Basic Components of Worldview

Shortly after beginning to study worldviews, the careful student will realize that everyone has a worldview, and everything that humans think, say, and do flows out of an overarching vision of the world. This means that this paragraph and every other paragraph in this book are written from the perspective of a particular worldview. Similarly, the person who takes up worldview as a subject, reads this book, and begins to interact with the ideas found here is doing these things on the basis of his or her own worldview. The reader's own worldview is shaping understandings and responses as the study progresses. Simple decisions about accepting or rejecting statements within the book result from personal convictions that are deeply rooted in a particular worldview. In short, the fact that everyone has a worldview means that no one thinks, speaks, or acts in ways that are entirely neutral. Rather, everyone lives in ways that are committed to deeply held understandings and convictions that operate at the level of a worldview.

How, then, should one decide which way of looking at the world and evaluating ideas about the world should be adopted? Proverbs 31:9 (quoted above) suggests that one will be wise if he or she learns to "judge righteously," which means that a person should learn to evaluate the world and ideas about the world rightly. By learning to evaluate righteously, as the proverb suggests, individuals gain the wisdom needed to do righteous things consistently (e.g., "defend the rights of the poor and needy") rather than acting in ways that are unrighteous (e.g., exploit the poor and disregard the needy).

This chapter focuses on learning to evaluate with wisdom by carefully considering the underlying worldview commitments a person is making when interacting with others' ideas and proposals. It does so by exploring the ways that worldviews interact and compete with one another during the course of human interaction. The chapter also introduces the basic elements that make up a worldview and considers ways that worldview commitments can be tested to ensure that they are accurate and reliable.

Worldviews in Competition

People tend to hold their worldview commitments with what may be called universal intent. This means that they do not normally think that their deepest convictions merely apply to themselves in a personal and private way. Personal convictions surface when people interact with one another. During these interactions, the universal intent with which they hold their beliefs becomes obvious. This frequently happens when disagreements arise. For example, when a person tries to cut in line at a store's checkout counter, people in the back of the line do not normally react as if their views about the matter are only a personal and private matter. Typically, they feel some urge to react negatively as if a universal rule has been broken. Some will roll their eyes, others will quietly murmur, and a few will verbally confront the individual who cut in line. However, no one believes that his or her convictions about such things only apply to the individual who holds them.

The same sort of response may be observed in a variety of other situations involving injustice or inappropriate conduct. Those who witness unjust behavior tend to react as if others should recognize that the behavior is unjust and that the offender should behave differently. Even those who claim that tolerance and acceptance must prevail at all points tend to become intolerant and unaccepting when others disagree. Simply stated, human action speaks louder than words on this matter. Everyone has a worldview and people tend to hold their personal worldview as if they expect others' actions to align with their personal convictions at significant points.

To press this point a little further, note that worldviews compete in the marketplace of ideas daily. Those who speak into this marketplace do so because they intend to persuade others to embrace a particular understanding about some topic. And they hope to persuade others to value what they value and to align their thoughts and actions accordingly. Worldview commitments are commended through social media, cinema, music, newspapers, blogs, commercial advertising, talk radio, and so forth. Entire generations have been shaped by the power of television, movies, and the Internet because these media engage the senses powerfully at times when intellectual defenses have been lowered. A person normally goes to the movies, for example, in order to be entertained. While enjoying this type of entertainment, people typically lower their guard and thus open themselves up to new ideas, often unconsciously. As a result, many drink deeply from the fountain of popular culture without consciously realizing that their values are being shaped by others' views.

The crucial question this chapter takes up, then, is not "Who has a worldview?" but, rather, "How can one explore and evaluate worldview commitments fairly?" Because everyone has a worldview, and worldview assumptions shape human interaction at every point, developing the ability to recognize these assumptions and critically engage them is essential to living an examined life. This ability represents an important first step toward gaining self-awareness, self-understanding, and a capacity for self-examination.

Is It Possible to Evaluate Worldviews Fairly?

Worldview commitments frequently give rise to disagreements on particular issues, but it is more important at the start to delve into the underlying commitments that fuel disagreement rather than the issues themselves. This will require consideration of the basic elements of a worldview and an exploration of key criteria for evaluating a worldview. While evaluation is never entirely neutral, it is important to set forth some objective standards for analyzing basic worldview claims. In order to make progress toward wisdom, a person must come to terms with the fact that worldviews shape every individual, including oneself and the communities that individuals form. Although no one is entirely neutral, to a large degree, objectivity is possible.

Neutrality normally is conceived of as a state in which a person is completely undecided about key issues, holds no convictions, and is unwilling to support any side in a conflict or disagreement. While this may be an ideal position for a referee at a sporting event or a judge who oversees traffic court, it is not a position that any human can presume to hold when it comes to worldviews. Some claim to be profoundly neutral but their style of life always betrays the fact that they live in ways that are very much committed in particular directions because of assumptions they hold at the deepest levels.

Objectivity, on the other hand, represents a goal that is, to some degree, attainable. It relates to fairness, evenhandedness, and an open mind that attempts to gain understanding of others' views prior to assessment. Making progress toward objectivity requires a willingness to listen carefully, an ability to suppress personal biases and prejudices, and a concern for justice. It is possible to become increasingly objective even though it is not possible to be entirely neutral. For example, a person who does not believe that God exists is not neutral at all with respect to this central worldview assumption; however, the same person may believe that humans who believe in God should be free to gather each week in order to worship him. This person is not neutral with respect to worldview commitments, but he or she remains objective enough to recognize that those who disagree should be granted the freedom to assemble and other freedoms necessary to live out their convictions.

This sort of objectivity is absolutely essential for productive dialogue about worldviews in spite of personal worldview commitments. Open-mindedness does not necessarily require that everyone involved in a conversation agree in the end; however, it does require care in listening to others when they express their views along with concern for their welfare and fair treatment.

Most people are not aware that they have deep underlying convictions until they are challenged in some way by someone whose assumptions differ from their own. Worldviews can be challenged in a variety of ways within social contexts. When one recognizes that a conversation partner is speaking based on convictions that differ substantially from one's own, he or she must choose whether to accept those convictions and their implications. In order to make wise decisions in these cases, knowledge and practical skill are necessary.

Elements of a Worldview

As noted in Chapter 1, worldviews begin to take shape from birth. Humans invariably begin the process of understanding themselves, other humans, and the world they inhabit upon entering the world. Understandings grow and take shape as people experience more of the world and reflect upon it. Of course, humanity as a whole is incredibly diverse in many ways, but, in some ways, humans exhibit a remarkable degree of similarity when it comes to basic experience and shared concern. For example, humans in all cultures, living at all times, have found it necessary to survive within a physical environment by securing food, shelter, and clothing. They do so, presumably, because they believe that self-preservation is of value. The fact that humans, as a species, have continued to survive throughout the centuries suggests that they also share a concern to preserve and perpetuate the larger race.

Men and women throughout the ages and across cultures have given expression to these basic concerns in various ways. Sometimes they are expressed in story or through art such as poetry, sculpture, or dance. At other times they are communicated more formally in a series of propositional statements that are carefully articulated as a philosophy, a theology, or an ethical system. One way or the other, when people give expression to basic human concerns, they are also giving expression to the fundamental elements that make up a worldview.

The following section outlines major categories of concern and the basic elements that make up a worldview. In what follows, these elements are expressed primarily as propositions for the sake of clarity and analysis. As these elements are unpacked throughout the remainder of the book, it should become clearer that they could be expressed in several other ways as well, including the stories one tells, the games one plays, and the art one makes.

Ultimate Reality

Arguably the most fundamental and definitive of all worldview commitments relates to the nature of ultimate reality . Ultimate reality refers to the absolute, supreme, and final person, power, principle, or substance underlying the universe. Conceptions of ultimate reality vary widely, but there are three fundamental ways of defining what is ultimately real:

1. A personal god or gods,

2. An impersonal force or principle, and

3. Nothing exists beyond the present space-matter-time-energy continuum.

Historically, as men and women have contemplated themselves and the world in which they live, they have raised a profound question: What is ultimately real? This question appears to stem from a nearly universal concern to understand the nature of the universe at the deepest levels. Even when an individual concludes that the physical universe is real, he or she has not settled questions about reality beyond what can be perceived through the senses. Raising the question of ultimate reality is like asking if God exists. If a person concludes that something or someone exists beyond the physical universe, that person's view of the world will be shaped deeply by that conclusion. Similarly, although in opposite ways, a person's view of the world will be shaped deeply if he or she concludes that nothing exists beyond the present space-matter-time-energy continuum that may be observed through the senses.

Basic answers to the question of ultimate reality fall into three major categories that give shape to what will be described below as worldview families. At this point, it is necessary to outline the major options for responding to questions about the nature of ultimate reality. One person may assume that nothing exists beyond the physical world. Another person may assume that something exists beyond the physical world as a spiritual reality, but that the something that exists is neither personal or relational. Similarly, one may believe that a powerful, personal being exists beyond the physical world. The precise nature of this divine being, or multiple beings in some cases, varies widely from worldview to worldview.

Each of these basic assumptions must be fleshed out more extensively within the context of a particular worldview. An individual who believes in a personal divine being must also consider whether that being is singular or plural, benevolent or evil, similar to humans or altogether different, finite or infinite, and how that divine being relates to human beings if at all. No matter what one believes about the nature of ultimate reality, it is important to note that the implications of this fundamental worldview commitment are significant because they substantially shape all the other elements of a worldview. Questions about human nature and purpose , for instance, are intimately connected to this element.

Nature of the Universe

A second major element of worldviews stems from questions about the world that humans inhabit. Here, the focus is on the known universe and the investigation of its nature, but understandings at this point overlap significantly with conceptions of ultimate reality. Simply stated, understandings about the relationship between the physical universe and ultimate reality deeply shape convictions about the nature and purpose of the world. Essentially, human beings must answer the question: What is the nature of the universe, and how does it relate to whatever is ultimately real? Several related questions may be raised as well. Is the origin of the universe natural or supernatural? And, why does the universe seem to be orderly rather than chaotic?

Also, it is important to consider whether the universe is a closed system or an open system that can be influenced significantly by the spiritual world. One possible response envisions a world that is merely physical in the sense that nothing exists beyond the material universe. In this view, the universe is conceived as a closed system that cannot be influenced by external forces or factors because nothing external to the system exists. This perspective leaves no room for miracles, angelic activity, or divine intervention.

By contrast one may conceive of the universe as a system that is open to spiritual influence. This view more naturally lends itself to an understanding of the universe in which God and other spiritual beings can play a decisive role in the world and in human affairs. This view also raises further questions about the nature of spiritual beings and their intentions in influencing worldly affairs. In either view, it is not difficult to see how an individual's answer to this question relates to assumptions about ultimate reality.

Human Nature

A third major element of any worldview relates to questions about what it means to be human. Here, one may question what humans are made of (bodies, souls, or a body-soul complex), how they relate to the physical universe, and how they relate to the spiritual world if any such thing exists. These questions may also reach backward by considering origins or focus on the present by considering purpose. Similarly, they may look forward to the future by considering destiny.

When reflecting on issues related to humanity, it quickly becomes obvious that one's fundamental convictions about ultimate reality bear directly on concerns about human origins, purpose, and destiny. To offer one example, in the absence of a personal, divine creator, an individual must account for human origins in a way that focuses on the natural world. Some who deny the existence of a divine creator have attempted to explain humans as the product of chance and blind forces within the natural world. According to this view, humans have not been created purposefully and, therefore, cannot hope to discover purpose within the natural order. Instead, men and women must create purpose for themselves and decide what that purpose entails. Ultimately, then, humans need to fulfill the purpose they have devised within their lifetimes because they cease to exist when their physical bodies expire. In such cases, a consistent explanation of ultimate reality and human origins, purpose, and destiny must be confined to the physical universe.

By contrast, a worldview that makes reference to God may trace human origins to a personal creator who designed humans for specific purposes. These purposes vary widely, depending on one's understanding of the creator's nature and purpose. But, again, assumptions about the existence and nature of the creator will be closely connected to assumptions about human origins and purpose. This type of worldview may also involve the possibility of life after death as well as reward or punishment, depending on how individuals respond to the creator's purposes and plans. In such cases, the prospect of reward and punishment tends to guide ethical reasoning. Typically, those who believe that a personal divine being exists conceive of human nature and purpose with direct reference to that being's design and final judgment about what a person has done during the course of his or her life.

Knowledge

A fourth major worldview element relates to the nature of knowledge, reliable sources of knowledge, and the limitations of knowledge. Here, central issues include questions about what genuinely constitutes knowledge, which sources of knowledge are trustworthy, and what can be known. Major questions that arise in connection with this element include:

· What is truth?

· Which sources of knowledge, if any, are reliable?

· What roles do the five senses, memory, introspection, and reason play in the acquisition of knowledge?

· Are faith and reason compatible?

· Can anyone know truth in an absolute and objective way?

A great deal is at stake in answering questions about knowledge because the way people answer them determines which data they regard as plausible and, to some extent, how they interpret that data.

Significant attention has been focused on these issues throughout the modern era because of an increased emphasis on rational thought and scientific observation. This has also resulted from growing skepticism about the certainty of knowledge in general and increased doubts about the reliability of religious knowledge such as divine revelation. Divine revelation refers to the notion that God has made himself known, or revealed himself, to human beings. If God truly has communicated to humans, then what he has made known bears more authority than merely human ideas and opinions; however, if God has not made himself known in any way, then humans enjoy significant autonomy and authority over their lives because they are the highest form of intellectual life on the planet. Challenges are significant for this perspective because human opinion varies widely, and no single person seems to have the right to tell all others what is appropriate in a world where it is not possible to appeal to God and what he has revealed about right and wrong.

As with other major worldview elements, convictions about knowledge vary depending on assumptions about ultimate reality, the universe, and humanity. For instance, answers to the question "Is belief in God rational?" will differ significantly depending on convictions about the nature of ultimate reality. If an individual does not believe that God exists, it is unlikely that the individual will believe that divine revelation is possible. As will become obvious in subsequent chapters, the Christian worldview entails the convictions that God exists, he is capable of communication, and he has spoken clearly through the Bible because he desires to make himself known to human beings and to be known by them.

At times, the authority and reliability of the Bible is dismissed outright by those who do not embrace the Christian worldview before they consider its claims first hand. While some suggest that this is a rational response to the Christian Scriptures, it is difficult to understand how dismissive attitudes toward the Bible can be rational when they are poorly informed. Dismissing a text that has proven foundational to Western civilization and widely read by intelligent men and women for centuries suggests that some such decisions are rooted in worldview assumptions rather than any inadequacies within the Bible per se. In other words, what one counts as knowledge and what one discounts will depend significantly on one's overarching view of the world.

Reliability of Scripture

The Christian worldview affirms the Bible as God's Word and regards it to be the product of God who inspired the text of Scripture through human authors who "spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). For these reasons, Christians believe that the Bible is the ultimate authority in all matters upon which it touches and is reliable in everything it affirms.

Christians have good reasons to believe that the text of Scripture is reliable and trustworthy including a strong manuscript tradition, remarkable efforts throughout history to preserve the Scriptures, the historical accuracy of its contents, and the uncanny accuracy of certain prophetic passages. Regardless, Christians generally trust the contents of Scripture because, as they have read it, they have personally encountered Jesus Christ and come face-to-face with the compelling teachings and flawless character that marked his ministry.

The claims that Jesus makes about himself in Scripture, coupled with the extraordinary story of his death, burial, and resurrection, offers a powerful antidote to contemporary skepticism. One must experience the wisdom and the power of Jesus Christ personally in order to make sense of the compelling nature of the Christian way of life. Thus, rather than offering a lengthy argument for the reliability of the Bible, the authors of this textbook encourage readers to take it up and to read it themselves in order to make an informed decision about it. Its authority is assumed throughout the material that follows.

Convictions about legitimate types and sources of knowledge are central to what can be called a plausibility structure. A plausibility structure is a mental framework that functions like a filter by determining what a person counts as genuine knowledge and what should be disregarded. In this way, plausibility structures play a significant role as people attempt to make sense of the world and decide how to live within it. Because divinely inspired writings are unlikely to make it through a plausibility structure that doubts the existence of a divine author, a person who believes that belief in God is irrational will not likely consider Scripture to be a weighty source of knowledge.

In order to grow in self-awareness and make progress toward self-understanding, it is critical for individuals to wrestle honestly with the issue of knowledge. An honest answer to the simple question, "How do I know what I know?" may prove a little unnerving initially, but honest answers are indispensable if one intends to get to the bottom of the basic convictions that shape his or her thought and behavior each day. In many cases people uncritically adopt the opinions and beliefs of their family and friends, for better or for worse. Without carefully considering how conclusions have been reached, it will be difficult to revisit those conclusions in a critical and constructive way.

Ethics

Another key element of a worldview relates to ethics . Essentially, ethics may be understood as the systematic study of moral principles that guide human behavior. As an individual contemplates the difference between right and wrong, that person draws on deeply held values that flow out of a particular worldview. These values serve as criteria for evaluating particular actions and the morality of the people who perform them. Whatever one decides about ethical matters, those decisions will guide ethical reasoning and behavior.

Experience and intuition suggest that human beings are deeply moral creatures who are intensely interested in matters of right and wrong, especially those matters in which they have a vested interest. Moral conviction represents a strong impulse that has fueled major social changes such as the abolition of slavery in the United States and the end of apartheid in South Africa. But even in situations that do not permit careful reflection on ethical principles, humans demonstrate ethical impulses. Many, for example, sense a need to silence rowdy youth in movie theaters, report drunk drivers, contact child services at the first sign of abuse, and return library books on time, or they feel guilty for failing to do so. While motives for such activities vary somewhat from case to case, conduct of this sort can be explained in part by the fact that some actions just seem right, and others just seem wrong.

The study of ethics quickly raises questions that relate to the field of knowledge. Distinguishing right from wrong depends significantly on determining which sources of moral knowledge are reliable and authoritative. For instance, before drivers decide to hit the brakes when approaching a crosswalk full of pedestrians, they have already made up their minds about several issues that are more fundamental than stopping the car. The drivers have decided that the lives of those crossing the street are of value and that they bear responsibility for protecting those lives. The drivers have also determined that their desire to arrive at a destination quickly is not more significant than the pedestrians in front of them or their personal responsibility to protect them. But how do drivers know the relative value of human life and the nature of their responsibilities? The sort of understandings that impel drivers to hit their brakes are rooted deeply in values that stem from fundamental worldview assumptions.

Ethical determinations are closely connected to other worldview commitments; however, in the case of ethics, self-interest can become a major obstacle to consistent reflection and genuine understanding. People are not always as concerned about distinguishing right from wrong as they are about excusing and defending their choices. Humans are wonderfully complex creatures whose lives are driven by what they love and desire as much as what they know and understand. Honest self-examination, although difficult, is essential for gaining ethical knowledge and a clear understanding of one's true moral character.

Purpose

One final worldview element worthy of mention relates to the underlying purpose for the existence and lives of human beings and the larger world. Worldviews typically entail concern about purpose as it relates in some measure to the world but especially as it relates to humanity. In the context of worldview studies, purpose refers to the underlying reason for which something was created and the ends for which it currently exists. Discerning the purpose of some thing or of a living creature can provide great insight into its nature and significance. For this reason, purpose has long been regarded as a matter of perennial concern among humans who cannot seem to resist asking, "Why are we here?," and "What should we be doing with our lives?"

Purpose also provides a means of evaluation. For example, if one wants to determine whether a race car is a good race car or a bad race car, it will be important to decide the chief end or goal of a race car. If the chief end of a race car is to win races against other cars, then the relative goodness of any particular race car depends on the car's ability to win races. Assuming the race car was not created for the purpose of providing transportation to and from the grocery store or for hauling boats to the lake, then evaluation of the race car should relate primarily to the winning of races; therefore, a race car that wins races may be considered a better race car than one that does not, because winning races fulfills the purpose for which the car was designed.

Although the matter becomes more complex when it comes to people, considering the purpose for human existence is similarly essential for evaluating individual lives including one's own. As with other worldview elements, assumptions about purpose vary widely from worldview to worldview. When considering a basic question such as "Why are we here?," a person will typically respond with some reference to other convictions related to ultimate concern, the nature of the universe, and human nature.

At this point, convictions about the nature of ultimate reality are paramount. If nothing beyond the physical world exists, then humans must locate purpose within the physical world and, perhaps, in connection with individual preference or cultural norms. From this perspective, purpose does not necessarily await discovery because the universe has not been purposefully designed. Rather, individuals must create purpose for themselves and determine what is of significance for their lives. If a personal creator exists, then purpose must account for that being's nature and will, to some degree. In these cases, purpose is available for discovery because the universe and individuals' lives are infused with purpose as a consequence of an overarching design.

Finally, note that a person's understanding of purpose and destiny are normally connected. To use a prior example, consider the relative value assigned to a race car that has never performed well on the racetrack in comparison with a race car that has been driven to victory in important races. The first will not likely receive significant attention, whereas the second will likely be sold for a large sum of money or enshrined in some way at a major racetrack or museum. One car has fulfilled the purpose for which it was designed, while the other has not. In the same way, destiny for humans normally is understood in connection with convictions about their fundamental purpose. Many would agree that being a good person is a worthy goal and that one's legacy depends on attaining that goal within the course of a lifetime; however, significant difference stems from disagreements about what good means in relation to human beings.

Summary of Worldview Elements

Life gives rise to basic questions that are shaped by concerns and experiences, which, to some degree, seem to be consistent across time and cultures. Responses to these questions form the fundamental elements of a worldview. Individuals and groups offer diverse answers to these questions and, therefore, make different assumptions at the worldview level. Because these assumptions guide thought and action, they must be explored carefully if one hopes to make sense of his or her own view of the world and the views expressed by others.

This section has outlined the major elements that constitute a worldview and has described basic strategies for answering fundamental questions. The major areas of concern overlap significantly and tend to be interdependent. One's view of ultimate reality is of consequence when a person begins to think about the nature of the universe as well as human nature, purpose, and destiny. The same is true of ethics. Whatever a person believes about God's existence and nature as well as human nature and purpose will inevitably shape convictions about right and wrong.

When presented in terms of questions and answers that result in propositional statements about reality—God exists, the universe is orderly, humans are valuable, and so forth—these elements may seem abstract, and connections between them may be difficult to recognize and understand. However, when the elements of a worldview are drawn together to form a comprehensive picture of reality, like threads in a skillfully woven tapestry, the picture that emerges can be compelling.

This picture of reality does not normally surface as a series of succinct propositions like those found in philosophical textbooks. One's picture of reality normally emerges in the form of a story in which the individual plays a key role. The story features a comprehensive narrative about the ways that humans relate to the world and attempts to help the one who tells the story make sense of his or her place within it. The story that emerges is not static, irrelevant, abstract, or dry; it is both biographical and autobiographical in that it sets forth a vision of life that helps a person make sense of ultimate reality, navigate the world, and live meaningfully.

No matter how one conceives of ultimate reality and human nature, virtually everyone recognizes that something is wrong with the world in general and with humans in particular. The rationale for this reality varies from worldview to worldview, but most people sense that things are not quite the way they should be. This recognition plays a major role in connecting the elements of a worldview to an overarching Story, which enables people to draw the various threads of their worldview together in a cohesive way. The basic storyline is familiar: Things were once relatively good, but they have gone terribly wrong in that human life or, at the very least, human happiness is now somehow threatened. The remedy for this predicament depends on the nature of the problem, but adherents to all worldviews suggest that something must be done to redeem the situation. That something figures prominently in the ways that people tell the story and thus will emerge throughout this book at several points.

Major Worldview Families

For the sake of analysis, it will be helpful to group worldviews into major families on the basis of fundamental convictions about ultimate reality. Grouping worldviews according to general family characteristics can facilitate discussion and analysis; however, this should not be misunderstood as an attempt to account for all the details of any particular worldview. These families represent some of the broadest possible examples of shared worldviews. Here, the shared elements in view derive from conclusions about ultimate reality, but other convictions will differ significantly from subgroup to subgroup and from individual to individual. While categorizing worldviews is entirely reasonable, it is not possible to delve deeply into the intricacies of individual convictions at every point. Instead, attention will be given to major features of three general worldview families and some basic implications of the assumptions they share in common.

Atheism

The first major worldview family is called atheism . Atheism refers to disbelief in the existence of a god or gods and, therefore, entails an understanding of reality that makes no reference to anything or any being beyond the physical universe. The atheistic family of worldviews can be characterized in part by the negative assumption that no god exists, but atheism also involves a series of more constructive commitments. In other words, one who does not believe in a god or gods still makes sense of reality on the basis of assumptions about the universe, humanity, ethics, and purpose. In the case of this worldview family, such assumptions do not relate to the nature and will of any divine being, but, in principle, atheistic assumptions provide the same fundamental framework as other worldview families.

Atheistic worldviews have exerted significant influence over Western culture in the modern era; however, the influence of atheism is disproportionately high given the relatively low number of individuals who self-identify as atheists. In many ways, atheistic convictions have exerted influence through a process known as secularization. Secularization refers to the large-scale withdrawal of influence by religious groups from major areas of life, thought, and social activity (secular thought is explored more fully in Chapter 16). As a result, the dominant worldview perspective that guides discourse and practice within the public arena is atheistic, practically speaking. This is not to suggest that everyone in the public arena identifies as an atheist. Rather, this means that those who operate within the public sector, in areas such as the government, the military, and the educational system, are expected to speak and act without explicit reference to a divine being. The expectation to speak and act in secularized ways, regardless of one's personal convictions, is sometimes referred to in terms of practical or functional atheism.

From an atheistic or secularized perspective, it may seem reasonable to inhibit the influence of private belief in the public arena. After all, someone may reason, neutrality is only possible in the absence of religious commitment; however, the result is not neutrality because atheistic perspectives are also committed to particular worldview assumptions. Even when one's assumptions are not religious in a traditional sense, they function much like the assumptions found in other worldviews.

Instead of insisting that an atheistic perspective is somehow neutral, the careful thinker must dig more deeply into the constructive claims of atheism in order to come to terms with the atheistic vision of reality. Just like everyone else, men and women who do not believe that a god exists live in particular ways that are shaped by deeply held convictions about the world. Thus, in order to grasp the complexity, depth, and variety of atheistic perspectives, it is important to consider not only what adherents to the worldview negate, but also what they affirm. Only by doing so can one adequately understand and evaluate worldviews of this kind.

The Spectrum of Atheistic Views

Atheistic worldviews range from relatively soft forms, such as agnosticism , which amounts to a position of uncertainty about God's existence (Greek, agnosis, meaning "no knowledge"), to more hardened positions that tend to be quite dogmatic about the fact that God does not exist. Some are atheistic, practically speaking, in the sense that God's existence or nonexistence makes no practical difference in their lives, although they are open to the possibility that God exists.

In some cases, atheists focus on a more constructive articulation of the atheistic view instead of emphasizing the rather negative commitment to the nonexistence of God. One such attempt led a group of self-described secular humanists to draft the "Humanist Manifesto," which is now in its third edition. Others tend to be atheistic by default more than by conviction about God's nonexistence as a result of living in a secularized world in which reliance on scientific knowledge and rational inquiry leaves little room for God. Some refer to this sort of atheism in terms of naturalism because of its focus on nature and knowledge available through the natural sciences. Nonetheless, some are convinced that God does not exist and have attempted to come to terms with the profound moral, spiritual, and existential implications of living in a world without God.

The atheistic family of worldviews ranges significantly from the agnostic to the secular humanist to the naturalist and so on. There is no single way to think and live as an atheist, so it is important to carefully consider the ways that particular individuals think and live in order to understand their worldviews, even in cases when they share the fundamental assumption that God does not exist.

Pantheism

A second major worldview family is known as pantheism . Pantheism equates god with the universe and the universe with god by conceiving of both as identical and entirely consistent with one another. God, according to this understanding, must not be understood as a personal and relational being who may be distinguished from the universe. Rather, the divine being or essence is more of a spiritual force or principle that pervades everything to such an extent that it is not possible to know where god ends and the world begins, and vice versa.

An influential version of this understanding appears in the teachings of the Vedanta school of Hinduism that "atman is Brahman." Here atman refers to the individual soul or personal essence of living things. Brahman refers to the divine, which is the eternal essence of the universe or the cosmic soul. Thus, the expression "atman is Braham" equates the individual souls and the cosmic soul without distinction. This notion is tantamount to claiming that god is everything and everything is god, provided that god is understood as an impersonal entity.

Pantheistic views generally recognize a spiritual dimension to human life but do not necessarily envision that spiritual dimension in terms of personal relationship. The divine is not an intelligent, moral being with a will and the ability to communicate that will to humans. In some cases, pantheists regard the physical world to be illusory and envision human life in connection with a lengthy process that progresses beyond the illusion toward ultimate reality. Progress may require multiple lifetimes, but the final destiny typically involves reaching a state of enlightenment and reunion with the singular essence of the universe.

From a global perspective, pantheism has proven enormously popular, although pantheistic conceptions of ultimate reality often prove challenging to Western minds. Nonetheless, historically, this perspective has proven compelling to Eastern minds and has exerted significant influence in the West in recent history. For these reasons, the thoughtful student will do well to consider not only the underlying assumptions of pantheism but also the reasons why these assumptions have captured the imaginations and fascinated the minds of so many people throughout the ages.

The Spectrum of Pantheistic Worldviews

The pantheistic family of worldview ranges widely. In many cases, this particular family of worldviews proves difficult to define and even more difficult to connect to particular religious groups and labels. Pantheism provides the theoretical underpinnings of major world religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as a few minor world religions that, primarily, originated in the East; however, some forms of Hinduism tend to be more theistic than pantheistic in practice and may even include worship of household gods or other deities. Similarly, Buddhism defies simple labels. Some forms of Buddhism are virtually atheistic, although all forms entail some notion of spirituality in addition to physical reality.

Western forms of pantheism, such as those related to the New Age Movement and neopaganism, differ significantly from Eastern forms, although they tend to have some family resemblances. Nonetheless, it is important in all cases to carefully consider the theoretical assumptions that form the foundation of pantheistic worldviews as well as the practices of their adherents in order to understand more fully the worldview of any particular individual described as a pantheist.

Theism

A third major worldview family may be referred to as theism . Theism describes a worldview that includes belief in the existence of at least one personal and intelligent divine being. Unlike pantheism, theists generally distinguish between the physical and spiritual worlds. Adherents to theistic worldviews typically conceive of God as the creator of all and, therefore, distinct from creation and the creatures therein. God, from a theistic perspective, exists above and beyond (i.e., transcends) the universe he has created. He may choose to interact with the world and with human beings, but nothing that has been made shares in his unique divine essence. The God of theism does not need the world nor is the world part of his being. God is not the universe, and the universe is not God. Theistic views typically envision the created order as a carefully designed environment that is infused with purpose by the divine being. For this reason, theists often believe that human life should be ordered according to the divine will and that creatures owe the creator reverence, respect, and gratitude at the very least.

A theistic worldview that includes only one God may be described more precisely as monotheistic . Three of the world's major theistic religions are monotheistic: Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. A theistic worldview that includes multiple gods, such as the gods of the Greco-Roman pantheon, may be described more precisely as polytheistic . In either case, understandings about the nature of God, or gods, can vary widely from one theistic view to another and deeply impact the overall shape of the worldview.

Within the developed Western world, belief in a personal, intelligent divine being seems to have waned in recent history. At the very least, the influence of theistic views associated with the Judeo-Christian tradition carry less weight today than they once did, especially in Europe and North America. To some degree, this has resulted from the process of secularization described above; however, this has also resulted from shifts in morality, cultural values, and attitudes about the importance of religion more broadly. This suggests that cultural and societal views, such as personal worldviews, are rooted in commitments of the heart as much as the mind. Regardless, theistic worldviews continue to shape cultural and societal dialogue because of the historical influence of theism in the West and the large number of people who still identify with a theistic worldview.

Interestingly, trends in Africa and Asia suggest that theistic views have been growing steadily in popularity and influence for the past few decades. For example, some of the largest churches in the world are now found in China and South Korea. In any case, truth does not depend on popular opinion and cannot be discerned by simply counting the number of people who agree with a particular view. Thus, while these trends are useful for understanding the cultural environment in which one lives and thinks, the final tally of adherents to any worldview is of little consequence in trying to determine if the worldview genuinely leads toward the path of wisdom.

The Spectrum of Theistic Worldviews

A theistic worldview may center on a God who created all but then left the universe to run on its own with little guidance or provision. Another theistic conception may envision God as a being who not only created the universe but who continually maintains it and guides the course of human history to his purposes. The first example involves a God who is personal but not altogether relational. His existence is of little practical consequence to daily life. The second involves a God who is both personal and relational in the sense that he consistently involves himself in the affairs of the created order. His existence is of practical consequence in the grand scheme of things. The point is simply that the nature of the God or gods at the center of a theistic worldview profoundly affects the larger worldview. This is especially clear when considering the relationship between the divine being and human beings.

Summary of Worldview Families

This section has outlined a few of the major features of three worldview families in order to assist with further investigation of various worldview options. No attempt has been made to fully interact with any particular worldview. Rather, the three families described above are offered as broad categories that derive from fundamental convictions about the nature of ultimate reality. Generally speaking, an atheistic worldview entails disbelief in the existence of a god or gods. By contrast, a pantheistic worldview recognizes the divine but envisions it as an impersonal force or principle that cannot be distinguished from the world. Finally, a theistic worldview involves a personal and intelligent being who, typically, has created the universe and thus bears some relation to it.

Two additional observations may be added. In some cases, a particular worldview may tend toward the boundary somewhere in between two of the broad worldview families. Some strands of Buddhism, for example, are consistent in many ways with pantheistic conceptions because they are generally disinterested in knowing or acknowledging the creator. Thus, some have described these understandings as atheistic, or at least nontheistic, because they make little direct reference to God. Similarly, a worldview in which the creator created the universe but then distanced himself relationally from it is technically a theistic view. Yet, in practical terms, the existence of God in this view is of little practical importance, so in practice, it will tend to function in ways that seem more atheistic. Neither of these examples, or others like them, can be categorized easily. Hence, the major categories outlined here provide a useful guide to the investigation of worldviews, but, in the end, they are only a guide.

Finally, it should be noted that many, and perhaps most, individuals hold worldviews that are inconsistent, ill defined, and eclectic. In part, this results from the fact that most people go through life without bringing their fundamental assumptions into their conscious mind for careful examination. It can also result from living in an environment that is characterized by plurality and diversity of thought and behavior. This is increasingly true of life in Western, developed countries, especially in urban contexts. For several reasons that will be addressed below, consistency and clarity of thought are important goals for those who seek wisdom.

Worldview Analysis and Evaluation

Worldview analysis begins with an understanding of worldview as a concept, how worldviews function, and the basic elements that make up a worldview. But the practical value of worldview analysis relates chiefly to gaining the ability to recognize and evaluate worldviews. Gaining the skills needed to comprehend and evaluate worldviews is of great consequence because worldviews compete for minds and hearts daily in the marketplace of ideas.

Worldviews are preached continuously in a wide variety of contexts. To offer one example, whenever a person watches a movie, from The Lion King to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, that individual is confronted with the beliefs and values of those who made the movie. When people enter imaginatively into the fictional worlds that Hollywood presents, they are encouraged to consider life from another's point of view. As a result, individuals sometimes laugh at jokes they would be too embarrassed to repeat, they empathize with immoral behavior, or they begin to ponder whether violence is an appropriate way of solving some problems. Cinema would have only a limited effect if movies directly challenged the core beliefs of those who watch them. But of course, they rarely take that approach. Typically, they present alternative worldviews to audiences without drawing attention to the fact that they are emphasizing ideas and values that stem from a particular vision for the world.

Movies are by no means the only media through which worldviews are disseminated. The nightly news, blogs, advertising, education, and virtually all other modes of human communication serve as avenues for the competition of worldviews. At every point that people communicate, they do so from a particular perspective, and they commend some aspect of their perspective to those who listen. An inability to recognize that this is happening leaves the average listener defenseless. When people are unable to consciously engage ideas in the marketplace, their thoughts and actions are shaped unconsciously by the values and convictions of others.

Worldview Evaluation

To be direct, worldviews are not of equal value because they are not all equally true, good, and beautiful. This claim may be shocking to the sensibilities of some, but briefly reflecting on the worldview families described above should make the truth of this assertion plain to the honest reader. Consider carefully the fundamental assumptions made by atheists and theists regarding ultimate reality. If both worldview families were equally true, then one would have to affirm both that God does not exist and that God does exist simultaneously. But what would affirming two mutually exclusive claims even mean? It makes no sense. The same sort of illogical conclusion follows from comparing a pantheistic assumption about an impersonal god with a theistic assumption that God is personal.

It is impossible to conclude logically that two contradictory convictions are true at the same time and in the same way. In such cases, either both views are wrong, or one view is more accurate than the other. It is simply not possible for all views to be equally true. The point is not to demean an individual or mock a particular view of the world. Instead, the goal is merely to underscore that it is important to analyze and evaluate worldview claims thoughtfully because worldviews are not all created equal. Pretending that all views can be true simultaneously may sound polite and politically correct, but it will prove useless for those determined to pursue wisdom.

Testing Worldviews

In order to maintain some objectivity in the evaluation of worldviews, it will be important to establish a consistent set of criteria that can be applied in the assessment of worldview assumptions. Numerous standards have been proposed in worldview studies, but three basic areas have emerged as the crucial considerations with which to begin (Naugle, 2002). By testing a worldview in each of these three areas, it becomes possible to identify areas of strength and weakness and to compare competing worldview claims in a balanced way. These areas of examination roughly parallel three leading theories regarding the nature of truth: the coherence theory, the correspondence theory, and the existential theory.

Coherence Test

An initial standard for evaluation is the coherence test , which is a worldview test that examines the internal consistency and rational coherence of worldview commitments. This test questions whether the various aspects of a worldview agree with or contradict one another. Careful investigation of a worldview may uncover seemingly contradictory claims that need to be considered more fully. If, after closer examination, it can be determined that critical assumptions within a worldview do not merely appear to contradict but actually do contradict, then good reason exists for regarding the belief system to be false.

When a worldview is determined to be incoherent, it should not be considered true; however, when it is determined that a worldview is coherent, the most that one can reasonably conclude is that the worldview might be true (Samples, 2007). A person may construct an entirely consistent worldview that does not contradict itself, but this is no guarantee that the worldview accurately depicts the real world. A person who is mentally ill, for example, may come to internally consistent conclusions that she is the Duchess of York, but those conclusions do not correspond to the way things are in the world outside of her mind. As important as this test may be, further examination is still necessary to reach a final conclusion.

Failing the Coherence Test

An example of incoherence may be observed in the claim that "There is no such thing as absolute truth." Presumably, this claim attempts to account for the difficulties involved in determining what is true and in convincing others of that truth. Unfortunately, the statement that "There is no such thing as absolute truth" amounts to an absolute claim about what is true, which is precisely what the statement suggests does not exist. It is a self-refuting claim because it turns out to be internally inconsistent. In principle, this sort of coherence should not characterize one's worldview.

Correspondence Test

A second standard for evaluation is the correspondence test , which examines a worldview's ability to provide a cogent explanation of reality. This test examines the claims of a worldview to determine whether those claims adequately account for available data and personal experience. If it can be determined that a worldview does not truly fit with reality or that it neglects major aspects of reality, the worldview should not be considered true. It simply does not correspond to the way that things are in the real world. Correspondence may be considered the primary test for any worldview because a worldview that fails to adequately account for reality is not worthy of serious consideration.

Correspondence Test

The statement "It is raining in Moscow" is an example of correspondence. If precipitation is, in fact, currently falling within the capital city of Russia, then this statement corresponds to reality. Thus, it may be considered true. If the statement does not fit the state of affairs in Moscow, then it simply cannot be considered true. In principle, correspondence should be considered the critical test of the truthfulness of one's worldview.

Practical Test

A third and final standard for evaluation is the practical test , which examines a worldview's workability and practical value in the most important areas of life and experience. Major issues at this point relate to the implications of a worldview for human happiness, satisfaction, and daily life. If people find their worldview to be lacking in some significant way, as they experience life's challenges, they should look elsewhere for a worldview to which they can commit and with which they can live happily.

While this third test is not the primary test for worldviews, it, nonetheless, represents a critical area of consideration when evaluating worldviews. Generally, people will not continue to live with a worldview once it has become obvious that it is not really satisfactory. They may continue to say that they adhere to the worldview they once held, but they will begin to live in ways that are inconsistent with those convictions. A person's actual beliefs will become increasingly obvious through his or her actions in spite of his or her stated beliefs. In short, a person who becomes dissatisfied with one worldview will begin to borrow from another. This is often the first sign that a worldview may be inadequate.

Worldviews and Cognitive Dissonance

When a person continues to commit verbally to a particular worldview while acting in a way that is contradictory to it, he or she may begin to experience what can be described as cognitive dissonance . Essentially, this describes the tension and discomfort that arises when a person tries to hold two or more contradictory beliefs or ideas at the same time.

In cases in which individuals know that life cannot be lived in ways that are consistent with specific aspects of their worldview, they may begin to experience mental stress because of the tension they are experiencing between their convictions and their behavior. The individuals may choose to endure the discomfort for a while for various reasons such as peer pressure, shame, or fear. This sort of dissonance, however, can become virtually unbearable; therefore, even though individuals may not believe that their convictions are correct, they may choose to suppress the tension, ignore their conscience, and act in ways they can live with rather than ways that truly align with their worldview commitments.

Conversely, individuals who genuinely believe that their worldview is adequate may still fail to live up to the ideals of that worldview. This seems to complicate matters somewhat, but it represents another consideration. In these cases, the problem may not stem from inadequacies within the worldview but, rather, from inadequacies within the person who embraces it. A clear example appears in the New Testament in the book of 1 John. Here, the author draws attention to the sort of consistency between stated belief and actual belief that should be evident in the ways Christians act toward one another.

If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother. (1 John 4:20–21)

Here, the author is not suggesting that Christianity is somehow inadequate. Rather, he is pointing out the need for Christians to follow Christ more closely at a key point.

Attaining to the Ideals of a Worldview

It is important to consider that, at times, a person who is completely committed to a certain worldview may fall short of living consistently with the values to which he or she truly holds. Consider the woman in the example in Chapter 1. She values each individual life, but when she is under stress while on her drive home after a difficult day, she treats people with disrespect. Does this mean she does not value people? To dig deeper into this topic from the perspective of the Christian worldview, consider Romans 7 and 8. These chapters are helpful in thinking about how a Christian can have perfect intentions and still fall woefully short. A person may err over and over again, doing what he or she did not intend to do or else fail to do what he or she intended to do.

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me … Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! (Romans 7:14–25)

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit … Those who are in the flesh cannot please God … Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words … And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good for those who are called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:1–8, 8:28)

Summary of Worldview Tests

For the purpose of objectively evaluating worldviews, three basic worldview tests have been proposed. The coherence test focuses on the internal consistency of a worldview's basic assumptions. Here, the central question is, "Does the worldview make sense?" A second test, the correspondence test, focuses on a worldview's ability to make sense of available data and experience. Here, the question is simple: "Does the worldview correspond to the way things actually are in the world?" Finally, the practical test considers whether a worldview provides a satisfactory basis for human life. The central question here is, "Can one live with this worldview?" Taken together, these three tests offer a helpful starting point for assessing the adequacy of various worldview assumptions.

Bear in mind that these tests will be of little value if they are applied to living worldviews and the people who hold them in harsh or simplistic ways. They are not designed for use as weapons to attack others or embarrass them. Instead, they are intended for use in gently and objectively engaging real people who hold deep convictions about the world. As such, they cannot be applied well if one does not attempt to listen carefully to others' views and to their rationale for holding those views. Because this task should also involve self-assessment, it will be important for every individual to consider how he or she hopes to be treated by others. As a general rule, whatever is undesirable for oneself is probably undesirable for others as well.

At this point, the New Testament book of James offers practical wisdom that may be of value in the challenging task of analyzing and evaluating worldviews. James writes, "Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, [and] slow to anger" (James 1:19). This author was not speaking directly about worldview studies, but his timeless instructions for engaging others remains sound advice for people living today.

Conclusion

The ability to analyze and evaluate worldviews will pay practical dividends for those who learn to recognize, understand, and evaluate worldview claims. When others communicate their views explicitly or implicitly, they are vying for the attention and acceptance of all who listen. People normally do not accept an entire set of worldview assumptions from another person after a brief conversation. More commonly, persuasive appeals to the mind and heart shape the convictions of an audience little by little over time.

When such appeals lead toward truth, goodness, and beauty, it is altogether appropriate to refine one's worldview in order to make progress toward wisdom; however, when these appeals are rooted in falsehood, tainted morally, or deformed in some way, it is critical for listeners to recognize danger and reject the appeal. Those who are aware that worldviews are in play and who are capable of evaluating others' claims will find themselves in the best position to discern how to respond wisely in each situation.

Religious people are not alone in forming beliefs about the nature of the world in which they live. All people, at all times, and in all places, have developed foundational understandings concerning the nature of the universe and have built their lives, consciously or unconsciously, upon those understandings. Moreover, worldviews are not all equally true, and, therefore, they do not all provide adequate foundations upon which to construct a life. In the end, everyone trusts in something. The vital question is not, "Who is trusting in something?" but, rather, "Who is trusting in something trustworthy?" This question will be engaged more fully in the chapters that follow.

Chapter Review

Main Ideas

· Worldview commitments often are held as convictions that are assumed but not deeply analyzed or evaluated.

· Worldviews are heavily influenced by messages in popular culture where communication is powerful and critical thinking is disengaged.

· Evaluation of worldviews is essential. People do not approach this process with neutrality, but they must learn to exercise objectivity.

· Worldviews are deeply influenced by one's understanding of ultimate reality, whether that understanding is atheistic, pantheistic, or theistic. This first component is foundational and heavily influences the others.

· A second essential element of worldview relates to the nature of the universe.

· A third essential element of worldview relates to questions about human nature.

· A fourth essential element of worldview relates to the nature and source of knowledge.

· A fifth essential element of worldview relates to ethics, the moral principles that guide human behavior.

· A final element that forms one's worldview is the sense of one's purpose.

· Worldviews can be grouped into three major categories: atheism, pantheism, and theism. The spectrum within each of these is very broad. In some unusual cases, a worldview may even appear to fit into two categories.

· The authority and reliability of Scripture needs to be considered seriously in light of one's assumptions about ultimate reality and sources of knowledge.

· Worldviews need to be analyzed responsibly and objectively because, even though the world preaches tolerance of all, not all worldviews can be equally valid.

· Three worldview tests offer the starting point for validation: the coherence test, which examines whether a worldview is consistent within itself; the correspondence test, which examines whether a worldview offers a reasonable explanation of reality; and the practical test, which examines whether a worldview is practical in the most important areas of life.

· Learning how to analyze worldviews will give a person valuable skills that are essential for a well-reasoned life.

Key Terms

· Agnosticism: A worldview position characterized by the conviction that it is not possible to know with certainty whether God exists or not and that the same is true of certain other religious claims.

· Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a god or gods and, therefore, entails an understanding of reality that makes no reference to anything or any being beyond the physical universe.

· Cognitive Dissonance: An uncomfortable state in which a person holds inconsistent or contradictory ideas or beliefs, particularly in relation to morality and conduct.

· Coherence Test: A worldview test that examines the internal consistency and rational coherence of worldview assumptions.

· Correspondence Test: A worldview test that examines a worldview's ability to provide a cogent explanation of reality.

· Ethics: The systematic study of moral principles that is concerned mainly with beliefs and judgments regarding right and wrong for the purpose of guiding human behavior.

· Monotheistic: A theistic worldview that includes only one god.

· Naturalism: A worldview position characterized by the conviction that nothing exists beyond the natural world, emphasis on knowledge available through analysis of the natural world, and the exclusion of supernatural explanations and religious doctrine.

· Pantheism: Equates god with the universe and the universe with god by conceiving of both as identical and entirely consistent with one another.

· Plausibility Structure: A mental framework that functions like a filter by determining what one counts as genuine knowledge and what should be disregarded.

· Polytheistic: A theistic worldview that includes multiple gods.

· Practical Test: A worldview test that examines a worldview's workability and practical value in the most important areas of life and experience.

· Purpose: The underlying reason for which something was created and the ends for which it currently exists.

· Secular Humanist: A person who embraces a philosophy of life that excludes supernaturalism and a personal god, emphasizes reason and scientific evidence, and emphasizes personal fulfillment and social good as the basis for moral reasoning.

· Secularization: A societal process that involves a large-scale withdrawal of influence by religious groups from major areas of life, thought, and social activity.

· Theism: A worldview that entails belief in the existence of at least one personal and intelligent divine being.

· Ultimate Reality: The absolute, supreme, and final person, power, principle, or substance underlying the universe.

Application of Knowledge

· You should think critically about worldview influences in popular culture to protect yourself from unintended acceptance of conflicting worldview assumptions.

· Identification of major worldview components in your personal worldview is the first step to living a carefully reasoned, intentional, deliberate life.

· You should seek to be objective in analysis of competing worldviews, including the analysis of your own worldview.

· Three tools for analysis of worldviews have been discussed.

· Coherence Test

· Correspondence Test

· Practical Test

· It is important to verify the authenticity of your life choices by assessing personal adherence to or cognitive dissonance with your identified worldview.

Questions for Reflection

· How much do you think you are influenced by the movies and TV shows you watch? What are some examples of behaviors you watch and accept as normal that do not align with your worldview? How do you think your worldview has morphed in the past 5 years as you reflect on the shows you have watched? What are the themes, words, visual images that you have accepted as a result of this influence? In what ways have these been helpful to you?

· How does your ultimate reality influence your sense of purpose?

· How does your ultimate reality affect your belief about knowledge?

· On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being NOT AT ALL, and 10 being VERY, how objective do you think you can be as you analyze your own worldview? What about the worldview of another person?

· Which test is the most difficult for you to perform on your own worldview? Why?

· How well do you adhere to your professed worldview? If you do not adhere very well, is it because it really isn't your worldview or because you need to be more conscientious about following through with what you believe to be right?

Resources for Further Reading

· Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

· Kreeft, P. (1993). Christianity for modern pagans: Pascal's Pensees edited, outlined and explained. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.

· Moreland, J. P. & Craig, W. L. (2009). Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

· Pearcey, N. (2004). Total truth, liberating Christianity from its cultural captivity. Wheaten, IL: Crossway Books.

· Sire, J. (2004). Naming the elephant: Worldview as a concept. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

· Sire, J. W. (2009). The universe next door (5th ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

· Story, D. (1998). Christianity on the offense: Responding to the beliefs and assumptions of spiritual seekers. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

References

Naugle, D. K. (2002). Worldview: The history of a concept. Grand Rapids, MI: William Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Samples, K. (2007). A world of difference: Putting Christian truth-claims to the worldview test. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books