The third part of the series has to do with as the title suggests, defining worldviews. The actual definition for what a worldview is plays a critical role in understanding the presuppositions one brings to the table for interpreting reality, knowledge, and ethics.
One of the reoccurring themes you will notice through this blog series is Bahnsen’s emphasis on the myth of neutrality. This becomes even more apparent when defining what a worldview actually is. In each of the major domains of a worldview you must assert truth’s in each area and this itself removes the option of neutrality. An assertion has only a binary conclusion; true or false.
Bahnsen defines a worldview as:
“A worldview is a network of presuppositions(which are not verified by the procedures of natural science) regarding reality(metaphysics), knowing(epistemology), and conduct(ethics) in terms of which every element of human experience is related and interpreted.”
Another quote worth providing is viewing the Christian faith as a complex system:
“We must recognize that the Christian faith is a complex system of mutually-supported, interwined beliefs filling out a broader interdependent worldview.”
Like in Systems Engineering each component affects the overall health of the whole system, so each element of a worldview affects that worldview as a whole. Each subcomponent functions as a link in the chain and if one link is inconsistent with the others the system will break down. The Christian faith is no different, which is why the Bible must be the only rule for faith, life, and apologetics, otherwise Christianity will self-destruct on the sand of human autonomy.
Bahnsen, Greg, “Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator”
Hurd, Wesley, “Me and my Worldview”
Moore, T.M., “Beyond Creation vs. Evolution: Taking the Full Measure of the Materialist Challenge”
Nickel, James, “Mathematics: Is God Silent?”
Stump, James, “Science, Metaphysics, and Worldviews”
1 comment on “Pushing The Antithesis – Part 3 – Defining Worldviews”
Comments are closed.