Skip to: Site menu | Main content

Worldview Apologetics

Do you have worldview? The term worldview was used in the sense described by prominent German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911). Dilthey affirmed that philosophy must be defined as a comprehensiveness vision of reality that involves the social and historical reality of humankind, including religion. A worldview is thus the nature and structure of the body of convictions of a group or individual. (1) Worldview includes a sense of meaning and value and principles of action. It is much more than merely an "outlook" or an "attitude." Each person's worldview is based on a key category, an organizing principle, a guiding image, a clue, or an insight selected from the complexity of his or her multidimensional experience. (2) Believe it or not, a worldview will impact our view of our vocation, our family, government, education, the environment, etc. A worldview also impacts ethical issues in our culture such as homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research etc. Remember, the issues of competing worldviews shape the past, present, and future of a nation.

Some of the fundamental questions that make up a worldview are the following:

How does one decide on a worldview? Here are some guidelines:

First of all, a worldview must be consistent: Reason has to be utilized which includes systematic criteria. In using systematic criteria, an individual appraises the truth of a system or worldview.These criteria do not produce systems of thought; instead they judge them. David Wolfe has identified four ways in which one may judge a system of thought: consistency (meaning ideas do not contradict each other) and coherence (the ideas have a positive fit). These are the rational criteria. Comprehensiveness (a system of thought that incorporates the broad range of experience) and congruence (the idea fits human experience) are part of the empirical criteria.(4) Reason also utilizes the laws of logic (the law of non-contradiction- A is not non-A; the law of identity- A is A; the law of excluded middle- either- A or non-A). The laws of logic have to be used in evaluating a worldview. If contradiction is a sign of falsity, then noncontradiction (or consistency) is a necessity for truth. A real contradiction occurs when two truth claims are given and one is the logical opposite of the other (they are logically contradictory, not merely contrary).(5)

In relation to the creation account, two worldviews that make opposite truth claims are metaphysical naturalism and biblical theism. The naturalistic worldview came to be more prominent during the Enlightenment period. Philosophical or metaphysical naturalism refers to the view that nature is the “whole show.” For theists, miracles (which are paramount to the Christian faith) are supernatural but not anti-natural. Biblical theism does acknowledge that while God is the primary Cause of all things, He also works through secondary causes. In other words, God acts in the world through direct intervention (a miracle such as creation) and natural causes or indirect actions (preservation).

In a Christian worldview, the universe was created from nothing (ex nihilo).One of the classical or traditional arguments for God's existence is the cosmological argument. While Christian apologist William Lane Craig has revived the horizontal form of the cosmological argument, Thomas Aquinas left the church with an apologetic for the vertical form of the same argument. While the former centers on how the universe began in some time in the past, the latter focuses on how the universe exists at this very moment. In other words, the horizontal form is interested in originating causality or the First Cause of the universe while the vertical form defends the need for conserving causality or a Sustainer of the universe.

Secondly, a worldview must be comprehensive: A worldview should cover the whole world of reality. A worldview must provide adequate answers to the worldview questions mentioned above.

Third, a worldview must be livable: After all, a worldview is not just a philosophical system but something that can be attempted to live out each day. Thus, if some views are not livable, then they are not adequate. However, remember that what works is not always true. Lies work very well for many people, but that does not make a lie true.(7) Truth is determined by what corresponds to reality, not simply results. Therefore, while a pragmatic test is helpful, it cannot be the only test for the truthfulness of a worldview.

Fourth, a good worldview will have explanatory power: When examining how a worldview needs explanatory power, it is important to emphasize that a good worldview needs to avoid both extremes of being neither too simple or too complex. In his book called A Case For Christian Theism, Arlie J. Hoover uses the famous “Occam’s razor test.” William of Occam (1300-1349) supposedly said, “Do not multiply entities without necessity” which basically means to resist the temptation to make our explanations too complex. On the other hand, the worldview should not be so simplistic that it commits the reductive fallacy. In other words, it cannot be too simple. (8)

Epistemology and Ontology: Fifth, a worldview will involve a commitment of the whole person: Since humans are subjective at their very core, a good worldview will emphasize a balance between both the objective and the subjective. As Paul states in Romans 1:18-21, the created order is one of the objective mediums that God chooses to reveal Himself to the human race. While it is an objective medium, it is still appropriated subjectively. As worldview analyst David K. Naugle says, “The heart of the matter is that worldview is a matter of the heart. Thus, 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.”(9) The Hebrew word for heart is "leb," or "lebad." While the word "heart" is used as a metaphor to describe the physical organ, from a Biblical standpoint, it is also the center or defining element of the entire person. It can be seen as the center of the person's intellectual, emotional, affective, religious and volitional life. In other words, the “heart” plays an integral role in how a man or woman sees the world. The heart establishes the presuppositions of life and, because of its life-determining influence, must always be guarded. (10)

Hence, a worldview will avoid the the rationalism associated with Enlightenment period which was what Francis Schaeffer termed "autonomous reason." This type of reason is the attempt to build a worldview without recourse to God.

Therefore, in relation to epistemology, we need to remember the following comments by Naugle in his book Worldview: History of Concept, Naugle says the following:

“Ways of knowing the world complementing the capacities of sight and mind should be also be embraced by believers in order to do justice to their complete God-given natures and allow them to comprehend the totality of reality in its rich multiplicity and fullness. Naugle goes onto quote what spiritual writer Palker Palmer calls “wholesight,” which fuses sensation and rationality into union with other, yet often neglected ways of knowing such as imagination, intuition, empathy, emotion, and most certainly faith. In God’s epistemic grace, he has provided a variety of cognitive capacities which are adequate for and to be employed in grasping the diverse modes of created reality, and ancient concept known as adaequatio. All capacities ought to be well employed when it comes to apprehending the truth about God, humankind, and the cosmos, else one suffers from metaphysical indulgence. As E. P Schumacher explains: "The answer to the question, what are man’s instruments by which he knows the world outside him? is….quite inescapably this: “Everything he has got”- his living body, his mind, his self aware Spirit…It may even be misleading to say that man has many instruments of cognition, since in fact, the whole man is one instrument…..The Great Truth of adaequatio teaches us that restriction in the use of instruments of cognition has the inevitable effect of narrowing and impoverishing reality.”

Naugle goes on to say,

"Thus, the heart of any Christians worldview worthy of the name ought to be the lodestar of wholeness which offsets any form of epistemic myopia and reconnects human subjects and created objects into sympathetic relation which appropriately honors the diversity, unity, and sacred character of all aspects of reality."

It is the understanding of a wholistic commitment to faith that leads me to say there needs to be an entire paradigm shift in the way we view and explain the “knowing” process.The continual problem with atheists and skeptics who consciously or subconsciously accept what Schaeffer termed "autonomous reason," simply affirms the fact that they have fallen prey to an epistemic dualism. This comes from a deficient worldview or for that matter the lack of a proper “lifeview.”

It makes no sense to ask what how we know in epistemological sense apart from metaphysics.  As we begin to answer these questions, we see the conclusions that a person reaches will determine whether they become a Christian theist, a pantheist, a deist, or even a naturalist or an atheist. Each of these worldviews presents a different view of being and reality. People make propositions about what they think accord to reality on a regular basis. Therefore, a true worldview will provide an adequate explanation for the origin of reason and the laws of logic. In this sense, logic is prior to God in that we need to use logic before we can even think about God in a rational sense. Therefore, there is a direct relationship between epistemology (the study of knowledge), and ontology (the study of reality and being). In other words, logic is prior to God in the order of knowing, but God is prior to logic in the order of being. Logic, along with other metaphysical truths are part of what are called first principles. Without first principles, there would be no knowledge. In other words, first principles are self-evident truths. They do not need a foundation. In a biblical worldview, a human's ability to reason comes from an Intelligent Mind.

In his book, Naming The Elephant: Worldview as Concept: James Sire says,
The Word, who is the Logos is the very principle of rationality, purpose and meaning, that characterizes God himself. The Logos made the world, that is, reasonability, intelligibility, and meaningfulness. It is by the Word that all things were made. Human knowledge is only possible because he who created knows all things exhaustively is also the “light of all people” (John 1:4). Jesus Christ is the “true light which enlightens everyone” (John 1:9). This is why we can know.

The skeptical issue in our culture mostly enters into the religious dialogue in the following way: “In the case of God, who isn’t some physical object but a divine being, what kind of evidence should we expect to find? There is a tendency to forget that the Bible stresses that sin can dampen the the cogntive facutlities that God has given us to find Him. Therefore, sin has damaging consequences on the knowing process (Is. 6:9-10; Zech. 7:11-12; Matt. 13:10-13; 2 Cor. 4:4). Hence, in an ontological sense, the acceptance of revelation, therefore, is, of fundamental importance to biblical faith. The word "revelation" comes from the Greek word " apokalupsis" which means "an "uncovering," or "unveiling."  As the late Jewish scholar Abraham J. Heschel said, “The God of Israel is a God who acts, a God of mighty deeds."

While God predominately revealed Himself to the Jewish people through specific actions in the course of human history, the Jewish people agree that the Torah was the pivotal moment of God’s supreme revelation to them. But what about the Gentile nations? After all, it is Israel that was given the Torah. The good news is God has also taken the initiative to reveal Himself to Gentiles through general or natural revelation. In the case of G-d, who isn’t some physical object but a divine, invisible being, we have to use induction. Induction is the method of drawing general conclusions from specific observations. For example, since we can’t observe gravity directly, we only observe its effects. Paul understood this issue when he writes in Romans 1: 18-21, “For the wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for G-d revealed it to them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse. Because, knowing God, they didn't glorify him as G-d, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened.” Paul lays out the basic principle of cause and effect. Paul says since God is the Designer (G-d is the cause), His “everlasting power and divinity” are obvious, “through the things that are made” (this is the effect).  There have been some signifcant comments made by philosophers about these issues. Here are a couple of them:

Former atheist J. Budziszewski:
I am not at present concerned to explore Paul’s general claim that those who deny the Creator are wicked but only his more particular claim that they are intellectually dishonest. Notice that he does not criticize nonbelievers because they do not know about God but ought to. Rather, he criticizes them because they do know about God but pretend to themselves that they don’t. According to his account, we are not ignorant of God’s reality at all. Rather, we “suppress” it; to translate differently, we “hold it down.” With all our strength we try not to know it, even though we can’t help knowing it; with one part of our minds we do know it, while with another we say, “I know no such thing.” From the biblical point of view, then, the reason it is so difficult to argue with an atheist—as I once was—is that he is not being honest with himself. He knows there is a God, but he tells himself that he doesn’t. How can a person explain how he reached new first principles? By what route could he have arrived at them? To what deeper considerations could he have appealed? If the biblical account is true, then it would seem that no one really arrives at new first principles; a person only seems to arrive at them. The atheist does not lack true first principles; they are in his knowledge already, though suppressed. The convert from atheism did not acquire them; rather, things he knew all along were unearthed. ( Giesler, N. L. and Paul K. Hoffman. Why I Am A Christian. Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. 2001, 49).

Our original knowledge of God and his glory is muffled and impaired; it has been replaced (by virtue of sin) by stupidity, dullness, blindness, inability to perceive God or to perceive him in his handiwork. Our knowledge of his character and his love toward us can be smothered: it can be transformed into resentful thought that God is to be feared and mistrusted; we may see him as indifferent or even malignant. In the traditional taxonomy of seven deadly sins, this is sloth. Sloth is not simple laziness, like the inclination to lie down and watch television rather than go out and get exercise you need; it is, instead, a kind of spiritual deadness, blindness, imperceptiveness, acedia, torpor, a failure to be aware of God’s presence, love, requirements. (Plantinga, A. Warranted Christian Belief. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2000, 214-215).

Paul also speaks about natural law when he states, "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:12-15). Have you ever read Amos 1and 2? In these passages, God threatens judgment upon the neighbors of Judah and Israel. But notice that since none of these nations were the same as the nation of Israel, God still held them accountable by a different standard. They did not have the Torah. But God knew they violated an objective moral law that they knew and should have obeyed. And that standard is what Paul talks about it Romans 2:12-15.

Although natural revelation shows man is under condemnation, they are all without an excuse" (Romans 1:20; Romans 2:12), it is not sufficient for salvation. As Heb. 1:1–2 says, "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son." Yeshua did comment on how people respond to Him by saying, "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." But he who practices the truth comes to the light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in G-d" (John 3:19-21). And finally, remember that we are agents of G-d’s revelation. As messengers of the Messiah, we are the normative way God communicates to humans. Therefore, it is imperative for all us to ask whether we are willing to be obedient to the Great Commission (Matt 28:19).

In their book, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective: Norman L. Geisler and and Paul D. Feinberg show the relationship between reason and revelation:

There is a difference between the way we know reality (epistemology) and what we know about reality (ontology). The “revelation only” proponents appear to be ontologically correct that God is the ground of all truth. If God exists and is the source of all truth, then of course all truths come from “the top down.” However, epistemologically we must start from “the bottom up” and discover whether or not God does indeed exist. In the epistemological sense, then, reason is prior to revelation, since reason must be used to evaluate whether or not the Bible is indeed a revelation. Once this question is settled, then reason cannot be legitimately used to reject any of that revelation. Reason must take its place under revelation and not stand in judgment over it. There is some truth in all of the basic views on reason and revelation:
(1) “Reason is over revelation” is correct in that reason is epistemologically prior to revelation. The alleged revelation must be tested by reason.
(2) “Revelation is over reason” is right in the ontological sense. God created reason and it must be His servant, not His master.
(3) “Revelation only” is correct in the sense that ultimately and ontologically all truth comes from God.
(4) “Reason only” has some truth, since reason must judge epistemologically whether the alleged revelation is from God.

(5) “Revelation and reason” is correct because it properly assigns a role to each and shows their interrelationship. One should reason about and for revelation, otherwise he has an unreasonable faith. Likewise, reason has no guide without a revelation and flounders in error.

Morality: What worldview can explain morality? There is no doubt that one can be moral without acknowledging God as the foundation. After all, people are made in the image of God. Remember, a “brute fact” is a fact that is uninterpreted by God. Brute facts assume human autonomy and take their starting point outside God’s sovereign revelation of himself. Sometimes, a non-theist will say they just "know" morality in an epistemological sense- it does not need a foundation. Interestingly enough, as already mentioned, God has revealed himself to the Gentile nations through natural law- this is sometimes called moral knowledge by philosophers. In Romans 2:15, "suneidesis" stands alongside with the "heart" and "thoughts" as the faculty that allows the pagan world to live a life that corresponds to the Jewish people who have the written law. This type of natural revelation is called intuitive knowledge. It is instantaneously apprehended. 

But remember, there is a difference between order of being and order of knowing. In other words, we should not confuse  (knowledge) of ethics with the basis for morality (ontology).It is true that a non-theist can have objective morality. The question is, which has the best explanatory power for the foundation of objective moral values, moral obligation, human dignity and rights?  Hence, does a theory that says valueless, mindless, lifeless physical processes in a universe that came into existence from nothing provide us with the best explanation for these things? The argument that morality is derived from society or evolution was dealt with by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. The moral argument of Lewis can be summarized:

There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g., “The Nazis were wrong.”). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do.

2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it: (a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do). (b) Is interested in our behavior (as moral persons are).

3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a) Otherwise all moral effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is not ultimately right. (b) The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good.

4.Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver.

The Moral Law Is Not Herd Instinct. Lewis anticipates and persuasively answers major objections to the moral argument. Essentially, his replies are:
What we call the moral law cannot be the result of herd instinct or else the stronger impulse would always win, but it does not. We would always act from instinct rather than selflessly to help someone, as we sometimes do. If the moral law were just herd instinct, then instincts would always be right, but they are not. Even love and patriotism are sometimes wrong.

The Moral Law Is Not Social Convention. Neither can the moral law be mere social convention, because not everything learned through society is based on social convention. For example, math and logic are not. The same basic moral laws can be found in virtually every society, past and present. Further, judgments about social progress would not be possible if society were the basis of the judgments.

The Moral Law Differs from Laws of Nature. The moral law is not to be identified with the laws of nature. Nature’s laws are descriptive (is), not prescriptive (ought) as are moral laws. Factually convenient situations (the way it is) can be morally wrong. Someone who tries to trip me and fails is wrong, but someone who accidentally trips me is not.

The Moral Law Is Not Human Fancy. Neither can the moral law be mere human fancy, because we cannot get rid of it even when we would like to do so. We did not create it; it is impressed on us from without. If it were fancy, then all value judgments would be meaningless, including such statements as “Hate is wrong.” and “Racism is wrong.” But if the moral law is not a description or a merely human prescription, then it must be a moral prescription from a Moral Prescriber beyond us. As Lewis notes, this Moral Law Giver is more like Mind than Nature. He can no more be part of Nature than an architect is identical to the building he designs.

Injustice Does Not Disprove a Moral Law Giver. The main objection to an absolutely perfect Moral Law Giver is the argument from evil or injustice in the world. No serious person can fail to recognize that all the murders, rapes, hatred, and cruelty in the world leave it far short of perfect. But if the world is imperfect, how can there be an absolutely perfect God? Lewis’ answer is simple: The only way the world could possibly be imperfect is if there is an absolutely perfect standard by which it can be judged to be imperfect. For injustice makes sense only if there is a standard of justice by which something is known to be unjust. And absolute injustice is possible only if there is an absolute standard of justice. Lewis recalls the thoughts he had as an atheist:

Just how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust. . . . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. [Mere Christianity, 45, 46].

 

Sources:

  1. Newport. J.P. Life’s Ultimate Questions: A Contemporary Philosophy of Religion. Dallas: Word Publishing. 1989, 4.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Pearcey, N. Total Truth. Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. 2004, 25-28.
  4. Clark, D.J. Dialogical Apologetics: A Person Centered Approach to Christian Defense. Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books. 1993, 85-86
  5. Geisler, N.L. Systematic Theology Vol 1. Bloomington, MINN: Bethany House Publishers 2003, 82-96.
  6. Ibid, 40-63.
  7. Ibid, 110-124.
  8. Hoover, A.J. The Case for Christian Theism. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1976, 52.
  9. Naugle, D.K. Worldview: The History Of A Concept. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. 2002, 266-274.
  10. Naugle, 266-274.