two, one hears the proclamation of a new fossil discovery of a possible “transitional species.” There are not many intermediates, certainly not as many as predicted, but proponents trumpet each new proposed discovery as proof of evolution’s truth. Along the same lines, proponents of a worldview that claims we live in a random, purposeless universe, and that human life on earth arose strictly by chance, tend to believe that there is or ought to be life somewhere out there in the universe. If it is believed that there is life beyond the earth, then the discovery of lines that look like ancient river beds on the surface of Mars is quite exciting and serves as confirmation of that worldview. To others, it just looks like interesting lines that might indicate there used to be water on the surface of Mars—nothing earthshattering, and certainly not proof that life could have existed on the Red Planet. Alternatively, Christians who believe in life after death, that this physical life is only the introduction to eternity, point to studies of near-death experiences as proof that there is at least a minimal existence and consciousness after death. 4 Due to the influence of confirmation bias, it doesn’t take a significant amount of corroborating evidence to reinforce the existing worldview. Confirmation bias also affects what evidence in particular is emphasized. For example, some Westerners point to Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks, ISIS, and other terrorist activities perpetrated by Muslims to conclude that Islam is a hate- filled, inherently violent religion. Others point to the Red Crescent and other Muslim charities to argue that Islam is a compassionate, inherently peaceful religion. The same evidence is seen by both parties, but each group emphasizes the data that fit with their preexisting perspective. Being aware of one’s own (and others’) worldview, then, can help identify when and where one is being affected by confirmation bias. Am I embracing these data because the data are convincing or because they fit my worldview presuppositions? Am I valuing this set of data over that set of data for objectively compelling reasons or simply because this set confirms what I already think? 2.1.2 Worldview and experiential accommodation. Second, worldview influences us by driving us to interpret new data or arguments in a manner that affirms or fits within our existing worldview. Whenever possible, we interpret new data in a worldview-affirming manner. One example is the various strata of rocks evident in the Grand Canyon. Mainstream geologists look at the data, carbon-date the rocks within the layers, and conclude quite logically that the various layers consist of sediment laid down one layer atop the other over millions of years—a conclusion that fits quite nicely within their basic belief that the earth is billions of years old and that events on earth have progressed over time through predictable and lengthy physical processes (thus answering the worldview question, what is our world?).  A minority of geologists, however, look at the same physical data and come to radically different conclusions about what these data mean. From these geologists’ perspective, the layers and even the ancient appearance of the Grand Canyon are not the result of millions of years of erosion but rather represent the catastrophic effects of the global flood described in Genesis 6. The dire consequences of the flood, in their view, explain the inaccuracy of carbon-dating the rocks in those sediment strata: the flood changed the composition of the atmosphere, thereby rendering long-term past carbon-dating useless. Young- earth geologists begin with a radically different set of assumptions and thus interpret the same physical data in a radically different way. It must be emphasized that both groups of geologists cannot possibly be right. The data of the Grand Canyon cannot mean both that the earth is billions of years old and the rocks are layers of sediment laid down over millions of years and that the earth is only thousands of years old and the evident layers are the result of a single catastrophic flood. One camp is correct in its interpretation and the other is incorrect—or, perhaps, both camps are incorrect and some other explanation is the right one. The point is that we inevitably seek to interpret new data, evidence, or arguments in a manner that fits within our existing worldview. Young-earth geologists accommodate the data to fit their prevailing worldview; old-earth geologists do the same. Most often, people will accommodate new data within their worldview rather than altering their worldview to suit new data. In another Monk episode, Monk suspects a publisher of murder. However, the publisher has an alibi for the night of the murder: he was with a young woman. The woman confirms the alibi, insisting that they were together all night. Someone who believes the man was (or could be) innocent would take the alibi as conclusive proof that he could not have done it. But Monk is not convinced. Rather than allaying his suspicion, he seeks to understand how this new datum could fit within his preexisting hypothesis. He still believes the publisher to be guilty but has to explain why the woman would lie to protect him. He concludes that the man has to be paying off the young woman to provide a false alibi for him—a suspicion that is eventually proven correct. The point, again, is that we naturally seek to accommodate new data or information within our existing worldview. Consider again the relative lack of transitional species in the fossil record. What does one do with that? It depends on the underlying worldview. The creationist simply points out that Darwin proposed a way of falsifying his theory: if the fossils were not there, his theory would be false. The fossils are not there; ergo, Darwinian evolution is false. The Darwinist is not so easily swayed. Perhaps fossils are not retained with equal frequency in various geologic ages such that most transitional fossils have simply not been preserved. Or perhaps Stephen Jay Gould was correct in proposing punctuated equilibrium as a way that Darwinian evolution could be maintained despite the absence of fossil evidence. The point is simply that the “new” evidence is dealt with differently, and the difference is determined by the underlying worldview. 5 Being aware of one’s own (and others’) worldview, then, can help identify when and where one is being affected by experiential accommodation. Am I rejecting the implications of the fossil record because it conflicts with my evolutionary understanding of the world? Am I unduly emphasizing the paucity of transitional fossils solely because that supports my understanding of divine creation? SCENIC VIEW Contemporary Cultural Worldview Meditation Race to Witch Mountain—How About Them Aliens? In the 2009 action flick Race to Witch Mountain, Las Vegas cabbie Jack Bruno (played by Dwayne Johnson) is an alien skeptic in a town of gullible people. The movie opens with Bruno driving alien-believer Dr. Alex Friedman to a UFO convention. His next fare happens to be two normal-looking teenagers, Sara and Seth—but these are no ordinary teenagers. Instead, they claim to be alien visitors returning to Earth to collect scientific data that might just save their home planet and thereby prevent the impending invasion of Earth by their people. Bruno, however, has seen and heard it all in his cab-driving life. He is not easily persuaded that Sara and Seth are extraterrestrials. Granted, they are able to say and do some relatively odd things—make his vehicle go incredibly fast, read his mind, levitate objects in midair. But he has a lifetime of skepticism to counter these odd phenomena. He attempts to accommodate these unusual experiences within his existing worldview for as long as possible. In the end, however, the oddities multiply, and Bruno is forced to admit what he had previously rejected out of hand: aliens exist, and they’re in his cab. Bruno’s experience in Race to Witch Mountain nicely illustrates two sides to worldview thought: (1) the impact worldview has in directing our interpretation of data and events and (2) the possibility of worldview eventually being overturned by strong enough evidence or experiences. 2.1.3 Worldview and the pool of live options. Third, worldview determines the pool of live options, the set of possible explanations for a given phenomenon. Worldview determines the antecedent possibility or plausibility of various explanations or theories.6 One might consider, for example, someone’s need to explain the mysterious appearance of mail in his mailbox on a day that mail is not delivered. John returns home from attending weekly worship at his church and discovers a letter from Aunt Martha in the mailbox outside the front door of his townhouse. He is, needless to say, surprised. Mail is not normally delivered on the sabbath day. How then shall he explain this apparent mystery? His ten-year-old son offers a potential explanation: “The postal service must have started delivering on the sabbath.” His wife offers another explanation: “Yesterday’s mail was probably delivered to Mr. and Mrs. Jones across the street (in 2843 Fallow Court as opposed to his 2834 Fallow Court) by mistake, and they brought it over for us today.” His wide-eyed seven-year-old daughter offers a third possible explanation: “Aliens stole our mail yesterday and brought it back today.” His new friend Art offers a fourth explanation: “Did you not know, have you not heard, that here in the United States, mail is delivered every Saturday? It is only lazy Canadian postal workers who get the whole weekend off.” (Did I forget to mention that the worship service was at a Seventh-Day Adventist Church? My apologies for the oversight.) Each of the four explanations is, theoretically speaking, possible. Nonetheless, the four alternatives are not accorded the same weight of plausibility. Within John’s own worldview, option three (aliens) will be immediately discarded from the realm of possibility. His skepticism concerning the existence of extraterrestrial life forms (and his accompanying conviction that, even if they should happen to exist, the possibility of them traveling to earth is extremely remote) rules out his daughter’s suggestion. Simply put, his underlying worldview does not allow for the alien explanation in his pool of live options. Kelly James Clark argues, “Explanatory power is not the only factor involved in the assessment of hypotheses; hypotheses must also be judged to have some initial likelihood of being true. And judgments of initial likelihood are conditioned by our deepest commitments.” When faced with unusual 7 phenomena or extraordinary claims, our worldview presuppositions govern their antecedent plausibility. Imagine that Aunt Rose has been diagnosed with terminal, untreatable cancer. Her family prays for God’s miraculous healing. Weeks later, the doctors find her to be entirely free from the cancer that had ravaged her body. How do you explain what happened? For the Christian theist, the answer could be quite simple. God healed Aunt Rose out of his infinite, compassionate mercy and love, in response to the humble prayers of his children. For the atheist, such an explanation is not possible. It lies outside the pool of live options. Either the initial diagnosis of cancer was mistaken, or there had been some kind of treatment that rid her body of cancer—or there is some other unknown natural explanation for her sudden healing. Whatever the case, Aunt Rose was not the recipient of a divine miracle. God does not exist to perform such miracles, and therefore it cannot be the explanation. Consider the Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Worldview presuppositions determine whether the historically orthodox understanding of Jesus’ resurrection is within the pool of live options. For example, prominent biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan is committed to a naturalistic worldview that denies supernatural interaction with the closed physical universe. 8 Furthermore, he insists that human life ceases absolutely and irrevocably at death. Those worldview presuppositions render the orthodox resurrection in- credible (that is, not believable). A supernatural bodily resurrection is not within the pool of live options given Crossan’s worldview. Whatever explanation is given for Christian resurrection belief, Crossan’s explanation (and the explanation of others holding to a naturalistic worldview) simply cannot be that Jesus was truly raised from the dead. Crossan once engaged in a public debate with William Lane Craig regarding the resurrection of Jesus. During their dialogue, there is a fascinating and very revealing exchange. First, Craig asks Crossan, “What evidence would it take to convince you [that the resurrection really happened]? Or are your preconceived ideas about the impossibility of the miraculous and so forth so strong that, in fact, they skew your historical judgment so that such an event could never even be admitted into court?” Craig is asking Crossan what type and amount of evidence would convince him that Jesus really was raised from the dead. Crossan’s reply is revealing: “It’s a theological presupposition of mine that God does not operate that way.... What would it take to prove to me what you ask? I don’t know, unless God changes the universe.” In other words, there is no type 9 or amount of evidence that could convince Crossan of the literal truth of the resurrection of Jesus. He has a theological presupposition that God would not do such things. It is a part of his worldview. Crossan is absolutely closed to the possibility of Jesus’ bodily resurrection because it does not fit within his worldview. Worldview determines our pool of live options and thus governs the way that we interpret data that we encounter. Another of my favorite detective shows is Psych, starring James Roday as Shawn Spencer, a highly observant independent investigator who pretends that his empirically driven insights are psychic visions. In one episode, “This Episode Sucks,” a murder victim is found with puncture wounds on his neck and both wrists, and most of the blood drained from his body. Spencer and his “assistant” Burton Guster immediately conclude that the murder was perpetrated by a vampire; their hypothesis is just as quickly rejected by police detectives Juliet O’Hara and Carlton Lassiter. Spencer and Guster embrace a worldview wherein paranormal creatures (Bigfoot, vampires, etc.) are legitimate possibilities; for O’Hara and Lassiter, such creatures fall outside the pool of live options. There must be a different, “normal” explanation for the murder (as indeed there is in this case). Being aware of one’s own (and others’) worldview, then, can help identify when and where one’s pool of live options is broadened or narrowed by one’s worldview. Worldview awareness also enables us to ask whether such broadening and narrowing is appropriate. Why do I reject the possibility that God healed Aunt Rose? Are there good reasons for such exclusion, or is it based merely on unexamined worldview presuppositions? Why do I reject the possibility that a vampire sucked the blood out of a victim? Do I have good reasons for disbelieving in vampires and thus concluding that vampires (as nonexisting creatures) do not commit murder, or is the exclusion based merely on unexamined worldview presuppositions? In other words, is there a rational justification for the contours of my pool of live options? 2.1.4 Worldview and life motivation. Fourth, worldview impacts the way that we live. A worldview not only describes the world for us but also directs our life in the world. It not only gives us a perspective on how the world is (worldview’s descriptive function) but also acts as a guide for how the world ought to be and how we ought to live in the world (worldview’s normative function). James Sire’s definition of worldview emphasizes the nature of worldview as a “fundamental orientation of the heart” and the place of worldview in providing the foundation on which “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). 10 The worldview that we hold is not just an intellectual, rational construct. Rather, worldview is seated deep within us; it takes root in our hearts and then flows out of our hearts into what we think, say, and do. As Walsh and Middleton insist, A world view is never merely a vision of life. It is always a vision for life as well. Indeed, a vision of life, or world view, that does not actually lead a person or a people in a particular way of life is no world view at all. Our world view determines our values. It helps us interpret the world around us. It sorts out what is important from what is not, what is of highest value from what is least.... A world view, then, provides a model of the world which guides its adherents in the world. It stipulates how the world ought to be, and it  thus advises how its adherents ought to conduct themselves in the world. 11 The Dutch theologian and educator Abraham Kuyper stressed the nature of Christianity as a total life system. Kuyper recognized that a Christian worldview was an all-encompassing, all-motivating system of thought and action. He thus wrote essays working out the implications of a Christian worldview in the areas of religion, politics, science, art, and the future. Kuyper famously insisted that “there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!” How might 12 worldview affect life motivation? Let us briefly survey how a Christian worldview might impact three areas of life: art, science, and sex. A Christian worldview holds that a transcendent God created the universe and everything within it out of absolute nothingness. God then created human beings in his image. As a result, Christians see human beings as inherently creative beings, granted the ability to create works of art just as God has created. Within a Christian worldview, therefore, commitment to artistic creation ought to flourish. Christian worldview beliefs ought also to affect one’s understanding and acceptance of scientific theories and hypotheses. On the one hand, a Christian worldview holds that human beings are fallen creatures. The fall affects both will and mind, meaning that (a) fallen, unredeemed human beings will tend to create scientific hypotheses (or philosophical speculations) that ignore or undermine belief in God and (b) our human knowledge, including scientific knowledge, will always be incomplete and tentative. On the other hand, a Christian worldview affirms belief in a Creator God, who brought the universe into existence ex nihilo (out of nothingness). There was nothing; then God created, and there was something. Holding these two beliefs, a Christian scientist will necessarily reject any scientific hypothesis that suggests that the universe is either eternal or self- created. Christians will eagerly explore the natural world to better understand God’s creation, but their investigation will be guided and informed by their worldview commitments. Similarly, a Christian worldview will hold that God created human beings to enjoy sexual intimacy within the bounds of heterosexual marriage. Sexual patience (waiting for marriage) and fidelity (being faithful to one’s marriage partner) are thus highly valued as a natural outworking of the Christian view of human persons and sexuality. At the same time, the joys of faithful monogamous sexuality will be celebrated as one of God’s gifts to created human beings. Sex plays an important role not only in procreation but also in relational intimacy and pleasure between self-giving spouses. Other worldviews provide life motivation to their adherents as well. Skye Johnson, a missionary to the Lozi tribe along the Zambezi River in Africa, shares how the Lozi worldview affects their interpersonal relationships. Skye notes the typical Western understanding of time, possessions, and knowledge, and contrasts them with the typical Lozi worldview. For Westerners, Skye argues, time and possessions are private, while knowledge is public (shared). Thus, if you have an appointment for lunch with a friend at 12:30 p.m., it is considered disrespectful and rude to show up forty-five minutes late. It is considered stealing if you “borrow” your neighbor’s vehicle on the basis that you needed transportation and they were not currently using it. On the other hand, if you know how to grow better vegetables in your garden (weeding, fertilizers, irrigation, etc.), it is appropriate and virtuous to share such knowledge with your neighbors to improve their ability to grow better produce. The Lozi conceptions of time, possessions, and knowledge are inverted. Time and possessions are considered public (shared), while knowledge is private. Thus, it is not uncommon for Skye to arrive for a 9:00 a.m. visit with a Lozi woman only to have the woman wander in from the fields half an hour later, wash and eat breakfast, and then sit down to visit with Skye around 10:00. Their time is shared, so the Lozi have no conception of “wasting” a Western missionary’s time. Similarly, when Skye and her husband have three canoes resting on the beach outside their house, neighboring Lozi feel free to “borrow” the canoes for their own use. After all, there was no way that the two Johnsons could use three canoes on their own anyway! Possessions are considered shared; private property is somewhat of an unknown among the Lozi. Knowledge, on the other hand, is considered private and can be coveted quite tightly. Thus, if one of a village chieftain’s multiple wives learns from a Westerner how to keep her family healthier by practicing basic hygiene, she does not share that knowledge with the other wives. Her special knowledge gives her power over them and enables increased access to and higher status with her husband. Accordingly, Skye argues, it is difficult to convince newly converted Lozi Christians to share their faith in Jesus with their fellow Lozi since knowledge of Jesus’ saving grace gives them a power not available to their non- Christian neighbors. 13 There are, then, at least three ways that worldview differences are played out within the Lozi tribe. First, time-bound appointments are simply not considered; they are not a part of the cultural lexicon. Second, other people’s “stuff” is free for your own use, even without seeking permission. Third, one does not share new knowledge with others; one keeps it to oneself. Worldview considerations have significant play in the day-to-day life motivation of Lozi tribespeople. David Naugle notes that our worldview presuppositions, “though mostly hidden, and often ignored,... guide and direct most, if not all, of life.” Our 14 worldview is, as noted in chapter one, influenced and shaped by formative sociocultural influences. Once established, however, the worldview lodging within our hearts gives shape to our values and actions. The fourth core worldview question (what is our end?) has to do with purpose, meaning, destination, and values. A person’s conception of purpose and meaning in life is going to give strong direction to that person’s words and deeds. If the goal of life is to accumulate personal wealth, one is likely to spend a great deal of time working and seeking to earn more money. If the goal of life is eternal life with God, money is liable to take a backseat to relationship with God. Thus, worldview affects our goals, orientations, and actions in life. Worldview even affects the questions that we ask. For example, one of the most prominent age-old philosophical, theological, and anthropological questions is, what happens to us after we die? John Dominic Crossan answers this age-old philosophical question about mortality quite simply: “Do I personally believe in an afterlife? No, but to be honest, I do not find it a particularly important question one way or the other.” Crossan’s disinterest in 15 postmortem fate is determined by his worldview presumption that life absolutely ceases at death. As an analogy, consider someone who believes that God created the universe and created life on earth but nowhere else in the universe. A clear implication of this fundamental worldview is that there is no life on other planets waiting to be contacted. As a result, if this person were asked, “What do you think life on other planets would look like? Would it be carbon-based like us? Or would it be something entirely different?,” the person would be entirely uninterested in the consequent discussion. Under this worldview, there is no life elsewhere, so speculating on the characteristics of life elsewhere would be nonsensical. REFLECTION QUESTIONS 1. Confirmation bias can lead us to downplay evidence simply because it does not fit our worldview. But is confirmation bias necessarily a bad thing? Why or why not? If not, can you think of an example of confirmation bias  generating a positive outcome? 2. Is it possible to avoid the influence of experiential accommodation? Why or why not? If so, is it wise to do so? Why or why not? 3. What factors should impact whether people ought to consider a broader pool of live options than they currently do? Why? 4. What are some other ways that a Christian worldview motivates (or ought to motivate) you to live? 5. Can you think of a TV show or movie that powerfully illustrates the impact of worldview in one or more of these ways? 2.2 Worldview Conservatism and Conversion I have noted the influence that worldview exerts on us through confirmation bias, experiential accommodation, the pool of live options, and life motivation. A logical conclusion from the noted influences of worldview is simple and straightforward: once a worldview is in place within the individual’s heart, the individual tends (all other things being equal) to preserve that worldview. That is, worldviews are inherently conservative. Individuals spend their formative years developing their worldviews through a complex interaction of sociocultural influences—for example, family, education, religion, and economic situation. A worldview may develop with some intentionality and choice, or it might arise and grow entirely unconsciously and unintentionally. Either way, once worldview is established, it is firmly entrenched and exerts tremendous influence on how a person thinks, wills, and acts. Core worldview presuppositions tend to be stubbornly held. A small amount of contrary evidence does not convince someone to abandon one worldview and adopt a different one. In other words, worldviews are not changed unless they have to be. In the 2009 movie Race to Witch Mountain, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson stars as Jack Bruno, a taxi driver who unwittingly drives two alien “teenagers” around Las Vegas. Weird things start happening right after Bruno picks them up—the teenage boy stops a pursuing car by letting it smash itself on his body—but Bruno does not immediately conclude that the teens are alien beings. After all, Bruno is convinced that aliens do not exist. Such beliefs do not change easily. Nonetheless, worldviews (and components of worldviews) are not unalterable. If they were, then without exception individuals would adhere to their parents’ religious worldviews. There are simply too many counterexamples of individuals who have moved from one worldview to another to believe that worldviews are cemented in place. Worldviews change in two ways: adjustment and 16 conversion. 2.2.1 Worldview adjustment. Given the inherent conservatism of worldview, we will always seek to accommodate new data or information within our existing worldview. Sometimes, however, this can happen only with an adjustment to the overarching worldview. At this point, it is helpful to distinguish between two levels of worldview beliefs. At the center of one’s 17 worldview is the worldview core—beliefs that are so essential and nonnegotiable that to give them up entails leaving the worldview behind entirely. For example, a young Christian man who gives up belief in the existence of a transcendent divine being ceases to hold a Christian theistic worldview; he may continue to call himself a Christian, but his worldview is not a Christian worldview. The core has been compromised, and he has moved from one overarching worldview into a different one. That new worldview may be a work in progress for a period of time, but the rejection of core worldview beliefs results in worldview conversion. Not all beliefs, however, reside at the conceptual core of a worldview. For example, belief in an afterlife is essential to a Christian theistic worldview. When I became a Christian, my previous naturalistic worldview belief in postmortem extinction was replaced with belief in personal resurrection to eternal life. Over time, I learned that there are nuances within Christian afterlife beliefs. Some hold that immediately after one’s physical death one will be raised with a new body in the presence of God, to dwell with him forever. Others hold that following one’s death one will experience a period of “soul sleep”—a time of unconsciousness that will last until the second coming of Jesus inaugurates the bodily resurrection of all believers. Others hold that upon physical death one’s nonmaterial soul (or spirit) experiences a period of disembodied bliss in the presence of God Almighty while awaiting the bodily resurrection that will obtain after the second coming of Christ—what N. T. Wright calls life-after- death and life-after-life-after-death. Christian theists can very reasonably alter 18 their positions on the postmortem fate of Christian believers without rejecting the core of their worldviews. That is, changing the specifics of afterlife beliefs does not result in moving from one worldview to another. Rather, it results in worldview adjustment. Worldviews can be helpfully pictured as a series of concentric circles (see fig. 2.1). The central circle, the smallest one, is the worldview core, a set of nonnegotiable presuppositions, beliefs, and stories without which the worldview collapses. A naturalistic worldview might include in its core beliefs that (a) the universe is composed of only material things; (b) human beings are strictly physical creatures, composed of a material body and lacking a spiritual or soul- ish element; and (c) there is no transcendent or supernatural being or god who can give direction, purpose, or meaning to life. The core beliefs of an Islamic worldview would probably focus on beliefs that (a) Allah is One, (b) Muhammad is his messenger, and (c) the Qur’an is his Word. The core beliefs of a Buddhist worldview would probably center on the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Noble Path. 19 The worldview core of Christian theism would focus on the narrative themes of creation, fall, and redemption. The outer two circles in our illustration represent increasingly flexible (negotiable) worldview beliefs. For a naturalistic worldview, the second tier of worldview beliefs might include things like the truthfulness of Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation) as the explanation for the variety of life on earth. The third tier, the worldview periphery, might include beliefs like an understanding of humanity’s most immediate creaturely predecessor in the evolutionary chain. The peripheral circle of worldview beliefs represents the most disposable or alterable elements of the worldview. Beliefs that fall in the outer two circles, outside the core, can be altered or replaced without affecting the overarching worldview. For example, the relative absence of transitional species in the fossil record has not led most evolutionary theorists to abandon their primary commitment to a purposeless, random process of evolution and common descent. Rather, the worldview periphery is slightly tweaked to explain the lack of supporting evidence. Hence, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed the idea of punctuated equilibrium, whereby new species arise very quickly with a large number of mutative changes present in them. Punctuated equilibrium is not precisely the same as classical Darwinian evolution, which requires changes to occur over long periods of time. But the fundamental worldview remains the same: the process of biological evolution occurs through random mutation and natural selection and is not governed by any type of intelligent designer. Worldview adherents will frequently change second- and third-tier beliefs without any discernible effect on the overarching view of life, the universe, and everything. Nonetheless, sometimes changing even these peripheral beliefs will have an impact on other elements, if the individual thinks through the process. For example, naturalists embrace, as a worldview core, the be