The Dawn Treader

I see you are into "worldview" issues. I'm familiar generally with the term, but I'm not entirely sure what this term entails. Maybe you can shed some light on something for me.

Last night a neighbor/friend of mine and I decided to read HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? In the first chapter, Schaffer said that people's lives are driven by their world view and their preconceptions about the world to an extent even they do not realize.

Here is my question: if this is true, why is it that people's actions so often do not match their words? I'm inclined to think that the Shaffer is correct. The book of Proverbs says "As a man thinks in his heart so is he." But why is there such a disconnect between words and actions if this is true? Are the things we say just a bunch of empty platitudes that we don't really mean? It seems we say things, and we mean them, but then we often do not act accordingly. Could it be that we often are unaware of our own preconceptions/world views? To quote a different scripture that might appear to contradict the proverb, St. Paul talked about the war within his flesh etc. and said "what I want to do I do not do, and what I do not want to do I do."

Are the contradictions only in my head? Am I confusing things? Have I missed the author's true intent?

B.A.

Thanks for addressing my question. Not only was it helpful, but I found out about your blog which wasn't pulled up when I googled Schaffer.

I'm just learning about the whole "worldview" thing. One of my friends got me interested and I'm trying to learn more about it and pique the interest if some of my Catholic frinds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that worldview studies is more of a Protestant phenomenon.

I've posted your comment and a link to this blog at http://poligions.blogspot.com/

I tried to comment on your blog, but it does not appear to allow comments.

Civis,

Thanks for the great questions. I am glad you found this blog while Googling for Francis Schaeffer. Once you complete Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live?, I would recommend tackling Colson and Pearcy's How Now Shall We Live? It will build on the concepts of Schaeffer.

Now, let me address your questions and B.A's comments.

"But why is there such a disconnect between words and actions if this is true? Are the things we say just a bunch of empty platitudes that we don't really mean?"

One reason is inconsistency ... or if you like the darker term, hypocrisy. Hypocrites exist both in the church and out of the church. B.A. correctly points out the hypocrisy of secularists that believe we are genetically predetermined biochemical machines destined to compete for survival ... and then turn around and fight to prevent species from going extinct ... or claim that morality is the product of evolution and then turn around and make absolutist moral claims about the evil of slavery (even when we find examples of slavery rampant in nature). Sadly, Christians espouse beliefs and live differently too.

I concur with B.A. that your worldview is determined by what your really believe about God, man and reality. Not what you say you believe ... but what you really believe.

"And, yes, Jeff, it has been a while since I contributed anything on a blog. ;-)"

Nice to have you back :-) And hey, let's be honest, I haven't been contributing much to this blog lately either :/

"I'm just learning about the whole "worldview" thing. One of my friends got me interested and I'm trying to learn more about it and pique the interest if some of my Catholic frinds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that worldview studies is more of a Protestant phenomenon."

Wonderful! You will be blessed. Keep coming around and keep on asking good questions.

In terms of the history of the term "worldview" and the study of "worldview" as a category, I will cut and paste from Dr. David Naugle ....

"The use of the term in evangelical circles can be traced to James Orr, a nineteenth-century Scots Presbyterian familiar with the German Weltanschauung. Orr was convinced that there was a "naturalistic" worldview and a Christian one, and that they did not gibe. Thus, he endeavored "to show that the Christian view of things forms a logical whole which cannot be infringed on, or accepted piecemeal, but stands or falls in its integrity, and can only suffer from attempts at amalgamation or compromise with theories which rest on totally distinct bases." The two worldviews were engaged in a "cosmic and intellectual battle for the soul of the Church and the Western world." Since Orr, the idea has been taken up and debated by evangelical theologians such as G. H. Clark, Carl Henry, Abraham Kuyper, and Herman Dooyeweerd."

World view: The History of a Concept

By David K. Naugle

Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2002. 384 pp. $26.00.

"I have a second question about worldview. Do those of you who study world views in Schaffer’s line of thinking, at times recognize another person’s world view better than they do? In other words, is an outside observer sometimes better able to identify a person’s worldview than the person himself?"

Worldviews are like glasses you put on to see things. They are interpretive filters. Like glasses, they can have blind spots.

We all have a worldview ... you cannot not have one. The question becomes, does your worldview match reality?

God has the only view of reality that is wholly true. Given that, in Schaeffer's words, "God Is" and "God has spoken" ... we ought to use God's revealed word as our starting point in understanding reality. Will we ever have a complete understanding of all of reality? No. But we do have a good idea of the major pillars of worldview. We can answer THE four worldview questions definitively.

WHERE DO WE COME FROM?
WHAT HAS IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD?
HOW DO WE FIX IT?
WHAT IS OUR PURPOSE?

The Biblical answers to those questions cohere with one another, correspond with human experience, and work. No matter what your test for truth is, the Biblically shaped worldview ... which Francis Schaeffer had ... passes the truth test. No other worldview has this.

Thank you for the book recommendations.

Also thank you for the information on the history of this idea. Somewhere I got the impression—maybe it was on another blog—that Schaffer was the originator. So if I wanted to start with the beginning, I would go to James Orr? Do you have a title by him that would be on point? I see Amazon has THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF GOD AND THE WORLD, which sounds promising, though it looks like a more modern work and Amazon doesn’t have a lot of information about it.

Maybe I am reading too much into it, but let me quote the first chapter of HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE: “People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize.” To me, this would exclude hypocrisy. Today at lunch, my friend suggested also that, in addition to hypocrisy, there is also the fact that living a moral life is often difficult. I’m still pondering that in light of the above quote. But Schaffer is saying, as I read him, that people generally do act according to their worldview. Maybe I am taking too much of a literal/fundamentalist approach to what he is saying. If I am, perhaps you can put me back on track.

If my reading is correct, then considering the disconnect we see, a problem is posed. Remember also, that I’m not just talking about moral issues. Let me take an example from G.K. Chesterton:
“Once I remember walking with a prosperous publisher, who made a
remark which I had often heard before; it is, indeed, almost a motto of the
modern world. Yet I had heard it once too often, and I saw suddenly that
there was nothing in it. The publisher said of somebody, “That man will
get on; he believes in himself.” And I remember that as I lifted my head to
listen, my eye caught an omnibus on which was written “Hanwell.”
[Hanwell was an insane aslylum]
I said to him, “Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in
themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves
more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames the fixed
star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of the
Super-men. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic
asylums.” He said mildly that there were a good many men after all who
believed in themselves and who were not in lunatic asylums. “Yes, there
are,” I retorted, “and you of all men ought to know them. That drunken
poet from whom you would not take a dreary tragedy, he believed in
himself. That elderly minister with an epic from whom you were hiding in
a back room, he believed in himself. If you consulted your business
experience instead of your ugly individualistic philosophy, you would
know that believing in himself is one of the commonest signs of a rotter.”

Anyway, how do we explain the disconnect? One way would be to say that Shaffer is wrong and he misinterprets the proverb “As a man thinks in his heart so is he.” A second way would be to say that people are out of touch with their worldview; it is not what they think it is. A third way would be that there is a breakdown in communication.

Are there other ways of explaining it?

So I am considering three questions. First, is it true, taken literally, that “People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize.”

Second, if the answer to the first question is “yes”, then the second question is how do we explain the disconnect? Is it that people do not know their own worldview? This is what the quote would seem to suggest.

Third, if the answer to the second question is also “yes”, the third question is how do we identify a person’s worldview and is it better seen from the inside or from the outside? How do we trace the worldview?

There is wisdom in the counsel of many.

”First, is it true, taken literally, that ‘People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize.’”

Yes, it is true. Presuppositions are assumptions. People assume things about reality. Unless one is a philosopher, he rarely even examines, articulates or questions his own assumptions. Yet these assumptions frame his understanding of what is real about God, man, origin, right, wrong, destiny etc.

Second, if the answer to the first question is “yes”, then the second question is how do we explain the disconnect? Is it that people do not know their own worldview? This is what the quote would seem to suggest.”

Yes, most people do not know their own worldview. Thoughtful introspection is in short supply. So is critical thinking. Most people don’t even know what truth is. If you don’t believe me, ask three people today “what is truth?” Report back on your findings.

Other than philosophers and those into worldview, who really ponders issues of origin, morality, meaning and destiny? Just because people can’t articulate their worldview does not mean they don’t have one. They do. It is just that they don’t stop to inspect what it is.

” Third, if the answer to the second question is also “yes”, the third question is how do we identify a person’s worldview and is it better seen from the inside or from the outside? How do we trace the worldview?”

You need a grid. Each worldview answers basic questions about ultimate issues of origin, morality, meaning and destiny. You can answer this from the inside or outside. James Sire (Universe Next Door) has seven questions that make up the basis of a worldview. Chuck Colson has four. You can use either grid. They both work nicely. How one answers those questions frames basically how they view the world.

Mr D.

You describe THE worldview questions as

"WHERE DO WE COME FROM?
WHAT HAS IS (sic) WRONG WITH THE WORLD?
HOW DO WE FIX IT?
WHAT IS OUR PURPOSE?"

Could you tell me why these are THE definitive worldview questions, rather than just a result of your own worldview?

An aside: I hope my questions are not taken as hostility or disagreement. I guess my way of approaching ideas, whether I agree or disagree, is to kind of pick them apart and ask question.

Is there a short answer?

Here's another of my questions: My interest is piqued by the concept of a “Biblical worldview”. Schaeffer says the list of worldviews is short. I’m assuming that perhaps different writers have different lists of worldviews, and if this worldview stuff goes back to the nineteenth century I assume there are probably some slightly different schools on the subject—something to explore later. But my friend was listing the different worldviews according to some writer and one of the worldviews he named was, I think, the “biblical Christianity” worldview, and I asked him what that meant. He didn’t give a real specific answer, I said that I might have this worldview depending upon what is meant by the worldview. Would you refer to your “worldview” as “biblical Christianity”? This is just a matter of terminology of course. Then second, how would you describe this (your) worldview, however you prefer to refer to it?

If you get a chance, I'd like your opinion on my proposal for a new direction for government regulation of marriage. (see my blog).

How would you describe the "biblical/Judeo-Christian" worldview?

Sure. Of course one of my questions is how to answer these questions, i.e. how do we fill in the blanks.

1 - What is prime reality - the really real?

What is really real is that which is. That which is consists of more than what we can touch. The God of the Jew, the Christian and the Moslem is the God whose nature it is to exist. I believe this God exists.

2 - What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?

That is not a question I can answer in under ten minutes. That is a question that I think is worth answering, but I don’t have an answer as I have not thought it through. I think any simple answer I give will be problematic. But I don’t want you to think I’m being evasive, so I will say that I think that what we see is real; it is not a mirage; we don’t live in “The Matrix.”

3 - What is a human being?

A human being is a combination of body and spirit. A human being is a soul (a life principle) which is also a spirit. It is also a body.

4 - What happens to a person at death?

The spirit is separated from the body.

5 - Why is it possible to know anything at all?

Because we have five senses and we are rational beings.

6 - How do we know what is right or wrong?

Most of us know it because we were taught right and wrong by parents, teachers friends etc. and we develop our knowledge and understanding of morality as we go through our lives. Some improve their understanding, develop it, refine it, make it more complete and some do not. But then the question is, how did they know right from wrong and you have to trace it back, or how do we know they are right. Ultimately, our knowledge of right and wrong has come to us through a process of observations about the way the world works. We look at the nature and end of a thing or an activity and we find that things work better when we do things and use things according to the way they are intended to be done or used. This is not how everyone thinks we gain knowledge of right and wrong, but this is the right way. Our understanding is aided greatly by revelation.

7 - What is the meaning of human history?

I think what this question is asking is “what does it [life on earth] all mean?” or what is the purpose of life? For the individual, the meaning is to know love and serve God and to ultimately spend eternity with him in heaven. Why did God make man? I think that is largely a mystery. We have answers, but I think his true purpose in creating man has either been hidden from us or is beyond our understanding.

Dawntreader,

Cool. So is this THE Judeo-Christian worldview? As I said above, depending on how the “biblical” worldview is defined, I may have this worldview. Don’t get me wrong, I think I have a biblical worldview, I’m just wondering if the people who read Schaeffer/Colson/Sire et al. would agree. Don’t worry, if you don’t think I have a biblical worldview, you won’t hurt my feelings or drive me away.

I still have some unanswered questions (see above), but while I’m waiting on your (or anybody’s) answers, I’ll try to add some commentary/opinion to balance all of my questions.

First, I’d like to reflect on a couple of things you said above (your words in quotes):

“Other than philosophers and those into worldview, who really ponders issues of origin, morality, meaning and destiny?”

Certainly not enough people. On the other hand, I think a lot of people do reflect on these issues. I was discussing this worldview stuff with a friend of a friend over coffee and he asked me if I thought it was worthwhile to ponder worldviews and consider the meaning of life. My answer was as follows: I think it is so important, that I think every person must (ought to) think about it. It is so important for us that I think it is the signature human act. I think the more we consider these questions the more we act like human beings, and the less we think about them the more we act like animals rather than humans. Animals have a limited understanding of the things around them. Some of them only see things in motion, some cannot see colors, some cannot hear. Plants have an even more limited universe—almost incomparable to many animals. But man is the only created being that can appreciate the entire universe. He can step back and say, “What does it all mean?” No animal can do that. There is a wonderful quote in A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS which is related to this point: “God made the angels to show him splendor—as he made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But man he made to serve him wittily, in the tangle of his mind!”

This brings me to a related point....

“My answers are no substitute, however, for reading seminal material (such as Sire) on this topic.”

I will have to disagree with you on that. Schaeffer is dead, so is Orr, so is Kuyper (I don’t know about the others). You are alive, plus I’m having a conversation with you, not them. I can’t have a conversation with a book. Ideas need to be alive in the human mind—not stored on dead pages. If your answers aren’t perfect, that’s okay. I can assure you my answers to your questions are not perfect either. If we discuss things we can learn from each other. “As iron sharpens iron....” Also, there is a saying that you don’t understand something until you can teach it.

Anyway, my plan at this point is to finish “How Should We Then Live” then read Sire’s book, Colson’s book, The God who is there and Kuyper (what title?). I don’t agree with everything that Schaeffer says in HSWTL, though I am enjoying reading it, and looking up information on the topics he discusses. I hinted at this before, but I’m not a Protestant, I’m a Catholic. Someone I respect told me that it is a good idea to read things from a perspective other than my own, which I try to do.

This will be an odyssey of sorts to explore and try to understand how these authors view the world and reflect on what they say. In the process, I would like to be able to grasp the exact difference between the Catholic and Protestant way of looking at life. I am of the opinion that both Catholics and Protestants have a Christian worldview. But at the same time Catholics and Protestants do not view the world in the same way. But I’m having trouble putting my finger on it. Obviously, Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura and sola fide and (most) Protestants don’t believe in the communion of the saints, transubstantiation etc. But there is more to it than that.

At this stage in the game, I am just trying to learn. As I reflect on Schaeffer et al., I will also reflect upon my own ideas, perhaps bring some of them into better focus.

I wish that Protestants viewed Catholics as their separated brethren, but I know that many think the Pope is the antichrist, the Catholic Church the “Whore of Babylon” etc. So if anyone wants to have an opportunity to talk to a Catholic who has an open mind, here is your golden opportunity. I want to learn.

I would love to discuss these books and ideas with people who are interested them. I started my blog in hopes of creating forum to discuss various issues of personal interest (worldview has become an interest in the past couple of weeks as you have witnessed), but I’m just as happy to discuss this topic here, unless you know of a better place.

"I am of the opinion that both Catholics and Protestants have a Christian worldview. But at the same time Catholics and Protestants do not view the world in the same way."

Yes and yes.

We have differences, but we share much in common. I count some Catholics as my best friends here in Roanoke.

I am a Presbyterian in the reformed tradition hold to the five solas and a reformed world and life view.

I would be quite close to Schaeffer in terms of theology. Still, I think there is a lot we gain by dialoging and I am thrilled you are drilling deeper into the inner life.

Studying worldview is ultimately trying to understand the reality of all of life the best you can. That is part of the process of being made new in Christ. It is learning to think like Christ and have the mind of Christ. The important thing is to act on the truth ... not just be a student of the truth.

Discussion continued here ...