Worldview Class #2 - Part 1 - Introduction

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

A worldview is an acquired and developed “filter” which each person possesses (whether they want to or not). Each person’s worldview may be slightly different, but it is this filter which determines how we view most everything that we experience. When we read the newspaper, our worldview determines how we interpret data and articles, and is the driving force behind the formulation of our own opinions on almost every subject. In our class, we will touch on four different worldviews (though there are more than this which could be considered) – 1) the Christian worldview, 2) the Secular Humanist worldview, 3) the Marxist/Leninist worldview, and 4) the Cosmic Humanist (or New Age) worldview.

Consider this example – Saint Peter reads an article in the newspaper about new abortion rights being granted to mothers and is horrified at the prospect. This rails against his perspective that all life is sacred and should be preserved. Madonna (the singer, not the painting) reads the exact same article and is filled with satisfaction that the universe has reached a new level of progressive achievement. How can two people read the very same article and yet come away with such radically different conclusions? It all has to do with the worldview that they possess.

This subject is timely. The Christian worldview has largely been removed from the public square, and is even condemned at times by our own laws and practices. But our nation did not start out this way. Consider these words from some of our founding fathers:

“Whoever will introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world.” – Benjamin Franklin

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.” – Patrick Henry

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” – James Madison, fourth President of the United States

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: that it tied together in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” – John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States

“God has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers” – John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Can we imagine a politician or Supreme Court justice uttering these words today? Clearly, the worldview lens at the political level has changed in the last two hundred years.

There is much to support a Christian worldview. The idea of a soul is engendered in many other worldviews, including that of New Age supporters, but it is often not thought of as a “real” item to possess, but as more of an ethereal concept. Consider these words from Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

“There is a disaster…which has already been under way for quite some time. I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness. If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature.”

Throughout this class, I will reveal several articles of faith to be declared emphatically as elements of a Christian worldview. The first is this:

THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH

Once we arrive at the understanding that truth is not different for each individual (a common misperception in the New Age arena), it drives us to seek and understand what this truth is. This element is not an easy one for many people to accept. Many professing Christians will falter on this issue as they unintentionally compromise their belief or their moral position in order to be more accepted by others, and so live to fight another day. But this concept is one that must be adhered to if one is to successfully defend the ideal of Christian Theism.

Next: Worldview - Part 2 - Cat Murder - Ethics and Truth

or

Back to Worldview Series #1

Greek Philosophy – The Seeds of Doubt - Aristotle (The History of Epistemology! - Part 5)

In this series, we explore epistemology, or “How do we know what we know?” I think such a question is as relevant as ever, especially given our culture’s fairly recent leanings toward postmodernism – the belief that traditional norms should be abandoned in favor of abstractness. Josh McDowell defines postmodernism as “a worldview characterized by the belief that truth doesn’t exist in any objective sense but is created rather than discovered.” In other words, a postmodernist would claim that truth is a variable, and that it is relative to each individual who attempts to discover it. In the postmodern world, there is the potential for more than one truth.

Is truth relative, or is it an absolute? And does it matter? Read on…
***************************************
In the last entry, we saw that the Greek philosopher Plato believed that all perfect knowledge was inborn into every man – it was simply left to a lifetime of experiences to “discover” this whole truth. Plato’s foremost student was Aristotle (384-322 BC), who represents the third in a series of influential Greek philosophers (after Socrates and Plato). Aristotle continued to refine the thinking of the time, which was in stark contrast to the pagan times that went before.

Like many who have come after him, Aristotle speculated that in order for a man to live a good life, he must strike a balance between excess and scarcity. In other words, a good life is achieved through finding a balance in all things. Presumably, this philosophy extended to nearly all aspects of life, including that of religion and the existence of God. I cannot find that Aristotle took a strong position in either direction on the role and existence of God in our lives. Instead, his arguments asked men to reason their way to the truth.

In many ways, this would seem like an appeal to science as the ultimate authority in establishing a philosophical argument. Actually, Aristotle knew very little about science. His thoughts along these lines included the thinking that the earth was the center of the universe, that women were an inferior form of life compared to men, and even that men had more teeth than women. This seems ludicrous in light of the ease with which he could have simply counted the number of teeth in a given sample of people, but remember this – science did not really meet up with math and hypothesis testing until the sixteenth century. It was typical for philosophers and “wise men” of the time to simply draw inferences based on personal feeling and highbrow banter.

One of Aristotle’s favorite ways to “prove” his point was through the use of dialectic. Dialectic was the basis of “logic” for many of the Greek philosophers. It is simply a contrived written argument between two people of differing opinion, both of which wish to convince the other of their point of view. These can take a lengthy written form of argument between the two individuals – but the end result is that both sides were written by the same philosopher. I can write my own short dialectic right here:

Person A: Anchovies are tasty!

Person B: No, they’re not!

Person A: Yes, they are, because I eat them every week!

Person B: Oh…maybe they are tasty. I’ve never tried them.

Yes, that is a very simplified and silly form of dialectic. But here is the point - dialectic is not proof and it is not absolute. Karl Popper, twentieth century philosopher of science, said this when he argued against dialectic: “The whole development of dialectic should be a warning against the dangers inherent in philosophical system-building. It should remind us that philosophy should not be made a basis for any sort of scientific system and that philosophers should be much more modest in their claims” - (just a tip - while this is good, don't listen to everything that Popper said).

Where am I headed with all of this? My point is pretty simple. Greek philosophers, including most notably Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle changed thinking radically, by bringing man’s reason and personal opinions into the equation. Prior to this, men looked to the one true God or the pagan gods for answers and absolutes. When men (and women) get together and begin to speculate about a topic, without any reference to an absolute authority, they practice what I like to call “pooling ignorance”. Anyone can take the time to make the craziest ideas seem possible, if they spend their efforts on ways to turn a phrase, create a hypothetical example, or manipulate big words. In fact, I think a lot of college courses are designed to do exactly that.

But what happens to absolute truth in a world influenced by human philosophy? The answer is that it gets ignored, just as it does every day in our postmodern world. As Pastor Voddie Baucham, Jr. says in his excellent book The Ever-Loving Truth, “The denial of absolute truth is a hallmark of modern thinking.”

But the key to understanding an epistemology series is this – just because absolute truth is being ignored all around us does not mean that it does not exist! Whether man chooses to believe that 1) God exists, 2) that He has a plan and a desire for each of us, 3) that He sent His Son to die for us, and 4) that we all have a chance to live with Him for eternity – the truth of these statements is unchanged by man’s thoughts. It is true, and we Christians should not be ashamed of the boldness of that thought. Our position of one absolute truth would have been deemed unacceptable in Aristotle’s day. It is labeled as “intolerant” in our world today. I don’t care. IT IS TRUTH.

*****************************
Back to the start of the Epistemology series…

Greek Philosophy – The Seeds of Doubt - Plato (The History of Epistemology! - Part 4)

In this series, we explore epistemology, or “How do we know what we know?” I think such a question is as relevant as ever, especially given our culture’s fairly recent leanings toward postmodernism – the belief that traditional norms should be abandoned in favor of abstractness. Josh McDowell defines postmodernism as “a worldview characterized by the belief that truth doesn’t exist in any objective sense but is created rather than discovered.” In other words, a postmodernist would claim that truth is a variable, and that it is relative to each individual who attempts to discover it. In the postmodern world, there is the potential for more than one truth.

Is truth relative, or is it an absolute? And does it matter? Read on…
***************************************
Probably the best-known saying associated with Plato is this – “If you don’t put the lid back on when you’re done, it will all dry out.”

Okay, not really. But you have to admit that you didn’t expect that in the middle of an epistemology series.

Plato (428-348 BC) was a student of Socrates, and unlike his teacher, he actually wrote things down. Consequently, there is a lot more to look at and deduce from Plato and his writings. Plato refined much of the thinking of Socrates into more concrete form. As opposed to the thinking that went before him, he speculated that each soul, before birth, possessed a perfect knowledge of everything. Plato would argue that truth was “pre-loaded” into each person, and it is their task to “recall” that truth, rather than learn it. This was a unique concept for the time, and differed greatly from the pre-Greek philosopher thinking which simply looked to God (or pagan gods) for truth. The idea that each human began with perfect knowledge, lost it, and must spend a lifetime trying to regain it is not unlike many religions of today.

There is a fine line between this thinking, and that of Romans 1:18-21, where we are told:

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.”

The difference between these schools of thought is that Plato’s thinking assumes a perfect understanding at the start of life, while the Bible makes no such claim. Since the fall of man through Adam, man has had an imperfect grasp and knowledge of God. We are told in 1 Corinthians 15:22 – “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.”

Plato used an allegory of a chariot driver being pulled by two horses to explain more of his thinking. The charioteer represents man’s reason – the decider who will guide the soul to truth. One horse is white, and stands for the positive part of man’s passionate nature (such as righteous indignation), and the other horse is black and represents irrational passions and appetites. The driver – man’s reason – must learn to tame and balance these two forces in order to make progress. The horse part of the analogy is not far from the apostle Paul’s reasoning in Romans 7:21-25:

“So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.”

The real difference between the two philosophies is this – who is the driver of the chariot? For Plato, this was man himself, who learned to drive and control the horses as best he could. The whole of the process rested in man alone. For the Christian, as we see in Paul’s words above, we give the reins to Jesus Christ, who is our rescuer and who guides us into all truth. There is a huge difference between these two models.

Finally, in typical philosophical fashion, Plato also contributed to the roots of today’s postmodernism movement. He constructed an argument to discuss whether or not all objects have a universal form, by saying something like this – “When we look at an apple, for example, we see an apple, and we can also analyze a form of an apple. In this distinction, there is a particular apple and a universal form of an apple. Moreover, we can place an apple next to a book, so that we can speak of both the book and apple as being next to each other.” These are words that a post-modernist would love to discuss, but not I. My fifteen-year-old daughter likes to label words such as this as “a load of waffle”. For me, it’s enough to say that apples were created by God, and they taste good. Can we see some of God’s handiwork when we eat one? While the Greek philosophers are often credited with moving man toward a deeper understanding of truth, there is some doubt as to whether this is really right… Next up, the final Greek philosopher in this series - Aristotle. Then we will need to jump ahead almost 2000 years to get to the next major epistemological development.

****************************

Next in the series...

Back to the start of the Epistemology series…

Greek Philosophy – The Seeds of Doubt - Socrates (The History of Epistemology! - Part 3)

In this series, we explore epistemology, or “How do we know what we know?” I think such a question is as relevant as ever, especially given our culture’s fairly recent leanings toward postmodernism – the belief that traditional norms should be abandoned in favor of abstractness. Josh McDowell defines postmodernism as “a worldview characterized by the belief that truth doesn’t exist in any objective sense but is created rather than discovered.” In other words, a postmodernist would claim that truth is a variable, and that it is relative to each individual who attempts to discover it. In the postmodern world, there is the potential for more than one truth.

Is truth relative, or is it an absolute? And does it matter? Read on…
***************************************
So far, we have seen that absolute truth does exist and can be known, this being the truth revealed by the Creator – God. To nearly all men before 500 BC, truth was either based in God the Creator or it was based in pagan beliefs. Up to this point, men looked to a deity of some sort to find the ultimate answers.

We’ve also seen Pontius Pilate respond to Jesus intimations about what is absolute with his question, “What is truth?” Did Pilate create this question on his own, or was he influenced by the times?

The time period around 500 BC seems to be pivotal. It was around this time that man began to consider himself wise. Many began to question the idea of what knowledge truly was and where it came from. For the first time, the answers did not always lie in God or some other deity. This belief began to take root within the ancient Greek culture. Three notable philosophers – Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle – played a major role in the shift that led to the Age of Enlightenment, later leading to Modernism, and which sowed the seeds of the Postmodern era that we live in today.

Socrates (469-399 BC) was the first of the three great Greek philosophers. His influence started the Greek society toward several generations of questioning truth and how it is derived. Indeed, the “Socratic method” was named for him – in which a person begins asking question after question in order to gain an understanding of an issue. This in itself is not a bad thing, as long as one looks for the real source of right and truth on the subject. But it is a strong characteristic of Modernism, where science rules – and science has often been wrong, as history has shown. Socrates once said, "I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others." This was a new concept at the time. It should seem very familiar to us today, as the seeds of Postmodernism lie in that very concept.

Socrates believed that evil was not a choice that a person made purposefully, but rather, each man spent his life trying to find “the Good”, with some being more successful than others. When he was condemned to choose between exile or death, Socrates chose to drink hemlock. Making his final statement to the jury who condemned him for philosophical heresy, his famous last words to them were, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” This is not a bad statement to go out with, but again, what truth would Socrates have judged a life against? His statement seems noble, but if it’s made simply for the sake of appearing noble, without an appeal to the real absolute truth, was it worthwhile?

Curiously, Socrates was known for asking many questions, but he did not necessarily answer them. His glory was in the ability to ask and ask and ask – without necessarily feeling the need to reply. Compare this to Jesus, who lived less than 500 years later and who was not afraid to answer the questioning crowds, often referring to absolute truth as his source and beginning with the words, “Truly, truly, I say unto you…” We see in the ancient Greeks the tendency to question things just for the pleasure of questioning – not necessarily with an eye toward discovering real truth. Socrates’ influence was passed on to his student, Plato, who developed a much more rigid approach to epistemology. Plato’s philosophy is the next topic in this series.
*********************************
Next in the series...

Back to the start of the Epistemology series…

Should We Demand Truth From Politicians?

If anyone still thinks that the media has no bias (and these people have to be a vanishing breed), there can be little doubt after watching what happened this week. More accurately, it’s about watching what didn’t happen this week that points to the bias.

During the presidential campaign of 1988, George H. W. Bush made a pledge during his nomination acceptance speech – “Read my lips. No new taxes.” He gave it a valiant try, but eventually caved to his Democratically-controlled Congress and broke his pledge. The reaction was swift and intense. He was measured against his commitment by the press and the people who voted for him, and his inability to follow through may have cost him the Presidency the second time around.

During the presidential campaign of 2008, Barack Obama made it clear that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. This point was driven home time and time again, with the number moving around a bit. But on Monday of this week, when asked specifically if this pledge was still valid, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs basically said “No”. Here is the video of that moment:



I note with some dismay that the press corps seem to be laughing along with his answer. At least they asked the question in a straightforward manner, and some of them even expressed some surprise that the promise is apparently no longer valid. But I have searched the papers and the online news today, and I can’t find these words mentioned anywhere. It’s as if they didn’t happen. Or that people aren’t really interested in holding politicians to promises.

The fault is threefold. The press has a responsibility to publish what happens in politics, and should be doing it in an unbiased manner. I count 191 days since the inauguration of President Obama, just over an eighth of the way through his term, and the fact that his press representative came out and broke his number-one campaign pledge should get some airtime. But I can’t find it in the media (except Instapundit.com, where I first saw this story).

The second fault is in the politicians themselves. They had to know that they were likely to break such a promise when they made it, given all the grandiose government programs that they clearly want to foist upon us. Nationalized health care? Has it really worked anywhere else? Don’t we already have the finest health care in the world – and now we want to go break that? Won’t that cost a lot of money, and where will that money come from? These guys aren’t stupid, and they don’t have stupid advisors. They knew that they would need to raise taxes to pay for their programs. They simply will say anything to get elected, because they lack integrity.

Finally, the fault lies with us if we don’t hold our politicians accountable. The integrity that they require should also be present in us. We should be demanding truth and uprightness from them – not just rolling our eyes and expecting them to lie and cheat. There are certainly times when I feel like giving over to the idea that they are all swindlers and “that is just the way it is”. But this country is worth saving, and it’s our responsibility as citizens to demand the very best from our government. Integrity should be expected, demanded, and rewarded.

I intend to use this as a teaching moment with my kids. “Here is where he made a pledge (the past); here is where is broke that pledge (present); and here is where he paid the penalty (presumably sometime in the future).” We’ll have to stay tuned as to the future and whether or not this story gets told. I don’t want my children to grow up to be politicians, but if they do become leaders of some sort, I want them to be honest ones.

Politicians need to keep their word, and we need to hold them to it. I’m predicting that this event will get more press exposure as time goes on. At every event the President attends, someone should be asking him if he intends to keep his “no new taxes” pledge, or if he is breaking it. Eventually, he is going to answer the question, and seeing him say the words, rather than speaking through a press secretary, will certainly have a greater effect.

The Polarizing Principle

If you own a pair of polarized sunglasses, try this experiment. Hold them up and look through them at an item that contains an LCD display – maybe your car stereo or a digital watch. The LCD-type is the kind that has black numerals that seem to float - the earliest digital watches were LCD-type displays. Rotate the sunglasses by ninety-degrees while watching the LCD through them. If they are polarized, the numbers will gradually disappear and only black will show through. Or take two pair of polarized sunglasses and look through both of them while rotating them different ways. You will notice that nothing can be seen through them if you hold them at right angles to each other. The point of the exercise is to demonstrate this – when looking at two items that are polarized in different directions, no light gets through.

Personalities can be polarizing, too. Many politicians can be said to have a polarizing effect on people - none more so than Hillary Clinton. People either adore her or have a strong aversion to her. I’ve never met anyone that felt ambivalent about Mrs. Clinton, or who had not yet formed an opinion of her. She elicits a strong reaction, whether it be good or bad, from nearly everyone.

Becoming a polarizing person requires that one have a strong opinion on nearly every subject, and that one does not waver from their position in an effort to just “get along” with everyone. A forceful belief that you are right usually accompanies this personality. So it may come as a surprise to many that one of the most polarizing figures in history was Jesus Christ.

We live in an age where Jesus is often presented as a multi-cultural, infinitely-open-minded philosopher who went around spreading peace and goodwill to mankind. However, while Jesus wanted what was best and right for mankind, he did not compromise in his presentation of right and wrong. In his book The Truth War, John Macarthur exposes the new “emerging church” as a place where open-mindedness and uncertainty about what is right is actually treasured. He points out that “the idea that the Christian message should be kept pliable and ambiguous seems especially attractive to young people who are in tune with the culture and in love with the spirit of the age.” Indeed, it almost seems fashionable in some circles to deny that a single truth really exists.

But make no mistake about it, Jesus Christ was a tipping point for everyone who came in contact with him. Unlike the portrayals of him by some people today, Jesus insisted on pointing out his Father’s absolute truth to people. And his boldness in doing this caused people to either embrace him wholeheartedly…..or to walk away from him. In John 6:53-66, Jesus tells his disciples exactly what they must do to gain eternal life. Their response was to reply, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Instead of backpedaling in order to please his followers, Jesus says, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." And the reaction to this was that “many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him”.

See also John 7:12 – “Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, "He [Jesus] is a good man." Others replied, "No, he deceives the people."” Clearly, Jesus had a decision-making effect upon people. It had to be hard for him to be so blunt, knowing that some would forever forfeit their future in heaven because they simply could not accept this teaching. They were not willing to give their lives into whatever service that God called them to, but were more interested in pursuing their own path. But when two different viewpoints meet which have polarizing points of view, the light of truth does not get through.

In my own life, I am growing more convinced that I must adopt a more polarizing approach to proclaiming God’s truth. It may cost me opportunities in a worldly sense, and it may be done at the expense of a friendship or two. People walked away from Jesus because he could not waver from the truth. And while it will never be my goal to purposely drive anyone away from what is right, it should not surprise me when it happens – if I truly teach as Jesus taught.