Worldview Foundations

What is a worldview?
A worldview is a collection of beliefs and practices that shape a person’s approach to the most important issues of life. It is the filter through which one sees life and the world at large. The most common illustration is that it is analogous to a pair of glasses. How a person makes sense of and understands the world is based upon their vision or perception of that world. So, a persons clarity or distortion of reality is only as good or poor as their worldview in much the same way that a persons vision clarity or distortion is tied to their prescription glasses.

Who has a worldview?
Everyone possess a worldview. The question is are they cognizant of it? The more you understand your own personal worldview, the better shape you are in when you critically evaluate your own worldview and the worldview of others.

Answering life’s Big Questions
A well thought-out worldview will touch on the following questions which philosophers consider to be some of the major questions of life:

1. Ulimate Reality: What kind of God, if any, actually exists?
2. External Reality: Is there anything beyond the cosmos?
3. Knowledge: What can be known and how can anyone know it?
4. Origin: Where did I come from?
5. Identity: Who am I?
6. Location: Where am I?
7. Morals: How should I live?
8. Values: What should I consider of great worth?
9. Predicament: What is humanity’s fundamental problem?
10. Resolution: How can humanity’s problem be solved?
11. Past/Present: What is the meaning and direction of history?
12. Destiny: Will I survive the death of my body and, if so, in what state?

These questions can be grouped together in one of the following five major categories (or components) that comprise every worldview:

1. Theology (concept of God)
2. Metaphysics (View of external reality, particularly the cosmos)
3. Epistemology (Theory of knowledge)
4. Axiology (Study of values: moral values; value theory; aesthetics)
5. Anthropology (Study of humanity and human nature)

A is for Atheism

Atheism (a = non; theism = god) can be either a belief that no gods exist (strong atheism) or a disbelief in god/s (weak atheism, also called agnosticism).

Atheism comes out of a naturalistic worldview where the belief is that the physical world is all there is, was, or ever will be. This leads to a denial of the immaterial world regarding such things as thoughts or mind, etc. So how does one, who claims to be an atheist, account for the immaterial concepts that seem to exist, such as morals, thoughts, other minds, emotions, etc.?

I recently read a couple of blog posts (here and here) and in the first post, towards the end, this gentlemen makes such a claim. He says,

“But to be perfectly honest, I’m not an agnostic, because I don’t believe in a spiritual world or a world that is beyond human perception. I believe that matter exists, and that’s all. No Heaven. No Hell. No platonic forms. No ghosts or spirits or chakras or auras.

And most importantly, no God.

My ‘little white agnostic’ lie quieted my mother. She sat back satisfied, albeit a bit relieved. She relaxed and said, ‘Oh, okay,’ which, though ostensibly innocuous, subtextually meant, ‘Thank God my son isn’t a Satanist pedophile. At least he believes in something greater than himself.’

She was right about the latter. I do believe in something greater than myself - I just don’t think that thing is God.”

So I am curious as to what that “something greater is.” I am guessing that it must be a physical thing since he has already ruled out all possibilities that are beyond human perception. For me I find these claims quite interesting, not because I think they are silly or fallacious, but because I am not clear how one only thinks that matter is all that exists when there is abundance evidence to the contrary. The best thing for me to do will be to ask him, which I plan to do, and hopefully we will end up having a gracious and civil dialog.

The God Delusion

Dr. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, is on his way to Tempe, Arizona. He will be giving a talk on his book Thursday evening on the Arizona State University (ASU) campus.

Where to begin…I am hoping to power through the remainder of his book this week, before he delivers his talk. I am curious as to what he has to say and the arguments that he presents in defending his position. From the little I have watched on YouTube and what I have read from his various short essays against religion, he seems extremely hostile and dogmatic, yet personable and charming. It takes a fairly unique individual to pull that off. However, as gracious or abrupt as he might be, his message is anything but harmless. He is quite aggressive in his stance against any religious group, but in particular against Roman Catholicism.

Anyway, I will be posting various videos of Dawkins or Dawkins related material, as well as my thoughts on The God Delusion as I make my way through it this week.

Enjoy the video (8:51):

Social Responsibility to Kenya?

But an expert, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” - Luke 10:29 (NET)

A good friend of the family, Laura Shewmaker, has been posting on her blog about the country of Kenya and the instability in that area due to warring political factions. In her most recent post, Responsibility, she raises an extremely valid question in my opinion. She asks, On the verge of genocide in Africa again, what will we do right now… do we have a responsibility to people half a world away?

That’s a great question. While I do not agree totally with his worldview, the utilitarian/atheist philosopher Peter Singer wrote a rather engaging essay in 1972 titled Famine, Affluence, and Morality (I would highly recommending taking the half-hour or so to read it - he makes some good points). He begins by offering two principles in regards to ones moral duty, one strong and the other moderate (or weak).

1. Strong Principle: If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.
2. Moderate (or weak) Principle: If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.

Singer explains the first principle this way, “It requires us only to prevent what is bad, and not to promote what is good, and it requires this of us only when we can do it without sacrificing anything that is, from the moral point of view, comparably important.”

Singer also provides an application of the second principle, “If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of a child would presumably be a very bad thing.”

From here, Singer makes the distinction between shall and ought based on a persons proximity to a particular situation that needs some sort of response. I particularly like the way he argues for proximity (he calls it geographic discrimination) not being a justifiable excuse for non-action and I think that really is the point of contact with the situation today in Kenya, much like the situation in 1972 with India (which is what Singer is writing about). The principle is still applicable even though the circumstances are not identical.

While I do believe that Singer makes some rather good, strong points for humanities moral obligation to help those in need and danger, I do not see clearly how he is able to build his utilitarian philosophy upon his atheistic underpinnings in a way that is logically justifiable and makes rational sense. I think it lacks explanatory power and scope to move him from isness to oughtness. I believe a better view to explain ones obligation for helping out is a Christian theistic worldview.

We see the apostle Paul taking up a collection in 1 Corinthians 16 for the church in Jerusalem. We see the early Christian community in Acts 2:44-45 helping one another as they had need. There is Christ’s own words during the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:7-12). But perhaps the most clearest instruction comes to us from the book of James.

James, the half-brother of Jesus, wrote,

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” but you do not give them what the body needs, what good is it? So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith without works and I will show you faith by my works. You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that - and tremble with fear. But would you like evidence, you empty fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? You see that his faith was working together with his works and his faith was perfected by works. - James 2:14-22 (NET)

So in response to Laura’s question, we absolutely have a moral obligation/duty/responsibility to help those half a world away. Proximity is not an excuse to sit idly by and do nothing. As human beings, created in the image of God, we have an obligation to all of humanity to treat them as we would want to be treated.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength….Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these. - Mark 12:30-21 (NET)

Mani - The Path to Clarity

I really cannot do this particular post justice when compared to what Fred Sanders posted, so I’m not going to even try. Rather, I will just encourage you to go and read his very humorous and tongue-in-cheek offering. Please do not mistake his approach to being flippant in regards to the subject matter, it is merely to make a point of the ridiculousness of it all. If you would like to learn a little more about Mani and his brand of Gnosticism, called Manichaeism, you can saunter over Wikipedia (yeah, I know it is not scholarly, but it will give you a small taste) and read up on the man and philosophy.

Next Page »