Worldview

Worldview

Scott Reynolds, PhD, DMin | August 8, 2022

In apologetics there are few things more important than an individual’s worldview. It helps form every individual’s conception of reality. However, many individuals have created a worldview based on multiple concepts that are incompatible with each other. Therefore, this work offers a way to examine the legitimacy of one’s worldview. There are multiple ways to address the validity of one’s worldview. This piece intends to demonstrate the comprehensiveness of a Christian’s worldview and the conflicting elements of a few other worldviews.

Constructive apologetics (usually called positive apologetics builds a case for Christian theism by arguing that Christianity best fits the appropriate criteria for worldview assessment…. Negative apologetics can be used in two ways. First, when another worldview claims to be rationally superior to Christianity (such as naturalism or pantheism), it is appropriate to evaluate that worldview against appropriate criteria in order to show its logical deficiencies in relation to Christianity…. Second, if a genuine objection is brought against Christianity—for example, that it is nothing but wish fulfillment, lacking objective reality—that challenge should be rebutted.[1]

A worldview is based upon a broad range of points and ideas; it attempts to map out an individual’s concept of reality comprehensively. If it gives no explanation for important characteristics of life—matters pertaining to meaning, ethics, life, and death—something is amiss, as these questions are enduring and relevant. The first test of any worldview is that “it explains what it ought to explain.”[2] As an example, both naturalism and pantheism fall into this error because they cannot explain key features of the universe and human persons.

 Worldview Criterion 1

If a worldview asserts an essential proposition X, and X is utterly mysterious or unintelligible and sheds no light on anything (it is a bare assertion), then the assertion of X is a rational strike against that worldview.[3]

In the first test of a worldview, if it cannot answer the bare essential questions of life and the beginning of all things, then that worldview fails. Naturalism has to explain the beginning of all things with a closed universe. In a closed universal all that is necessary to create the universe is already in the universe; therefore, the circular argument starts with nothing and by default must end with nothing. Christianity has what Thomas Aquinas calls the Uncaused Caused, a Creator who is outside the universe and therefore has the ability to make everything inside the universe.

The second test of a worldview is internal consistency.[4] The essential or fundamental elements of any worldview must harmonize, without contradiction. An essential element of a worldview is a conceptual peg that is required to complete a rational conclusion. Although internal consistency of all the essential tenets of a worldview is a necessary test of adequacy for every worldview, internal consistency does not establish the truth of a worldview. A worldview might be internally consistent but fail to describe objective reality precisely. Internal inconsistency, however, establishes the falsity of a worldview.

Worldview Criterion 2a

If a worldview affirms X, Y, and Z as essential elements of that worldview, and none of these individual elements contradicts another essential element, that worldview may be true because it is not inconsistent.

Worldview Criterion 2b

If a worldview affirms X, Y, and Z as essential elements, and any of these elements contradicts another essential element (say X contradicts Y) or is self-contradictory, this worldview is necessarily false because it is inconsistent.[5]

Every worldview is going to have a list of tenets or laws that must be maintained, as they are the backbone of the worldview. The first issue is that the tenets may be in perfect harmony with each other but do not fit within reality. Worldviews cannot exist only in theory but must be able to survive in the real world. Second, these tenets cannot conflict with each other. The moment the tenets conflict, then the worldview falls in on itself.

The third test for evaluating a worldview is coherence.[6] The essential intentions of a worldview are tightly interrelated and conceptually linked. A collection of noncontradictory ideas or statements is not in itself adequate to form a coherent worldview. Consider these statements:

  1. Kathleen Kenyon did an archaeological dig at Jericho.
  2. Blake Shelton is a country singer.
  3. Ralph Hawkins wrote a book on Israel.

These statements are all consistent logically. However, this triad of isolated facts bears no relation to a coherent worldview. Consider the Christian relationship between God, humans, and sin/salvation. God created humans in his own image. Therefore, the metaphysics between God and humans is close. Humans sinned against God, yet God provided a path to salvation through the atoning act of Jesus Christ. Here, there is an interconnection between all these statements, that is, a coherence throughout the entire account.

Worldview Criterion 3

If a worldview’s essential propositions are coherent (meaningfully interconnected at the conceptual level), it is more likely to be true than if its essential propositions are not related in this way.[7]

Simply because statements do not contradict each other inside the parameters of the world does not mean that the worldview itself is viable. Beyond contradiction is the ability to be interconnected. Adherents of naturalism are going to feel really good about this criterion because they are going to point to the circle of life. Generations live and die, and the next generation takes it place. These animals eat those animals, and it is the circle of life. Congratulations to naturalism for getting one point, but subtract one point for not knowing where the first generation of life came from to start the circle of life. Sorry!

The fourth test is factual adequacy. A worldview may be internally consistent yet inconsistent concerning the reality it attempts to describe.[8] If one claims the universe to be eternal, then they are failing to see the universe through a logical framework. Many of the contemporary pluralistic ideas have led to the creation of worldviews that are inconsistent with themselves and with reality. However, while they must fit inside reality, they do not have to fit inside naturalism. There are moments (miracles) that defy the laws of nature, but those acts come from a Creator, a notion leading to a larger argument that includes fine-tuning and other propositions for intelligent design.

Worldview Criterion 4

The greater the extent to which a worldview’s essential factual claims can be established in various empirical, scientific, and historical ways, the greater the likelihood that this worldview is true.[9]

In the mind of an atheist the existence of multiple universes (the multiverse) is as possible as the existence of miracles. Both are going to seem like science fiction and less like science. The objective idea of natural laws that are in place to maintain the consistencies of fine-tuning would be impossible to break without unleashing the consequences of breaking the laws. Adherents of naturalism are going to cry foul right here on the Christian worldview. They are going to state that their worldview works without periods or moments where the laws of the natural world are broken without consequence (miracles). Christians have a tough argument to make in the wake of this criterion. Miracles represent breaks in natural law. Therefore, there must be something or someone able to hold the world together, as the natural order of the world is being broken. A Creator who places the natural order of laws in place can as he chooses break those laws for his divine good pleasure. The adherent of naturalism or the atheist is going to claim that the Christian worldview fails this criterion and has created a loophole to answer the criterion. However, it is the Christian’s answer to the first criterion that there was a Creator who keeps a consistency in the Christian’s worldview.

Existential viability is a fifth test, one of factual adequacy that focuses on the inner reality of human beings.[10] In other words, simply because someone says, “This worldview works for me” does not mean that it is a viable worldview. A worldview can be philosophically viable without the possibility of existence in reality. It is not livable. As with the test for truth, a worldview must be compatible with real-world existence and, in this sense, be able to meet the test of reality. To say “there is no universal truth” sounds compelling philosophically but does not work in reality.

Worldview Criterion 5a

For a worldview to be a likely candidate for truth, its essential propositions must be existentially viable.

Worldview Criterion 5b

If a worldview leads habitually to philosophical hypocrisy, it is rationally disqualified because this indicates that it does not correspond to reality.[11]

Does it survive on paper but not in the real world? It must have an existential foundation to be viable as a sustainable worldview. Many ideas sound good on paper. Some would even make good movies, but they must be livable in the here and now. What about a worldview where people isolate or commune away from the rest of society¾would their worldview work? The answer is a question: is it transferable? Again, a worldview may pass this criterion but fail at other points. Isolated, they may live in peace but find themselves unable to answer life’s essential questions.

Worldview Criterion 6

The sixth test is related to livability, concerning intellectual and cultural fecundity.[12] If an individual’s worldview fits within possible reality, then it should be accepted and understood as trustworthy. J. P. Moreland captures this idea in his reflection on the nature of truth and its power when he says, “This is why truth is so powerful. It allows us to cooperate with reality, whether spiritual or physical and tap into its power.”[13] Certain geopolitical ideas seem to work on paper but are not fecund for the greater cultural good. Here the test of intellectual and cultural fecundity becomes a safety net for the first five tests by forcing the worldview to encompass all social and cultural settings. Christianity cannot work if it is merely a Western religion; as a worldview, it must be able to be placed over every culture and find acceptance by any individual in that culture. Therefore, and individual must find a theistic worldview that works in every culture even if the culture as a whole rejects it.

If a worldview is true, it should lead to intellectual and cultural fecundity. The greater the beneficial fecundity, the greater evidence that the worldview is true.[14]

The sixth text is a hard one to quantify because different people are going to use different factors to draw their own conclusions on their worldview and the results of others. It is like using Bayes Theorem in apologetics: anyone can set the factors at any denomination to achieve the results they want. Rather, the answer to the sixth criterion is found in the long game. It is the ability to watch a worldview unfold for generations and see the fruit of its tenets. It takes the history from its beginnings, the laws that guide the universe, and the tenets that produce the fruitfulness of its people. Then, and only then, will the true fecundity of that worldview be seen.

The seventh test is called radical ad hoc readjustment and is an important negative test for evaluating worldview. When a worldview is faced with potentially defeating counterevidence, an adherent may readjust its core claims to accommodate opposing evidence.[15] An advocate for theistic evolution is purging the world of evidence of an intelligent designer (as does Darwinism and the concept of naturalism) and is not compatible with Christian theism. Adjustments to, or a mixture of, worldviews struggling to satisfy existing evidence reveal a real problem in producing an acceptable worldview.

Worldview Criterion 7

If a worldview substantially alters its essential claims in light of counterevidence, it loses rational justification.[16]

Christianity has begun to ask whether God really created the world in seven days. An old earth/new earth debate has arisen amongst the faith. It does not purge the world of an intelligent designer, but it raises question about the design more than the designer. However, other worldviews are going to ask, “If seven days is not true, what else could be wrong?” Every worldview is going to have questions, yet it is the ones with answers to those questions that will survive. The sun and moon were created in day four, so were there 24-hour days in days 1-3, or could they have been longer? Questions need viable answers, answers capable of standing the test of time.

All things being equal, pursuant to the eighth test, simpler explanations are preferable to complex ones.[17] A naturalist may claim that any naturalistic explanation is better than a theistic one since naturalism is simpler than theism, the latter including both God and the material world. However, simplicity does not mean the shortest answer but the shortest complete answer. Certain worldviews may be shorter than Christian theism, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, but do not present complete cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments.

Worldview Criterion 8

Worldviews should not appeal to extraneous entities or be more complex than is required to explain what they propose to establish.[18]

A worldview does not need the protection of flowery words. It needs its beginning; how did life begin? The worldview needs its tenets: how should its people live? It needs to be coherent and consistent, allowing people the peace to know what they are following is true. Ultimately it simply needs to stand the test of time, cross borders, and be available for all people.

About the Author

Dr. Scott Reynolds earned his Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics from Liberty University and his D.Min from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. In addition to his doctoral accomplishments, he earned degrees from Troy University. Dr. Reynolds has traveled the world and has served as an archaeologist with some of the biggest names in the field. He brings a passion for biblical studies, biblical history, and an expertise in archaeological studies. Dr. Reynolds is a retired pastor and church planter. He has taught at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and now is now working archaeological digs in a pursuit of discovering the apologetic properties of archaeology. Scott and his wife Lori have two grown children, one granddaughter and a very spoiled dog.

Notes

[1] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 51-52.

[2] Ibid., 52.

[3] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 53.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 54.

[7] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 55.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 55.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid., 56.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Moreland, Love Your God, 81.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 58.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid., 59.

 

Copyright, 2022. BellatorChristi.com.

johnsonmk87

Michelle earned her M.A. in Theological Studies and her M.Div. in Professional Ministries at Liberty University, where she is also working on her Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics. Michelle is also a graduate of the University of Minnesota. She and her husband Steve live in Mankato, Minnesota, where she also serves in women's ministry. In addition to a love of theology, apologetics and church history, Michelle also has a passion for creationism studies. When she is not spending time reading or writing, Michelle can often be found dreaming of her next travel adventure or enjoying a great cup of coffee.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback

[…] Source: Worldview […]

1
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x