The Dawn Treader

"What are the five solas?"

Sola Scriptura : only the Scriptures are to be regarded as God's innerrant word of salvation to humanity.
Sola Gratia : only because of the sovereign grace of God in Christ do we gain salvation.
Sola Fide : Only by faith in Christ alone can one receive this grace of Christ.
Solo Christo : Only through Christ's work in his life, death and resurrection does a sinner find the grace of God.
Soli Deo Gloria : all of life, including salvation, is unto the glory of God alone.

"Which comments did you add to?"

These comments. I edited and added.

"When you say you have “a” biblical worldview, I’m assuming that you will agree that the biblical worldview is not purely subjective."

Agreed. A Biblical worldview has objective elements. What gets subjective is how one describes a worldview. In other words, how detailed does one get? Does one's understanding of communion comprise one's worldview? Some would say yes.

I tend to keep worldviews at a high level. In practical purposes, a worldview is a grid that touches on Origin, Morality, Meaning, and Destiny. Sire, as you now know, likes more detail. Colson's 4 questions line up with these nicely.

Here is the Biblical worldview:

Origin: Self-existent triune God. Time, matter, energy and space were created a finite time ago. Man was created. Man is an image bearer of God (imago dei).

Morality: Based on God's revelation. Man has a sin nature. Sin is what's wrong with the world.

Meaning: To love God and love others. Redemption is found through Christ's life, death and resurrection. We gain purpose by extending the Kingdom of God on earth in our lives and the lives of others.

Destiny: Life does not end at death; those in Christ will go on to live in the new creation, those not in Christ are banished to an existence without the presence of God or his common grace, labeled as hell.

"I like to try my best to see things from other people’s perspective."

Commendable. And rare.

"Out of curiosity, how do you relate the last sentence to sola fide. I’m not saying you are inconsistent, I’m just wondering how the two ideas relate to one another."

Here was my last sentence : "The important thing is to act on the truth ... not just be a student of the truth."

Sola fide is "faith alone" ... meaning, only by faith in Christ alone can one receive this grace of Christ.

Faith is an act. Faith is a confident trust you place in something. I am placing a confident trust in only Christ for my salvation.

If I stand before God and he asks, why should I let you into heaven?

My only answer will be, "because I am trusting in Christ alone and his work on my behalf."

If I were to answer that question, "because I have given money to the poor and attended church and helped old ladies across the street and ... and ... and ....

... then I am violating "sola fide" because I am trusting other things for eternal life.

So, faith itself is an act. It is an act of trust.

Because of my faith in Christ, I am compelled to learn as much truth as possible and be transformed by the truth. I can't be content to merely study truth and then turn around and ignore it. That would be foolish.

Are you currently in Mexico? Corpus Christi?

re: "Euthyphro's Dilemma"

Here is an essay on that subject that sums up my view:

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236

Basically, it is a false dilemma. Two options are presented, but there is a third unstated option available ... and the third option is the solution.

Here is an excerpt from the essay ...

=======================================
The general strategy used to defeat a dilemma is to show that it's a false one. There are not two options, but three.

The Christian rejects the first option, that morality is an arbitrary function of God's power. And he rejects the second option, that God is responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.

The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.

Could God simply decree that torturing babies was moral? "No," the Christian answers, "God would never do that." It's not a matter of command. It's a matter of character.

So the Christian answer avoids the dilemma entirely. Morality is not anterior to God--logically prior to Him--as Bertrand Russell suggests, but rooted in His nature. As Scott Rae puts it, "Morality is not grounded ultimately in God's commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands." In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good.

=======================================

This begs the question, what is good?

We have God's revelation to tell us that... both his revealed Word. We also have the law written on our hearts ... our moral conscience or moral intuition.

Read Romans 2. It clarifies this. We have a sin nature that is completely affected by the Fall ... however, because of God's common grace, there is still a moral awareness of good that exists in Christians and non-Christians alike.

I see an opening to step back in with my standard comment :)

"whatever a good God commands will always be good"

God commanded everything to happen, down to the smallest beat of a fly's wings; being omnipotent, omniscient, and outside time, he could not do otherwise. Hence, you would say, everything is good?

Well, looks like the hurricane isn’t coming our way.

Paul and Dawntreader (DT): Are you two agreeing or disagreeing?

Paul: When you say “God commanded everything to happen, down to the smallest beat of a fly's wings; being omnipotent, omniscient, and outside time, he could not do otherwise. Hence, you would say, everything is good?” surely you don’t mean that. Do you believe that God commanded the Holocaust? Millions of babies being aborted? The starvation of 11 million people in the Ukraine? Divorce? Fornication? Child molestation?

All: I’m trying to decide what to read first (well, after HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE). On the one hand a lot of people have recommended THE UNIVERSE NEXT DOOR, but on the other I see that another blogger is reading THE GOD WHO IS THERE and my neighbor seems more interested in the latter as well.

As for what you said above, thanks for the information. I’m not sure what the difference is between sola gratia, sola fide and solo Christo. I’m also unclear as to what Sloi Deo Gloria means. Can you explain?

RE: “a” biblical worldview:

If two “biblical worldviews” conflict, does one have to be right and the other wrong or can they both be right or does it depend?

RE: the relationship between "The important thing is to act on the truth ... not just be a student of the truth" and sola fide:

What if when God asks me, “Why should I let you into heaven?” and I answer, "Because I am trusting in Christ alone and his work on my behalf AND I have obeyed the commandments and given money to the poor and attended church and helped old ladies across the street and ...”

RE: "Euthyphro's Dilemma" and your pointing me to someone else’s writing:

In the immortal words of our 40th president, “There you go again!”. Ha. Seriously though, if I want to go beyond what I “feel” on contraception, abortion, human cloning, just war et al., where do I go?

Getting back to Francis Schaeffer, you asked about what the passages that led be to believe Sola Scriptura was the sine qua non of the biblical worldview. My copy appears to be from the first printing of HSWTL. Below are a few quotes. In general, what leads me to believe that Sola Scriptura is the key for Schaeffer is that every time he describes something going wrong, be it spiritual, theoretical or political, he says that relying on scripture without anything else (no tradition, no Church authority, no philosophy) is the solution. There are more quotes later in the book as well.

On page 32, three pages into his chapter on the Middle Ages, after discussing how St. Benedict’s monks copied scriptures he speaks of a “distortion” in Christianity whereby the authority of the church took precedence over the teaching of the Bible. He also makes a reference to a departure from the idea that salvation rests on the merit of Christ’s work alone (would this be sola fide, sola gratia or solo Christo?).

On page 52, three pages from the end of his chapter on the Middle Ages, he says in Aquinas’ view, “people could rely on their own human wisdom, and this meant that people were free to mix the teachings of the Bible with the teachings of the non-Christian philosophers.

On page 56, the last page in his chapter on the Middle Ages, he sees Wycliffe and Huss as harbingers of a turn away from the “distortions” by teaching sola scriptura (no mention of sola fide).

On page 81, three pages into his chapter on the Reformation, he contrasts the way Renaissance humanists rejected “tradition”, the reformers took seriously that the Bible is “the only final authority.”

On page 82, he gives a recap of the distortions:
1) The authority of the church was made equal to the authority of the Bible
2) A strong element of human work was added to the work of Christ for Salvation
3) After Aquinas there was an increasing synthesis between biblical teaching and pagan thought.

On page 84, “[T]he Reformation centered in the infinite-personal God who had spoken in the Bible…the Bible gives a unity to the universal and the particulars.

On page 88, “Thus it is Sola Scriptura, the Bible and the Bible only. This is what made all the difference to the Reformers, both in understanding the approach to God and in having the intellectual and practical answers needed in this present life.”

DT: You never did tell me if you amended anything other than your 5 minute worldview answers. Looking at your new answers, I have a couple of questions.

Do you believe that we have some knowledge by intuition? This, like my question on Euthyphro, is not a huge deal, I’m just curious. There appears to be some debate on this in Catholic thought.

You said “Humans have a body and a soul.” Would it be more correct to say that a human is a body and a soul, or do they merely “have” a body and a soul? Is body or soul or both “accidental” to being human? I’m sure you know this, but in case someone reading does not, by “accidental” I mean it is non-essential. To use an example, the chair I am sitting in is gray. If it were blue, it would still be a chair. The color of this chair is accidental to its nature.

Is man ever reunited with his body after death?

What do you mean when you say the moral law is “written on the heart” of man?

Paul, what if the go-cart had a will of it's own and decided to change directions after being pushed?

God gave humans free will to make their own decisions including decisions that are contrary to his will. Just because God is omnipotent doesn't mean he chooses to exercise it so that everything goes exactly as he would wish. To give others freedom means to give up control. This is what God has done.

re: "I’m also unclear as to what Sloi Deo Gloria means. Can you explain?"

Soli Deo Gloria means “God is therefore glorified alone.”

There were many battles during the Reformation where this principle was the central issue. The Reformers took on the Catholic church with regard to her glorification of idols and images. They also opposed the glorification of the office of the Pope and the other church officers. Another dispute was the glorification of Mary who was elevated to be above Christ in many ways and parallel to Him in the rest. Soli Deo Gloria was the overarching principle of the Reformation and related to every battle of protest by the Reformers.

http://www.eefweb.org/sermons/topical/The%20Five%20Solas%20of%20the%20Reformation/Part%205%20-%20Soli%20Deo%20Gloria.htm

re: "conflicting worldviews"

If anything truly conflicts, and the conflict is such that all possibilities are represented, then one is right and the other is wrong (i.e. law of the excluded middle). Example, the proposition “God is” can either be true or false. Truth is what really is. So if a worldview matches reality, then it is right and anything that conflicts with it is necessarily false. Again, keep the term "worldview" focused on ultimate beliefs rather than every single belief you have (i.e. focus on truth, reality, knowledge, God, man, what's wrong with the world, what can be done to fix it, what is our purpose etc). Please don't go off and get lost in the weeds.

re: "What if when God asks me, “Why should I let you into heaven?”

It seems to me you are not trusting in Christ alone if there is anything attached to his atoning work. So your proposed answer does not cohere it seems to me.

re: "Seriously though, if I want to go beyond what I “feel” on contraception, abortion, human cloning, just war et al., where do I go?"

Not sure what you are asking. Try again please.

re: "Schaeffer and sola scriptura"

Thank you for the cites. Some of those citations were descriptive rather than prescriptive. But Schaeffer’s presupposition is that the Bible is God’s word and that the Bible is the final authority. I agree with you that he conveys this message. Notice that he criticizes aspects of the Reformation, however.

E.g. P.84 2nd paragraph. Search for the words “The Reformation was certainly not a golden age”.

re:"DT: You never did tell me if you amended anything other than your 5 minute worldview answers."

That is all I amended.

re: "Do you believe that we have some knowledge by intuition?"

Explain exactly what you mean by knowledge by intuition?

re: "human body and human soul"

A human is a body and a soul.

re: "Is man ever reunited with his body after death?"

Those who are united with Christ will have a new body given in the new creation. The Bible is silent on the specifics. We can speculate on the particulars based on Christ’s resurrection body, but it would be unwise to push too far.

re: "What do you mean when you say the moral law is “written on the heart” of man?"

Saint Paul can handle that one for me.
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Romans 2:14-16

"Is determinism a show stopper for you?"

Not at all - clearly I don't believe in God, but if I did I could quite comfortably accept that everything we see is good, and it is only our lack of understanding that makes us think otherwise. 'God moves in mysterious ways' may be a cliche, but it's also a perfectly reasonable viewpoint - I don't really know what God is trying to achieve with the universe, so it's entirely possible that the beauty of a daisy and the horror of Darfur are both necessary.

"How have you determined that you are not a genetically determined electro chemical machine?"

I haven't. I don't know that it's a fact, because there's a lot we don't understand about quantum mechanics that may show determinism to be impossible, but I've no particular expectation of that. But I don't know how it would feel different to actually have free will, as opposed to just having the illusion of free will, and that's true whether decisions were governed mechanistically, or my will was notionally free but subject to the fact that someone already knew the outcome of every decision I would make. Can you tell me how they would be measurably different?

L.B.,

Glad to have you join the conversation.

re: "It was the final block to be removed from my temple to earthly life. In sickness and in health, we and those we love are dying."

Well said. We are dying.

Paul,

"I haven't. I don't know that it's a fact, because there's a lot we don't understand about quantum mechanics that may show determinism to be impossible"

Quantum mechanics of the gaps?

Seriously, all indications (from those who hold your worldview) are that we are programmed machines. They believe our genes determine us. That seems to be where the evidence leads. Are you prepared to accept this?

"The Reformers took on the Catholic church with regard to her glorification of idols and images [and church offices]."
When did the Catholic Church glorify idols? I can see how you might be of the opinion that Catholics "glorify" images, depending on what you mean by "glorify." Can you define what "glorify" means as you use it?
"Another dispute was the glorification of Mary who was elevated to be above Christ in many ways and parallel to Him in the rest."
In what way did the Catholic Church elevate Mary above Christ? In what ways parallel to Him?
If I said that "Soli Deo Gloria" means that you must "glorify" only God, would I be correct? Be sure to tell me how we are going to define "glory" for the purpose of this conversation.
"http://www.eefweb.org/sermons/topical/The%20Five%20Solas%20of%20the%20Reformation/Part%205%20-%20Soli%20Deo%20Gloria.htm"
I think I'm going to just read and go on what you say.
"Please don't go off and get lost in the weeds."
Oh, by no means do I want to do that. You have confirmed that you see the biblical worldview consisting of a certain core of beliefs. I am with you. Some people would say that you have to agree with them on every last thing or else you don't have a biblical worldview. I wanted to make sure I knew how you felt on this. I do still have one question for you, to further understand what you believe. We agree that there are some issues where, if there is a disagreement, one person has to be right and another person has to be wrong. If you say "God exists" and I say "God does not exist" then one of us has to be wrong. But are there some things that you and I can disagree on and both of us be right? Are there any such areas?
"It seems to me you are not trusting in Christ alone if there is anything attached to his atoning work. So your proposed answer does not cohere it seems to me."
Let me reiterate that my purpose here (and in my "odyssey") is not to try to prove anyone wrong or to attack what anyone believes. I want to understand what you believe. In this particular instance, I want to try to isolate exactly what it is that is wrong with my response, as you see it. Keep in mind also that I have not read a lot of theology. All of that being said, let's say God asks me the next question. He says "Oh, so you think you have earned heaven?" And then I say, "By no means, Lord. I'm a sinner, and the distance between your holiness and my sinfulness is as far apart as the east is from the west. But you commanded that I do certain things. You commanded that I not do other things. I know that it is not enough for me just to trust in your mercy. That would be presumption. Lord, forgive me for all of my imperfections and forgive me for the times I failed through weakness, habit, and other reasons. You told be pick up my cross and follow you. I fell many times along the way, but you always helped me back up. But although I did not do it perfectly, and though you had to help me many times, and though I could have done none of it without your grace, I did carry my cross and follow you."
"re: 'Seriously though, if I want to go beyond what I “feel” on contraception, abortion, human cloning, just war et al., where do I go?' Not sure what you are asking. Try again please."
Well, do you believe that the Bible answers every moral question, or should we study natural law, ethics etc.
"Explain exactly what you mean by knowledge by intuition?"
Well, some people say that all knowledge comes through the senses. Even if God sends and angel and tells you something, you hear it with your ears and see it with your eyes. Other people say that there is knowledge that is innate. It is like programmed into every human brain.
"re: 'What do you mean when you say the moral law is written on the heart of man?' Saint Paul can handle that one for me."

This is what I am getting at with my question about innate knowledge/knowledge by intuition. So does this passage from the Bible mean that we know some things innately?

Well, I hope to wrap up HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE tonight and hope to start THE UNIVERSE NEXT DOOR tomorrow. I am still looking for the best title by Kuyper, so if you have a recommendation..... After TUND, I’ll do either THE GOD WHO IS THERE or HOW NOW SHOULD WE LIVE. After that I plan to read a book called BLAH BLAH BLAH. Don’t know if you’ve heard of that one.

I’ve probably been asking you too many questions. I take you have to support a family. I don’t necessarily have answers to all of my own questions if you haven’t noticed already. Hopefully things will come out in discussing the books.
re: "soli deo gloria"
By no means do I want to debate the Reformation. There are two reasons I don’t want to debate anything with you: 1) I try to follow the trivium (grammar, logic then rhetoric). I in the grammar stage and don’t believe in debating something I don’t understand. I am trying to learn. You said “I believe in the five solas” and I’m trying to understand what that means, that’s all. You see a problem with my view, and I want to understand what you see as being wrong with it. 2) I think debating about religion generally only hardens people’s attitudes. I think it is important to be able to “give an explanation” and to defend one’s faith, but the debating is usually not very productive.
But don’t you think the “five solas” play a big part in your worldview? I know you think of worldview as consisting in the big things, but don’t you think these five beliefs have an effect on the way you see the world.
re: “We can still be on the same team and disagree on those things”
I agree with this. But my question is whether we can disagree and both be right. EG: Christian #1: says “Life is beautiful, wonderful, dazzling, a thrill and an adventure.” Christian #2 says “Life is pain, misery, a burden and a cross.”

I’m finally diving into The Universe Next Door. Thus far, I’m liking it more than How Should We Then Live? I realize that the two books have different purposes; I’m just talking about the quality of writing. Schaeffer’s style, the way he puts words together, the “music” of his words, is more enjoyable than Sire. Sire writes more in a stream of consciousness. He has clear bullet points, but then he launches into his string of reflections. But, as of the end of chapter two (“A Universe Charged with the Grandeur of God: Christian Theism”) I prefer Sire because he uses concrete examples. I am of the opinion that a good writer will, where possible, give three concrete details for each point he makes. A number of people say that Schaeffer is difficult to read. It is not so much that his thought is difficult to grasp as that he has a tendency to make assertions without any development or support.
Let me tell you my ideal study plan. Whether I can find the time to see this through is highly questionable, but this is what I would like to do in a perfect world:
1) Read the main “worldview” books [Please tell me what I need to add to this list]:
The Universe Next Door
How Now Should We Live?
The God who is There
Blah Blah Blah by Bayard Taylor
????? by Abraham Kuyper [somebody give me a title please]
2) For each book/author make an outline with:
a) One to two paragraph bio of author
b) Brief summary of each chapter
c) Brief commentary-praise-and-criticism of each chapter
d) Note what worldview enthusiasts think about the book (That would be you bloggers)
e) Survey of reviews it has received
f) Write my own little review of the book
3) Write a big fat “survey/review of the worldview literature.”
When I’m finished, I’ll stick it somewhere on the web. I have a website, but—in case you haven’t figured this out yet—I’m not much of a computer person. I’m waiting for one of my friends to feel sorry for me and help me set things up correctly.
I have a couple questions for discussion. I realize that it is too much to ask one person to address all of the questions below, but my hope is that between my blogging friends I could find someone who is interested in each. If nobody comments on one of them, I may ask it again later:
1) What is the purpose of studying worldviews? What should I look to get out of it?
2) Sire says, “The gap left by the loss of a center to life is like a chasm in the heart of a child whose father has died. How those who no longer believe in God wish that something could fill the void.” But people who share Sire’s worldview have the same void. In fact, I think it would not be a stretch to say that people who share Sire’s worldview generally have a greater void than atheists and agnostics.
3) Does anybody know what Sire means by saying that man is “self transcendent”?
4) Is it true what Schaeffer and Sire say, that the world has no moral absolutes?
5) On the eighth page of Chapter 2 [middle of page 28 in the 3rd edition] Sire says “[W]e participate in part in a transcendence over our environment. Except at the very extremes of existence…a person is not forced to any necessary reaction.” This is a statement against determinism and in support of free will [the question of free will is a “family dispute”]. Even if you believe in free will (which I do), do you think he overstates the point? Are our reactions really so radically free? Aren’t there a number of things that inhibit our free will?
6) Does Sire say that good is good because God says it is good or says it is good because it is good or neither? I’m not real sure how Sire comes down on this. This is something important to answer because it would have a huge impact on one’s worldview. Just reading what he says, it would appear that he thinks good is good because God says so, which is problematic.
7) Is it possible that there may be less of a difference between someone with a Catholic worldview and someone with a materialistic worldview than between a Catholic and one who believes in Sola Fide and predestination?
8) To take another example, it seems clear to me that there will be a greater difference in the way we live between those who do or do not believe in free will and someone who does not than between someone who believes in linear as opposed to cyclical time.
I’ve listed these questions on my blog so feel free to discuss here or there or both. This blog would have a more protestant audience whereas mine would be virtually all Catholic.

Civis,

You have overwhelmed me with your questions. I can't keep up. Others will have to engage you at this point :)

Let me just throw a few thoughts at you.

Studying worldview can quickly degenerate into cataloging a bunch of "isms". You learn the difference between nihilism, modernism and post modernism. If that is all you get out of your study of worldview then you will get to the end and wonder what was the point.

The real value of worldview is two fold. One, it is understanding that ideas have consequences. People's decisions, judgments and yes, behaviors flow from what they believe to be true about reality. That makes ideas (i.e. thinking) really important. Our lens for seeing the world and grid for understanding the world will drive us. The study of worldview forces you to look at things like lenses and grids. It forces you to look at ideas ... and what flows from ideas. It helps you understand people and the world of ideas.

The second big value of worldview as a Christian is that you get a bigger picture of the gospel than you ever imagined. Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom. Just go and read the gospels. Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand was the consistent message. It was never repent and accept me into your heart so you can go to heaven. You see, God is redeeming and restoring creation as well as the elect. We are being made new ... along with creation. Unfortunately, many evangelicals have reduced the gospel to a tiny "Jesus and me" message about getting saved. How sad. Studying the full Biblical worldview enlarges your view of God's redemptive work in history and gives you a glimpse and perspective of all of history and where we are going. It destroys the sacred - secular divide and gives you the freedom to serve God in whatever sphere God puts you in. That is glorious and meaningful.

Best wishes on your journey Civis. Don't let worldview degenerate into a small philosophical exercise. It is much, much larger and more important than that.

I originally planned to recap my questions on worldview, what I have been thinking and where I stand right now with each question. But this turned into ten pages of disjointed ramblings, so I decided maybe it would be best to do one question at a time. I think may be able to break my 10 pages of rambles into about seven parts.

At any rate, I have been picking everyone else’s brain for so long, I thought maybe it was time I shared some of my thoughts.

It started with the following passage from 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. By Presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic worldview, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. People’s presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth in the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for their decisions.”

QUESTION 1 [“The Disconnect”]: If we assume that what Schaeffer said above is true, why do we so often see such a disconnect between what people say and the way they actually think and live? All of the following are explanations of the disconnect depending on the circumstances, but only some of them are correct when/if Schaeffer is correct on this point.

I have come up with several answers/reasons:

ONE POSSIBILITY: Schaeffer is wrong.

PSEUDO ANSWER 1 (“Hypocrisy”): The first and most obvious reason, one that several people have suggested, for the disconnect is hypocrisy. What Schaeffer says is that people do act consistently with their worldview. So this cannot be an answer if we are assuming that Schaeffer is right, but would mean Schaeffer is wrong.

PSEUDO ANSWER 2 (“It’s difficult”): Living a moral life is hard; through human weakness we fail to live up to our worldview. This is my neighbor’s explanation and is interesting for a couple of reasons.

First, it would seem that the correct worldview would be the best life. It is my belief that God does not simply make up rules, but rather the moral law is a road map for the best life. A thing is wrong/a sin because it hurts us. So I wonder about whether the moral life is really hard, or whether perhaps it isn’t easier than an immoral life. Or maybe the life that cuts corners is easier only in appearance.

Second, I wonder if some worldviews aren’t impossible to live, including what might pass for a Christian worldview, and I wonder if it isn’t sometimes a blessing that some do not live their worldviews consistently. Aren’t there certain things we believe we should do or certain ways we believe we should act, which if laid down as an absolute rule would lead to inhuman and ridiculous results?

Nevertheless, this answer won’t work if we are assuming that Schaeffer is correct, but would mean that Schaeffer is incorrect, since Schaeffer says that in fact people do live in accord with their worldview.

ANSWER 1: (“Fragmentation”): Many people hold fragmented worldview that are pieced together from more than one of the worldviews Sire describes. This answer was suggested by Ron at Universitas Veritas and by David at The Bird Proofer.

ANSWER 2 (“Out of touch”): One’s true worldview may not be what he thinks it is. This answer has been suggested by several people, and is what I read Schaeffer to imply. This happens to be the answer that intrigues me the most and leads to another question, one that will be discussed in a later post.

ANSWER 3 (“Façade”): Sometimes consciously, most of the time subconsciously, a person’s professed worldview is a façade. This is related to Answer 2 (the true worldview is something other than the professed worldview) and Pseudo Answer 1 (it is something like hypocrisy, but I would say it is hypocritical only when it is conscious). There are two ways that this happens that I can think of right now.

The first is the search for identity and meaning in life. We see this especially in youth. In High School we might find identity in being a “skater” or “head banger” or “good ole boy” or a hell raiser. In college we may go through stages where we see ourselves as “a writer” or “a businessman” or whatever (and change our major accordingly). I guess this is due to insecurity. Sometimes we aren’t satisfied with being an ordinary human being, so we look for some label. I think this type of façade is temporary. Maybe we could say it is part of growing up: you have to “find yourself.”

The second reason for a façade is to hide something, like a deeper insecurity or guilt. A person may try to find meaning by being a “philosopher” and may hide their insecurities and their feelings of inadequacy behind their ability to parrot some philosopher or dazzle people with their clever arguments. A person who wants to be better than the next guy, but who is not the best looking, doesn’t have money and isn’t very popular, might resort to trying to be the “better man” and turn to Christianity or Marxism or Atheism or environmentalism or feminism as a means to feel better or more on the ball than everyone else. So also, person who has problems with the moral teachings of the Church, may list theological reasons for having left it.

"The distinction between "skater" and "head banger" is not what Schaeffer is referencing."

I agree. I was using this as an example of the search for identity. I think for the average person this is a phase of maturity. It is only when there is a deeper insecurity (or defensiveness) that this search for identity could lead a person to use a worldview as a facade.

"I could cite examples where they don't live their worldview. They live like there really are universal rights and wrongs. They live like human beings are different than animals. etc etc."

It sounds like you think Schaeffer is incorrect. I'm still not sure. I wonder if there is an explanation. Maybe I'll try to find a "naturalist" (I always called them "materialists", but I guess it's the same thing) on the WWW and see what he says.

You touch on another question I have. If a person does not belive in God, can he still believe in absolute rights and wrongs? I don't think you have to be a theist, or at least I don't see why you would, to belive in moral absolutes, nor do I think the secular world is without moral absolutes. But I'm willing to listen if someone wants to show me otherwise.

Sorry, the real world intruded on my ranting for a while...

Mr D - No, not quantum mechanics of the gaps, just honesty. I don't know if the brain's action is determined by physics, or god, or anything else. I suggest that you don't know either. Hence I can't say that we're programmed machines (I wouldn't say programmed anyway, because it implies a programmer!). I certainly don't think our genes determine us, because there are all sorts of environmental factors and variations of expression that make that claim demonstrably untrue. Having said all that it's certainly possible that we are deterministic machines, though as I said before, how that would feel different to free will from god or non-deterministic machinery is a mystery to me.

Civis - So much to go at:

Analogy 1 - the flaw in your analogy is that you don't make the 'rules' of cycling. A more appropriate version would be if you were teaching your son chess, and every time he made an illegal rule you stabbed him in the arm. That, as far as I know, would be a rule unique to you. Having settled on that, I don't think you could retain the excuse that you don't really want him to get hurt - you made the rules, knowing that he would fall afoul of them.

Analogy 2 - You only have half the story. Let's assume that the videos you collected made you omniscient (they don't, but let's pretend). They don't, however, make you omniscient, nor do they mean that you created the system you've taped. So again, let me update your analogy. You build a tower, then hop into your time capsule and run through the future of that tower. You find that in 2107 it crumbles and kills a passerby. You now have the chance to go back to the present and modify the tower, or even knock it down. If you don't, I say you're responsible for that death of that passerby, and in fact you wanted it to happen. That doesn't make you bad (perhaps you saw that the person killed was a serial killer), but it does make you responsible - you do control the future.

Analogy 3 - Again, this is only assuming omniscience, whereas God is also omnipotent. If you could see that America's future was as you describe, AND you could decide (or could have decided, at the beginning of the universe) to make any vegetable that grows in the US twice as productive, or have had 10 times the biomatter decay into oil under the US, then yes, you're responsible.

Analogy 4 - No, you're not making her eat the hot dog, but then you're not omnipotent and omniscient. As limited as you are, though, if your wife dies from a heart attack (and I do hope this is strictly hypothetical) then you bear a little responsibility. How much more would you bear if you had known, not as a likely outcome but as an absolute fact, that she would die as a result of that hot dog, and you had had limitless power to rearrange the entire universe even before you created it so that she wouldn't?

Civis,

Feel free to post it elsewhere, and I'll try to remember to follow along!

I'm unsure about the idea that people's worldviews drive their actions. If we accept that what people say isn't always what they believe (which seems like a no-brainer to me), and we further say that the worldview is basically that set of things which a person believes, consciously or not, then the statement is true, but trivial. There are only two things that can affect the actions of a person; the situation they find themselves in, and the combination of reflexes and choices that they make in reaction to them. So saying that a person's actions depend on their worldview is like saying a car's forward progress depends on its accelerator - of course it does, if it didn't it wouldn't be called an accelerator.

Civis - Oh I totally agree that people do things that don't jibe with what they say. The point I'm trying to make is that this is self-evident; of course people say things that they don't believe, or do things that they say they don't agree with. But if we gather the set of things that someone truly believes together and call it their worldview, then I'm not clear we've achieved anything.