Exploring Philosophy and Worldviews: A Deeper Understanding
Written on
Chapter 1: The Nature of Worldviews
What underlies the persistent and heated public discussions we see today?
Consider an exchange that might unfold like this:
"The Bible states __________" [fill in the blank]
"The Bible was authored by humans from millennia ago!"
"The Bible represents God's Word, which is eternal — unchanged throughout time!"
"The Bible has been translated by people and is riddled with contradictions. It claims God created Adam and Eve, while science supports evolution. How many witnesses were present at the discovery of Jesus's empty tomb?"
"The Bible holds no contradictions with reality or itself if interpreted correctly — "
This is a simplified version, of course, but it illustrates the disconnect. You may have engaged in or overheard a conversation that felt like a dialogue between the deaf.
This isn't to single out believers in the Bible; many topics spark similar dialogues. It could be about abortion, COVID vaccines, or the events of January 6, among others.
Often, the best advice is to disengage from such disputes. There's an old saying about not trying to teach a pig to sing — it wastes your time and annoys the pig. The crux is that you cannot change someone’s mind if they're unwilling to budge.
Online arguments can be particularly intense. People often express opinions online that they wouldn't dare say face-to-face. Yet, the very stubbornness of some discussions is what fascinates me. This isn't a new phenomenon; the internet has merely amplified it. So why are these exchanges so resistant to change? Can philosophy offer assistance? I believe it can.
Worldviews
To explore this, let’s consider the idea of a worldview. What is it? How does it function? Why is it significant? We’ll address these questions systematically.
In my usage, a worldview differs from a grand philosophical theory, even though such theories can inform or contribute to worldviews. A worldview is less defined, more "organic," woven into the fabric of people’s lives and cultural contexts. It often operates below the level of conscious awareness, influencing behavior and choices emotionally rather than rationally.
Worldviews contain elements that can be articulated philosophically, but this isn't mandatory. For centuries, Christianity has provided a foundational worldview for Western culture, although it has increasingly been overshadowed by other perspectives. This transition hasn’t been easy.
So, what exactly is a worldview? It’s a lens through which we perceive and navigate the world, shaping our lives and institutions. Most individuals, not actively contemplating their worldview, simply accept it as the status quo, much like fish unaware of the water they swim in. These worldviews address fundamental human concerns: survival, community, identity, meaning, and hope.
It’s also essential to differentiate between "the world" — the broader reality — and "our world," which represents the aspects of reality that influence us personally. Our world is a limited slice of existence that resonates with our experiences and values.
The world is diverse enough to allow for numerous flourishing worldviews, each shaped by distinct physical and cultural environments. Philosophy can help identify these worldviews, clarify their components, and evaluate their effectiveness. Are they serving their communities well? If not, can we recommend their replacement for the greater good?
Two Major Worldviews
I previously mentioned Christianity as a central worldview — a framework larger than any individual leader, church, or denomination. To clarify, the Christian worldview posits that the God of the Old and New Testaments is central to existence and the foundation of all creation. The universe, in all its diversity, is seen as a manifestation of His glory (Psalm 19:1), and He is sovereign over everything that occurs.
Human beings, uniquely created in His image, hold a special moral significance. This belief implies that moral agency arises from our divine origin, regardless of individual interpretations.
The second key tenet of the Christian worldview is the concept of sin — that humanity has deviated from God’s will and commands. The challenges we face, both globally and personally, stem from our inclination to pursue our own paths rather than adhere to God's guidance. This results in the chaos we witness in our fractured world.
The resolution lies in Jesus Christ, whose salvation is the only remedy for our fallen state. While His ultimate victory won’t be fully realized until the next world, Christians are called to share the Gospel (Mark 16:15).
Do we see the elements of a worldview here? Firstly, there is a foundational understanding of reality: a metaphysical framework. Secondly, there is an explanation of our existence and significance — a philosophical anthropology. Thirdly, there is a divine moral foundation that shapes values and cultural aspirations. Fourthly, we have an analysis of the discord between ideals and reality, outlining the conflicts we experience. Finally, there is a proposed resolution that helps us cope with our circumstances.
This framework illustrates why many Christians articulate their beliefs in specific ways, often unaware of alternative perspectives. This immersion in their worldview resembles the analogy of fish in water, where they might not even recognize the existence of other realities.
What then is the primary alternative to Christian beliefs in the West? It isn’t a grand theory but can be conceptualized as materialistic naturalism, or simply materialism.
Materialism asserts that the universe exists independently and was not created by any divine entity (perhaps originating from a Big Bang). It posits that human beings emerged through an ongoing natural process that didn’t have us in mind — we are seen as mere cosmic accidents.
Morality, from this perspective, isn’t divinely revealed; it may be a cultural construct that evolved alongside humanity as a means of survival, fostering trust and cooperation (for an intriguing perspective, see David Axelrod's book, The Evolution of Cooperation).
In our interconnected world, the challenge is to figure out how to navigate these moral questions on a global scale. Our primary issue is not sin but ignorance and isolation, remnants of a past mindset that technology has begun to dissolve. The solution lies not in supernatural salvation but in education — a process of confronting past mistakes and striving to create conditions that prevent their recurrence.
The biggest challenge remains persuading those who are unconvinced.
We see cultural conflicts arising from these differing worldviews. Philosophy plays a crucial role in clarifying and assessing the worldviews that shape our lives and how different cultures encounter one another.
It's noteworthy that both major worldviews experience internal disputes. Within Christianity, for instance, Catholics and Protestants have long debated who possesses the truest interpretation of the faith. Similarly, materialism includes varying perspectives, such as mechanistic interpretations versus dialectical materialism espoused by figures like Hegel and Engels.
I am more interested in the commonalities than the differences. All forms of Christendom place God at their foundation, while all versions of materialistic naturalism reject this, favoring a universe governed by natural laws, where moral agency is ultimately self-determined.
The most significant divergence between these worldviews lies in the understanding of moral agency. Who are we beyond our biological identity? How do we define ourselves? Are there constraints on our choices, or does our autonomy allow for complete self-reinvention?
The ongoing debate surrounding evolution exemplifies this contention; it’s not merely a scientific disagreement but a fundamental inquiry into our identity.
Consider also the discussions around gender and identity. Are these purely scientific questions? It seems unlikely that science can provide comprehensive answers.
Thus, we turn to philosophy.
Christianity offers answers that may not resonate with everyone today, while materialism leaves us grappling with ambiguities. Is morality discovered through our interactions with the world, or is it invented? At best, it could be seen as the outcome of our most enriching experiences, fostering human flourishing.
But who ultimately decides?
The first video, titled "Philosophical World Views," explores various philosophical perspectives and their implications for understanding our place in the universe.
Chapter 2: Acknowledging Diverse Worldviews
Some might question why I focus primarily on Western philosophy, given the vast array of worldviews globally. Indeed, there are numerous other worldviews — and I admit my limitation in addressing them comprehensively.
While I possess expertise in Western thought, my knowledge of other traditions, such as Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, is limited. In my earlier studies, I engaged with comparative religions, but alas, my notes have long since vanished.
The world has grown smaller in recent centuries, and it is vital to understand what lies beyond our immediate surroundings. The Age of Exploration has heightened our awareness of diversity but also presents a dilemma: which worldview is correct?
There are a few ways to approach this question. One is the dogmatic perspective, asserting that only one worldview can be true, which raises further questions about how to determine the correct one and how to handle conflicts. This approach has historically led to significant strife.
Alternatively, we could adopt a hard pluralist stance, acknowledging that every worldview holds validity within its cultural context. This approach, however, can lead to difficulties when conflicts inevitably arise.
A third approach, soft pluralism, suggests that while all worldviews may provide meaning for their adherents, none can be deemed universally “correct.” This raises the question of whether tolerance should have limits. For instance, if a worldview endorses practices like slavery or the subjugation of women, should we simply tolerate it?
This dilemma connects to Enlightenment ideals that espouse universal rights and morality, an idea rooted in the Christian belief of human equality before God.
Historically, morality was often tribe-specific, applying only to one’s own group. The fears of “the Other” are deeply ingrained and not easily overcome, even with education and technological advancements.
Perhaps this helps explain the increasing acrimony in public debates. When someone challenges a worldview, they are often attacking a core aspect of an individual's identity, threatening the foundation of meaning in their lives. It’s worth considering whether such confrontations are necessary and what consequences they may carry.
While I don’t have straightforward solutions, philosophy provides a framework for addressing our concerns. It encourages us not to surrender to nihilism but to engage in dialogue with those holding different views.
Could we find common ground amidst our shared challenges? These include survival, community building, self-identity, meaning, and hope. Addressing these issues may lead to personal and social growth, even if we define “better” in diverse ways.
The most intriguing question remains: is there a worldview that transcends present civilization, one that is genuinely universal, enlightened, and capable of guiding us toward a reality where all lives truly matter?
This worldview would recognize the intrinsic value of every individual, as well as the natural world and its resources. Perhaps this understanding will emerge as we advance beyond our current technological adolescence.
In that future, we may finally recognize the divine presence that has always been, both in the natural world and within ourselves.
The second video, titled "Research Philosophy Worldview (Creswell)," delves into various philosophical perspectives and their relevance in research methodologies.