Senior 42: Worldview Discourse

I had a wonderfully engaging discussion with my friend, Sean, this week. He always asks very good questions and challenges me to work through my beliefs and reasoning processes.

At one point our discussion turned to worldviews and worldview-discourse. How is a Christian to deal with the existence of so many seemingly coherent, compelling, workable worldviews? On what basis can a Christian claim that her worldview is the only correct one? What sort of compelling argument along those lines could one make?

--

Probably the first step is to clarify that the fact of so many extant worldviews does not make it more or less probable that any one worldview (or any number of particular worldviews) is either true or false. Underlying this view seems to be the mistaken assumption that in a world where there is one true worldview, that worldview would be the only one to be found among its inhabitants. But why should we be more likely to find uniformity of opinion where there is one truth than where there are many or no truths?

One might point to the uniformity of opinion in the world of mathematics or science. There is, after all, not much debate over whether four is the sum of two and two. But this is a fairly mundane truth. Even extreme anti-realists would not deny seemingly straight-forward truth-statements like, "This book is blue," or "I am typing on my laptop," within a confined and particular context. But at the level of worldview-discourse, as at the level of meta-mathematics or higher order scientific-epistemology, one finds very complex models and theories, none of which are self-evidently false, but many of which are mutually exclusive. And I would continue to maintain that the multiplicity of competing metaphysical theories does not imply (or even make probable) that none of them is true or that there is no true (in terms of actually describing reality) metaphysical theory.

There are any number of factors that may lead certain individuals to reject a "true" theory. Some of them are perfectly natural and understandable. Others are what epistemologists would describe as "culpable." But the fact of this multiplicity does not rule out the possibility of any one being true.

--

The second step involves appreciating the nature of worldviews. They are theoretical structures that connect with the world at the level of experience. That is the first and most natural level for evaluating and critiquing them. Worldviews, after all, are not self-contained, internally consistent, systems only. Instead, they intersect with the world of our physical, social, and spiritual experiences. And the adequacy of a worldview to account for the variety of phenomena that we encounter in our day-to-day experiences, as well as over the course of our lives, can count for or against that worldview. People regularly have experiences that challenge their existing worldview and compel them to modify or discard aspects of their worldview; sometimes they are forced to chuck almost the entire structure.

In one of his lectures, Os Guinness (author of The Journey: Our Quest for Faith and Meaning), evaluates the different worldviews' approaches to the existence of "evil" in the world. John Mark Reynolds (Biola University) emphasizes that a coherent worldview must be able to make sense of both the hard sciences and the existence of art and beauty in human culture.

Evaluating the degree to which worldviews match up with the "real world" is a useful way of weeding out inadequate candidates. If a worldview denies that evil exists, against our natural intuitions and every-day experience, that is probably an inadequate worldview. If a worldview denies that life has meaning, against the testimony of our introspective self-understanding and most natural longings, that worldview is also probably inadequate. If, over the course of history, followers of a particular worldview have tended toward depression, suicide, or a general lack of well-being, that worldview is probably inadequate.

In this way, a number of worldviews can be pared away. Of course, there are those hard core academicians who will dig in their heals and argue that my decision to exclude certain worldviews for their 'inadequacy' just confirms that I am caught up in my own way of looking at the world and actually doesn't count against any other belief system. If we follow this line of argument, then my interlocutor and I will reach an impasse. If he wants to say that a worldview, the natural end of which is suicide, is just as "good" as one that leads to wholeness, wellness, and a positive life (in whatever way I choose to construe those terms), then it is very difficult for me to argue that one is better than the other, since he has emptied "good" of any coherent, objective meaning.

--

At this point, two things should be said. First, I do not think that the average reflective individual, upon careful consideration, will find the relativist's to be a truly compelling position. Usually one has only to press on the right place and any person will acknowledge that some worldviews are better than others. Surely, we will find, he does not want to say that a worldview that condones torturing babies or supports George Bush's economic and foreign policies is good. And second, if we reach an impasse where the conflict cannot be resolved at the level of worldview discourse, one must look for an answer on some different level.

At the level of worldview discourse, we may talk about beliefs and metanarratives and values and propositions. But we have already hinted at a realm--that of experience--that transcends the realm of worldview discourse and, to some degree, can pass judgment on the adequacy of any particular worldview system. There is a general consensus that any good worldview must account for our experiences; even if it denies their genuineness, it must furnish an explanation for why we have them at all.

But when it comes to defending the Christian worldview, there is one experience which trumps the lot--that of an interactive, dynamic, personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

And bottom line, that is what Christianity is about. Christianity is not about having a coherent worldview. We already said, there are any number of coherent worldviews available that account for (the majority of) our physical and social experiences. But not all worldviews account for our spiritual experiences and only one worldview accounts adequately for the experience of the power and person of the risen Savior, Jesus Christ.

For a person who has an interactive relationship with Jesus Christ, a coherent worldview will follow quite naturally. The important thing, though, just is that personal relationship. That is a level that transcends worldview discourse (though it also includes it).

So back to the question of how Christianity deals with the multiplicity of extant worldviews? How can it defend itself against the vast array of competing stories? The simple answer is that Christianity need not defend a worldview, but only need facilitate entry into an interactive relationship with God. The worldview follows from the relationship. It is not the worldview that is compelling, but the person behind the worldview that is compelling. (Of course, I'm not saying that worldview-discourse is useless; in fact, it is very, very useful, but it is not the ultimate point or goal to convince a person to buy into just a worldview.)

In evangelizing or defending the Christian faith, it is easy to get bogged down in discussions of worldviews and doctrines. Similarly, in Christian practice, it is easy to get bogged down in liturgy and discipline. In each of these cases, the particular element is valuable, but only when properly integrated with that all-important relationship. Liturgy makes sense when properly related to the Jesus who is worshipped during the church service. And discipline makes sense when employed in the service of strengthening one's relationship with God. Doctrines are valuable as they direct people toward the true God. And worldviews are helpful for understanding how our relationship with God connects with the rest of our actions and experiences in the world.

At the center is Jesus Christ. Without him, it all means nothing and is quite inefficacious. But his presence changes everything.

See also: "Senior 22: Pondering" (04 August 2006)

-----

I have submitted my formal acceptance to the Doctoral Program in Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside. At some point this summer, I'll be moving out to Riverside (probably just in time for the August-September Roast. (Sigh.) But I am very excited.

Blessings all,

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.