Bahnsen spent most of his career comparing the various major worldviews in order to demonstrate the inherent superiority of Christianity. And that will be the program of this class in the second semester.
We will demonstrate that when these major worldviews are compared, Christianity emerges as necessarily true! Yes, you heard me! True! Not probable or possible or relatively better than others. Necessarily true! But the only way to be convinced of this is to learn to think "worldviewishly." One must have sufficient knowledge of the worldviews in question to be able to establish first that they are antithetical (they are incompatible... not different paths to the same place); and second, one must then demonstrate that there are good reasons to believe that one of them is right and the others, while possessing certain truthful ideas, on the whole are wrong.
Before we can make progress, we must establish a few foundational terms. Nothing of what we will say in this semester will make sense unless there is first some understanding of these foundational terms:
1. Fideism: Essentially this is the idea that we simply "believe something into being." You can detect a Christian fideist by asking the simple question, "How do you know Christianity is true?" He or she will respond with something along the lines of... "well, you can't know for sure--that's why it's called faith..." or... "I don't know, but I believe it," etc.
Christianity unfortunately has a long history with fideism. Perhaps a couple of examples would be instructive. First, consider the case of Galileo. When he proved that Copernicus was right about the notion of a heliocentric (sun centered) solar system, he was invited to a discussion with Catholic authorities who believed otherwise. When he would not recant, he was shown the implements of torture, at which point he reconsidered and signed the letter of recantation. Only in the 20th century did the Catholic Church apologize for this.
When Darwin offered his theory during the 19th century, few Christians knew what exactly to do with it. Since they could not offer an informed response, many of them simply covered their ears and pretended they didn't hear these difficult intellectual and scientific challenges. Then they surrounded themselves with others who wouldn't ask difficult questions. As a result, Christianity lost much of its influence in academia. This is perhaps best displayed by the infamous "Scopes Monkey Trial" in the early 20th century in Dayton, Tennesee. Christians won, but only because we were still in the majority and not because our arguments were particularly compelling. In time it became clear that in winning that trial, Christians lost the intellectual battle. We won by force alone. Curiously, in winning the legal battle, we lost the "worldview" war, and as a result, evolution is far more intellectually respected in our day than is creationism.
This is all classic fideism at base. When Christians don't know what to say in response to serious intellectual and evidentiary challenges to the faith, and doggedly cling to belief anyway, then that is pure fideism. When a person responds to the thoughtful skeptic by saying, "I don't know what to say to you, but I just believe," then they are a fideist.
Let me make it very clear: This class in no way endorses or promotes fideism as a substitute for true faith.
Fideists are often revealed when "good little Christian boys and girls" go off to college. There they are exposed to a wider world and impressive, genial (nice) secularists. They don't know what to say to all of these new ideas, so they do one of two things: One, they are simply overwhelmed and assimilated, their Christianity broken down and discarded. They join the party because clearly Christianity cannot survive the process of growing up and becoming a cosmopolitan progressive thinker. One must abandon Christianity like one abandons belief in magic. They are features of childhood artifically maintained by adults, for some odd reason. Of course, those simply absorbed into the culture are not in danger of becoming fideists, but the process that forces some to throw in the towel causes others to become fideists.
The college fideist allows a split to occur in her psychic life, resulting in a practical rearrangement of life. Since she knows that Christianity cannot answer difficult intellectual challenges, she retreats from these challenges and then surrounds herself with others who do the same. These people never talk about such "dry" and "philosophical" matters. The mind is for school; the heart is for the church. They may even have to endure a philosophy class or two, but all of us can do that. We can switch on our brains, do the bare minimum, and then switch them back off again. Christianity is an affair of the heart and not the mind. One is called to feel something about the Trinity and not think about it or explain it. The problem here is that some people want to hear reasons as to why we are Christians. If we always say, "we feel that it is right," then of course they will rightly reply, "Well, I feel that it is wrong," and we make no progress.
To simplify this notion, let us call fideism an "all heart, no head" kind of philosophy, or perhaps a "mostly heart and only a little head" kind of philosophy.
2. Intellectual or Philosophical Phariseeism: If fideism is an "all heart, no head" philosophy, philosophical phariseeism is precisely the opposite; "all head, no heart." The best representatives of this group in literature are, well, the Pharisees in the New Testament, and the Sophists in the writings of Plato.
It seems clear from the New Testament that the Pharisees didn't particularly impress Jesus. They were generally well respected, even among the elite of their society. But read Matthew chapter 23 and you'll see that Jesus looses most of his venom on these respectable men.
For Jesus, the issue seemed to be that they were far more dangerous than other corrupt human beings because they were also intelligent and externally virtuous human beings. They wielded power and influence in their corrupt attitudes and motivations. The evil of most men is like a poisened glass of water. The evil of some select men is like a poisened well spring. Such were the Pharisees.
They knew their doctrine and could argue it with anyone. They commanded the admiration of their countrymen, but they did not love God. They loved what God could "do for them." They loved to use his name for leverage with the people.
In our day the philosophical pharisee is the student who can earn straight A's in Bible classes at a Christian school, but could not possibly care less about God. He may even be clever enough to make everyone around him think he is a "good Christian" kid, but he is manipulating everyone to feed his own selfish desires. He needs to "play" the religious power brokers just as he needs to "play" other power brokers if he wishes to get ahead in life. And so he plays the game, and he is a good player. But of course even if he deceives everyone, God is not deceived.
Plato's reaction to the Sophists is similar to Jesus' reaction to the Pharisees, and for many of the same reasons. The Sophists were trained in rhetoric, attended the finest schools for Greek boys, and could argue any position, and often did so. They were even paid to argue a particular political, ethical or religious issue before a watching crowd. They didn't really believe the positions they were arguing, but loved the game. They loved to out-manuever an opponent in rhetorical combat. They argued for the sake of argument alone. This is why to this day we say that the person who argues merely to hear the sound of his own voice is guilty of "sophistry." If one does not believe there is an end to argument, a truth to be discovered and applied, then surely all argument reduces to sophistry.
The curious thing about the sophist is that when his arguments are exposed as unworthy, his ego is wounded, and he becomes defensive, angry. He has been bested in argument and that is all he can see. He stopped believing in truth and so cannot humbly accept defeat as an opportunity for growth. He only knows to redouble his efforts at asserting his will, perhaps even seeking the destruction of his enemy. This is how Plato views the death of Socrates, his mentor. It was a group of inferior men killing a superior man for no other reason than the affront to their egos.
3. Faith: And so the man or woman of faith is neither a fideist nor a pharisee. But this means that Christianity, and philosophy in general, has both a head and a heart. Lewis says that the Christian should have a child's heart and a grown-up's head. He is humble, teachable, trusting, but is also logical, critical, careful and competent. My definition of faith, which I'm sure is largely stolen from my own mentors in life, is simply: Trusting good authority in what is unknown, because that authority has shown itself (or himself/herself) trustworthy in the known.
The case of Abraham in Gen. 22 is instructive here. Abraham of course is celebrated in Hebrews and elsewhere as the prototypical "man of faith." He trusted God and it was credited to him as righteousness. What does it mean to trust God? Genesis 22 tells us. Why did Abraham actually obey the instruction to offer his son as a human sacrifice to God? It made no sense. After all, God had required only animal sacrifice, unlike many of the Canaanite deities, who did require human sacrifices. Not only that, but God had systematically eliminated every natural possibility of Abraham and Sarah having a child. They waited 25 years for the child to be born. God promises that through this child a nation as numerous as the stars will emerge. God allows a period of bonding between child and parents and then asks Abraham to kill the child. It makes no sense at all.
Does God want Abraham to embrace contradictions? Does God want Abraham to do the absurd? God says, "I'm not like the Canaanite gods," and then acts exactly like one, capricious, malicious, merely asserting arbitrary power because no one is going to stop him.
No. None of this is adequate as an explanation for Abraham's actions. Abraham must surely know that God will not contradict His clearly revealed character. He trusts God in the unknown, not because he is making a "leap into the absurd," and thereby embracing an irrational God. His trust in God is motivated by an understanding of God's clearly revealed character and consistent actions. He knows God, and thus He knows that God will "make a way" that will not result in the loss of his son, the very son promised and delivered by God in the first place.
Faith and reason are thus inextricably linked, as we have already discussed in the philosophy of education unit.
4. Worldview: Perhaps the best way to understand a worldview is to imagine a set of glasses. If you are wearing blue glasses, everything in the world will appear to be blue. It won't be that the things are actually blue, but they are filtered to one's vision because the blue lenses are thus "interpreting" everything you see. A worldview is therefore an "interpretive lens through which we view the major issues of life."
Occasionally I meet a student who insists that he does not have a worldview, that "he would not live in such a box," that "his vision of the world is larger than any limiting worldview," etc. This usually comes with a reminder that I should not "box him in" or "label him," etc. All lovely sentiments, but predictable, and, in the end, silly.
To reject worldviews is to embrace an anti-worldview worldview, or to default uncritically to what other worldviews say on various issues without analyzing each opinion on various issues for consistency. In my estimation, the student who says this fits quite neatly into the worldview of postmodernism without even realizing it. He just wants to say whatever he wants to say and doesn't want to believe he could ever be wrong or have to defer to those wiser than he is. Socrates described such a life when he said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."
We discuss the three major worldviews in a bit. (see below)
5. Apologetics: This term comes from the Greek word apologia, meaning "answer or defense." When Christians first encounter the idea, they might be tempted to think this term has something to do with "apologizing" for the Christian faith, or acting defensively. The simple definition is, "a rational defense of a worldview." And since Christianity is a worldview, it also requires a rational defense. One can be a "Christian apologist," an "Atheistic apologist," etc. The term "defense" is also somewhat misleading, since one can also be aggressive in one's representation of a particular worldview.
6. Presuppositional Apologetics: Perhaps the best way to understand this approach to Christian apologetics is to state it briefly: If Christianity is not true, then some other worldview must be true, but all others are untenable (irrational), therefore Chrsitianity wins by attrition (the others die off or logically self-destruct).
7. Evidentiary Apologetics: Historically, this has been the major emphasis of Christian apologetics. The basic idea is that there is sufficient historical evidence to validate belief in Christianity. The big three areas here are evidences for the Bible, the resurrection and the general design argument. In this class we will discuss all three.
The Three Major Worldviews: Every worldview holds a position on three major areas of philosophy. They are epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. Mr. Martin, our senior ethics teacher at BCHS, has captured the ingredients of a worldview with a helpful acronym; R.I.P.E. Every worldview involves a position on reality (this would be the notion of metaphysics). Every worldview contains a view of identity, purpose and ethics. And these all come from a particular authority (epistemology). So, let's break that down again.
Mr. Martin's worldview criteria: Reality (what is real?), Identity (who am I, what is humanity?), Purpose (why am I here?) and Ethics (how ought I to behave?).
The general criteria for a worldview: Metaphysics (what has substance/reality?), Epistemology (how do I know anything, how do I come to knowledge of truth?), Ethics (how ought I to behave?).
With these criteria in mind, lets look at the three major worldviews we will discuss in this class:
Atheism:
1. Atheistic Epistemology: It is a fascinating question to ask the atheist, "From whence comes your authority?" In the end, he must say mankind. This is also why atheism is synonymous with "humanism." It becomes humanistic epistemologically. There is no authority outside of humanity we can rely on to guide us into what we might name "truth."
In fairness, most atheists would refer to themselves as "scientific thinkers" or even "empiricists," meaning that they base all their knowledge on observation and reason. Religions are therefore a creation of mankind, once he has taken in various impressions from the environment. We experience various things and then the mind goes to work creating ideas from these physical experiences. For the atheist, God did not create man in his image; it was man that created God in his image.
2. Atheistic Metaphysics: The atheist believes that reality reduces to "matter in motion," and "upredictable" motion at that. The philosophical term for this is "material monism." Matter is all there is, was, or ever will be. It takes on various forms, randomly, but in the end, there is only the stuff of the universe.
3. Atheistic Ethics: It would not be unfair to the atheistic position to refer to their various ethical systems as "relativistic" essentially. Since various perceptions of truth ultimately originate in mankind, then it must be the case that moral values also originate in mankind. The truth is that many atheistic thinkers plainly acknowledge that atheism ultimately leads to relativism in ethics.
One way to expose this relativism is to look at the motive/action problem in atheism. Since they believe that we are only physical beings with no eternal soul, then ultimately nothing outlives the body or the culture. As such, one is hard pressed to see why motive matters at all in ethics. All one need do is appease the controlling legal power by outward signs of obeisance. But what place can compassion or a deisre to benefit one's fellow man have in atheism?
A simple case in point. If atheism is true and there is no soul, then why should I not steal? Ultimately he is going to have to say something along the lines that I will be punished if I steal. In other words, my actions alone are measured and enforced by laws, but how can law impose ideals or motives upon a person? No law is ever going to make me want to protect my neighbor's belongings. If I find them exposed, and there is no chance of legal retribution, then I will take them, at least I would do so in an atheistic universe. The only thing an atheist can offer in the way of motivation to keep laws is "threat of punishment" or "promise of reward." The motive of individuals in keeping social laws is ultimately irrelevant.
Pantheism:
1. Pantheistic Epistemology: Knowledge does not come from observation, but from "within." Knowledge is not "imprinted" by the external world, and then tinkered around with by the mind. Knowledge is "created" by the mind and projected upon the world. If atheism is "externally" heavy in its epistemology, pantheism is "internally" heavy in its epistmology. Reality, including God, is not to be "known" by the mind, but "experienced" through a kind of mystical rapture. Pantheists often complain that westerners are always trying to master the universe with their puny minds instead of being caught up in the beauty of the mysterious and majestically interrelated universe in which we find ourselves.
2. Pantheistic Metaphysics: Both pantheism and atheism are monistic worldviews at bottom. The difference is that one tends toward the notion that observable material phenomena alone exist, and the other that unobservable spiritual or mystical phenomena alone exist. I say phenomena because reality to the monist appears to be "many" when in truth it is one thing. The pantheist believes that there exists one majestic interellated entity. God "is" everything, or perhaps is "in" everything. There are different names for this. The Hindu's call it Brahman. The Buddhists call it Nirvana. The American Transcendentalists called it Oversoul. New Ager's call it Gaia, or some, looking for scientific legitimacy, make appeals to the notion of energy. And of course George Lucas calls it The Force.
3. Pantheistic Ethics: Like Atheism, pantheistic ethics is relativistic, but it arrives at this via a more complicated path. Since God, or "ultimate reality" is an awareness of the interconnectedness and interdependency of the universe, then anything that prevents such an awareness must be the only "evil." This "evil" is most frequently referred to as "Karma." Karma involves attachment to the cycle of action and reaction, and can cause one, depending on the level of attachment, to be reborn into a lower life form through the process of reincarnation.
But note clearly that Karma is a purely subjective phenomenon. It is not an "objective" evil, but involves an individual's personal level of attachment. What this means is that there can be no action or person that is objectively wrong. As an illustration let's consider the case of a divorce. In pantheism, divorce itself is not right or wrong. But let's imagine that a person goes through with a divorce, but spends all of her time thinking about the loss, grieving indefinitely, obsessing over the good times now lost, etc. Such a person is doing something wrong because she is defining herself by the action and reaction of the divorce. She is bound up in Karmic attachments to the old relationship. Now imagine the reverse. She doesn't go through with the divorce, but constantly imagines the freedom that doing so might have brought, and obsesses about her spouses flaws. Again, but in this case making the opposite ethical choice, she is guilty of Karmic attachments to action and reaction. You'll note that in pantheism there is no objective moral value outside the individual that guides him or her into the right ethical choice. There is no right ethical choice; there is only the subjective manner in which the choice is made.
If the atheist discards motive and maintains that only actions can be right or wrong, determined of course by group consensus, then the pantheist holds the opposite position. Since the whole universe is good, even god-like, then nothing in it can be "wrong" or "bad." Thus, there can be no action or person that is right or wrong; only motives can be right or wrong. But notice what happens here. If that is true, then relativism naturally emerges. For I can kill thousands, and do so in a spirit of detachment. I can divorce, and do so in a spirit of detachment, etc. My "guilt" or "innocence" both come down to a mental trick.
Christianity:
1. Christian Epistemology: Christians learn through science, reason, experience, intuition and revelation from God.
But of course, the ultimate source of knowledge for the Christian comes from God himself in the form of Christian revelation. The primary source of this revelation is the Bible and Jesus Christ.
Once a college biology professor challenged this idea by asking his Christian students to study their Bibles for two weeks and then asked another group of students to study their biology texts for two weeks, after which there would be a comprehensive biology exam. He taunted that if the Bible is all the knowledge one needs then the Christians should outperform the biology students in the biology exam.
Now is there anyone more asinine than this college professor? No thinking Christian has ever suggested that the Bible contains all truth; only that what is in it is all true. And of course Scripture itself says that it contains everything necessary for "life and godliness," not that it contains everything for automobile mechanics. Truth is found elsewhere, but the Scriptures contain the central truths for managing life and for restoration of relationship with the God who made us. In that sense, it is the core philosophy that should manage all other philosophies of life and indeed all other knowledge.
2. Christian Metaphysics: The term most often used to describe the Christian metaphysic is "dualism." The term simply means a dynamic tension between two realities; in this case the spiritual and the material. It should be noted that it is not only strict religionists that maintain this notion, but also largely worldly people, like Plato. Plato's view was that there was a realm of changeless spiritual entities, called the forms, and a realm of shadows, or materialistic approximations of these changeless ideals.
Christians are not really Platonic dualists, but one must acknowledge some overlap between Plato and Christianity, especially in the realm of "moral ideals." Christians believe, for example, that mankind is a unique creature indeed. Man is, in the words of Lewis, a "spirit-beast." There is an organic interaction between the spiritual and physical aspects of man. We are neither angels (pure spirits), nor are we simply animals (pure biology). What happens to our bodies will affect our spirits and what happens to our spirits will affect our bodies. It is even questionable whether there can be any unambiguous Christian notion of "man" without this integration of spirit and body. On the one hand, Christians cannot confess a spirit existence for man wholly dismebodied; and, on the other hand, he certainly cannot conceive of man as a simple biological machine either.
3. Christian Ethics: Perhaps the simplest way to describe Christian ethics is to affirm the centrality of both motive and actions. There is such a thing as "human nature," in that we are built to function in a certain way with respect to moral virtue. And there is such a thing as a pattern of virtuous behavior, so that regardless of the man, a certain line of behavior is always right given a certain set of circumstances. Thus in the case of divorce, there are only very clear situations in which it is to be deemed acceptable, and those cases are clearly communicated and argued. One can get divorced with the right set of motivations, but that is still wrong. One can stay married with the wrong set of motivations, and that is a moral defect as well. Only doing the right thing for the right reasons in all cases is finally acceptable to the Christian. Of course, no one lives like this, and this fact leads to the notion of Christian salvation, but that must be saved for another day.
For Jesus, the issue seemed to be that they were far more dangerous than other corrupt human beings because they were also intelligent and externally virtuous human beings. They wielded power and influence in their corrupt attitudes and motivations. The evil of most men is like a poisened glass of water. The evil of some select men is like a poisened well spring. Such were the Pharisees.
They knew their doctrine and could argue it with anyone. They commanded the admiration of their countrymen, but they did not love God. They loved what God could "do for them." They loved to use his name for leverage with the people.
In our day the philosophical pharisee is the student who can earn straight A's in Bible classes at a Christian school, but could not possibly care less about God. He may even be clever enough to make everyone around him think he is a "good Christian" kid, but he is manipulating everyone to feed his own selfish desires. He needs to "play" the religious power brokers just as he needs to "play" other power brokers if he wishes to get ahead in life. And so he plays the game, and he is a good player. But of course even if he deceives everyone, God is not deceived.
Plato's reaction to the Sophists is similar to Jesus' reaction to the Pharisees, and for many of the same reasons. The Sophists were trained in rhetoric, attended the finest schools for Greek boys, and could argue any position, and often did so. They were even paid to argue a particular political, ethical or religious issue before a watching crowd. They didn't really believe the positions they were arguing, but loved the game. They loved to out-manuever an opponent in rhetorical combat. They argued for the sake of argument alone. This is why to this day we say that the person who argues merely to hear the sound of his own voice is guilty of "sophistry." If one does not believe there is an end to argument, a truth to be discovered and applied, then surely all argument reduces to sophistry.
The curious thing about the sophist is that when his arguments are exposed as unworthy, his ego is wounded, and he becomes defensive, angry. He has been bested in argument and that is all he can see. He stopped believing in truth and so cannot humbly accept defeat as an opportunity for growth. He only knows to redouble his efforts at asserting his will, perhaps even seeking the destruction of his enemy. This is how Plato views the death of Socrates, his mentor. It was a group of inferior men killing a superior man for no other reason than the affront to their egos.
3. Faith: And so the man or woman of faith is neither a fideist nor a pharisee. But this means that Christianity, and philosophy in general, has both a head and a heart. Lewis says that the Christian should have a child's heart and a grown-up's head. He is humble, teachable, trusting, but is also logical, critical, careful and competent. My definition of faith, which I'm sure is largely stolen from my own mentors in life, is simply: Trusting good authority in what is unknown, because that authority has shown itself (or himself/herself) trustworthy in the known.
The case of Abraham in Gen. 22 is instructive here. Abraham of course is celebrated in Hebrews and elsewhere as the prototypical "man of faith." He trusted God and it was credited to him as righteousness. What does it mean to trust God? Genesis 22 tells us. Why did Abraham actually obey the instruction to offer his son as a human sacrifice to God? It made no sense. After all, God had required only animal sacrifice, unlike many of the Canaanite deities, who did require human sacrifices. Not only that, but God had systematically eliminated every natural possibility of Abraham and Sarah having a child. They waited 25 years for the child to be born. God promises that through this child a nation as numerous as the stars will emerge. God allows a period of bonding between child and parents and then asks Abraham to kill the child. It makes no sense at all.
Does God want Abraham to embrace contradictions? Does God want Abraham to do the absurd? God says, "I'm not like the Canaanite gods," and then acts exactly like one, capricious, malicious, merely asserting arbitrary power because no one is going to stop him.
No. None of this is adequate as an explanation for Abraham's actions. Abraham must surely know that God will not contradict His clearly revealed character. He trusts God in the unknown, not because he is making a "leap into the absurd," and thereby embracing an irrational God. His trust in God is motivated by an understanding of God's clearly revealed character and consistent actions. He knows God, and thus He knows that God will "make a way" that will not result in the loss of his son, the very son promised and delivered by God in the first place.
Faith and reason are thus inextricably linked, as we have already discussed in the philosophy of education unit.
4. Worldview: Perhaps the best way to understand a worldview is to imagine a set of glasses. If you are wearing blue glasses, everything in the world will appear to be blue. It won't be that the things are actually blue, but they are filtered to one's vision because the blue lenses are thus "interpreting" everything you see. A worldview is therefore an "interpretive lens through which we view the major issues of life."
Occasionally I meet a student who insists that he does not have a worldview, that "he would not live in such a box," that "his vision of the world is larger than any limiting worldview," etc. This usually comes with a reminder that I should not "box him in" or "label him," etc. All lovely sentiments, but predictable, and, in the end, silly.
To reject worldviews is to embrace an anti-worldview worldview, or to default uncritically to what other worldviews say on various issues without analyzing each opinion on various issues for consistency. In my estimation, the student who says this fits quite neatly into the worldview of postmodernism without even realizing it. He just wants to say whatever he wants to say and doesn't want to believe he could ever be wrong or have to defer to those wiser than he is. Socrates described such a life when he said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."
We discuss the three major worldviews in a bit. (see below)
5. Apologetics: This term comes from the Greek word apologia, meaning "answer or defense." When Christians first encounter the idea, they might be tempted to think this term has something to do with "apologizing" for the Christian faith, or acting defensively. The simple definition is, "a rational defense of a worldview." And since Christianity is a worldview, it also requires a rational defense. One can be a "Christian apologist," an "Atheistic apologist," etc. The term "defense" is also somewhat misleading, since one can also be aggressive in one's representation of a particular worldview.
6. Presuppositional Apologetics: Perhaps the best way to understand this approach to Christian apologetics is to state it briefly: If Christianity is not true, then some other worldview must be true, but all others are untenable (irrational), therefore Chrsitianity wins by attrition (the others die off or logically self-destruct).
7. Evidentiary Apologetics: Historically, this has been the major emphasis of Christian apologetics. The basic idea is that there is sufficient historical evidence to validate belief in Christianity. The big three areas here are evidences for the Bible, the resurrection and the general design argument. In this class we will discuss all three.
The Three Major Worldviews: Every worldview holds a position on three major areas of philosophy. They are epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. Mr. Martin, our senior ethics teacher at BCHS, has captured the ingredients of a worldview with a helpful acronym; R.I.P.E. Every worldview involves a position on reality (this would be the notion of metaphysics). Every worldview contains a view of identity, purpose and ethics. And these all come from a particular authority (epistemology). So, let's break that down again.
Mr. Martin's worldview criteria: Reality (what is real?), Identity (who am I, what is humanity?), Purpose (why am I here?) and Ethics (how ought I to behave?).
The general criteria for a worldview: Metaphysics (what has substance/reality?), Epistemology (how do I know anything, how do I come to knowledge of truth?), Ethics (how ought I to behave?).
With these criteria in mind, lets look at the three major worldviews we will discuss in this class:
Atheism:
1. Atheistic Epistemology: It is a fascinating question to ask the atheist, "From whence comes your authority?" In the end, he must say mankind. This is also why atheism is synonymous with "humanism." It becomes humanistic epistemologically. There is no authority outside of humanity we can rely on to guide us into what we might name "truth."
In fairness, most atheists would refer to themselves as "scientific thinkers" or even "empiricists," meaning that they base all their knowledge on observation and reason. Religions are therefore a creation of mankind, once he has taken in various impressions from the environment. We experience various things and then the mind goes to work creating ideas from these physical experiences. For the atheist, God did not create man in his image; it was man that created God in his image.
2. Atheistic Metaphysics: The atheist believes that reality reduces to "matter in motion," and "upredictable" motion at that. The philosophical term for this is "material monism." Matter is all there is, was, or ever will be. It takes on various forms, randomly, but in the end, there is only the stuff of the universe.
3. Atheistic Ethics: It would not be unfair to the atheistic position to refer to their various ethical systems as "relativistic" essentially. Since various perceptions of truth ultimately originate in mankind, then it must be the case that moral values also originate in mankind. The truth is that many atheistic thinkers plainly acknowledge that atheism ultimately leads to relativism in ethics.
One way to expose this relativism is to look at the motive/action problem in atheism. Since they believe that we are only physical beings with no eternal soul, then ultimately nothing outlives the body or the culture. As such, one is hard pressed to see why motive matters at all in ethics. All one need do is appease the controlling legal power by outward signs of obeisance. But what place can compassion or a deisre to benefit one's fellow man have in atheism?
A simple case in point. If atheism is true and there is no soul, then why should I not steal? Ultimately he is going to have to say something along the lines that I will be punished if I steal. In other words, my actions alone are measured and enforced by laws, but how can law impose ideals or motives upon a person? No law is ever going to make me want to protect my neighbor's belongings. If I find them exposed, and there is no chance of legal retribution, then I will take them, at least I would do so in an atheistic universe. The only thing an atheist can offer in the way of motivation to keep laws is "threat of punishment" or "promise of reward." The motive of individuals in keeping social laws is ultimately irrelevant.
Pantheism:
1. Pantheistic Epistemology: Knowledge does not come from observation, but from "within." Knowledge is not "imprinted" by the external world, and then tinkered around with by the mind. Knowledge is "created" by the mind and projected upon the world. If atheism is "externally" heavy in its epistemology, pantheism is "internally" heavy in its epistmology. Reality, including God, is not to be "known" by the mind, but "experienced" through a kind of mystical rapture. Pantheists often complain that westerners are always trying to master the universe with their puny minds instead of being caught up in the beauty of the mysterious and majestically interrelated universe in which we find ourselves.
2. Pantheistic Metaphysics: Both pantheism and atheism are monistic worldviews at bottom. The difference is that one tends toward the notion that observable material phenomena alone exist, and the other that unobservable spiritual or mystical phenomena alone exist. I say phenomena because reality to the monist appears to be "many" when in truth it is one thing. The pantheist believes that there exists one majestic interellated entity. God "is" everything, or perhaps is "in" everything. There are different names for this. The Hindu's call it Brahman. The Buddhists call it Nirvana. The American Transcendentalists called it Oversoul. New Ager's call it Gaia, or some, looking for scientific legitimacy, make appeals to the notion of energy. And of course George Lucas calls it The Force.
3. Pantheistic Ethics: Like Atheism, pantheistic ethics is relativistic, but it arrives at this via a more complicated path. Since God, or "ultimate reality" is an awareness of the interconnectedness and interdependency of the universe, then anything that prevents such an awareness must be the only "evil." This "evil" is most frequently referred to as "Karma." Karma involves attachment to the cycle of action and reaction, and can cause one, depending on the level of attachment, to be reborn into a lower life form through the process of reincarnation.
But note clearly that Karma is a purely subjective phenomenon. It is not an "objective" evil, but involves an individual's personal level of attachment. What this means is that there can be no action or person that is objectively wrong. As an illustration let's consider the case of a divorce. In pantheism, divorce itself is not right or wrong. But let's imagine that a person goes through with a divorce, but spends all of her time thinking about the loss, grieving indefinitely, obsessing over the good times now lost, etc. Such a person is doing something wrong because she is defining herself by the action and reaction of the divorce. She is bound up in Karmic attachments to the old relationship. Now imagine the reverse. She doesn't go through with the divorce, but constantly imagines the freedom that doing so might have brought, and obsesses about her spouses flaws. Again, but in this case making the opposite ethical choice, she is guilty of Karmic attachments to action and reaction. You'll note that in pantheism there is no objective moral value outside the individual that guides him or her into the right ethical choice. There is no right ethical choice; there is only the subjective manner in which the choice is made.
If the atheist discards motive and maintains that only actions can be right or wrong, determined of course by group consensus, then the pantheist holds the opposite position. Since the whole universe is good, even god-like, then nothing in it can be "wrong" or "bad." Thus, there can be no action or person that is right or wrong; only motives can be right or wrong. But notice what happens here. If that is true, then relativism naturally emerges. For I can kill thousands, and do so in a spirit of detachment. I can divorce, and do so in a spirit of detachment, etc. My "guilt" or "innocence" both come down to a mental trick.
Christianity:
1. Christian Epistemology: Christians learn through science, reason, experience, intuition and revelation from God.
But of course, the ultimate source of knowledge for the Christian comes from God himself in the form of Christian revelation. The primary source of this revelation is the Bible and Jesus Christ.
Once a college biology professor challenged this idea by asking his Christian students to study their Bibles for two weeks and then asked another group of students to study their biology texts for two weeks, after which there would be a comprehensive biology exam. He taunted that if the Bible is all the knowledge one needs then the Christians should outperform the biology students in the biology exam.
Now is there anyone more asinine than this college professor? No thinking Christian has ever suggested that the Bible contains all truth; only that what is in it is all true. And of course Scripture itself says that it contains everything necessary for "life and godliness," not that it contains everything for automobile mechanics. Truth is found elsewhere, but the Scriptures contain the central truths for managing life and for restoration of relationship with the God who made us. In that sense, it is the core philosophy that should manage all other philosophies of life and indeed all other knowledge.
2. Christian Metaphysics: The term most often used to describe the Christian metaphysic is "dualism." The term simply means a dynamic tension between two realities; in this case the spiritual and the material. It should be noted that it is not only strict religionists that maintain this notion, but also largely worldly people, like Plato. Plato's view was that there was a realm of changeless spiritual entities, called the forms, and a realm of shadows, or materialistic approximations of these changeless ideals.
Christians are not really Platonic dualists, but one must acknowledge some overlap between Plato and Christianity, especially in the realm of "moral ideals." Christians believe, for example, that mankind is a unique creature indeed. Man is, in the words of Lewis, a "spirit-beast." There is an organic interaction between the spiritual and physical aspects of man. We are neither angels (pure spirits), nor are we simply animals (pure biology). What happens to our bodies will affect our spirits and what happens to our spirits will affect our bodies. It is even questionable whether there can be any unambiguous Christian notion of "man" without this integration of spirit and body. On the one hand, Christians cannot confess a spirit existence for man wholly dismebodied; and, on the other hand, he certainly cannot conceive of man as a simple biological machine either.
3. Christian Ethics: Perhaps the simplest way to describe Christian ethics is to affirm the centrality of both motive and actions. There is such a thing as "human nature," in that we are built to function in a certain way with respect to moral virtue. And there is such a thing as a pattern of virtuous behavior, so that regardless of the man, a certain line of behavior is always right given a certain set of circumstances. Thus in the case of divorce, there are only very clear situations in which it is to be deemed acceptable, and those cases are clearly communicated and argued. One can get divorced with the right set of motivations, but that is still wrong. One can stay married with the wrong set of motivations, and that is a moral defect as well. Only doing the right thing for the right reasons in all cases is finally acceptable to the Christian. Of course, no one lives like this, and this fact leads to the notion of Christian salvation, but that must be saved for another day.
