Recently my son, Nathan, and I took a father/son “road trip” which landed us in Philadelphia. Having enjoyed a very dramatic presentation of the history underlying this historic location by our guide, several of us gathered around him following his presentation to ask additional questions. Two young men from South Africa were among those so huddled.
After the guide excused himself, it was evident the guys from South Africa still had additional questions. Now I’m no history buff, but I figured I could surely answer some basic questions about our nation’s development. (I was wrong! Where is my friend Neil Romano when I need him?!) But God had a bigger picture for Nathan and me that day. In the brief video clip attached I share about the very substantive conversation Nathan and I had with Andrew and Byron.
P.S.—In one of my points in the video I refer to C.S. Lewis’s argument that the existence of transcultural moral “law” suggest a Moral Law Giver. I give the example—in my conversation with the two young men—that if we saw an adult beating up a child we would rush to the child’s rescue. Though some might argue that such a reaction would simply be a response instinctively instilled by natural selection to further the existence of the species, it does not explain why most (regardless of cultural background or religious persuasion—or the absence thereof) would consider such an attack as “wrong” if not explicitly “evil.” It is one thing to “protect the furtherance of the species,” quite another to ascribe a value judgment to such an action. It is the ascription of such value judgments, the basis of which finds little explanation from a purely naturalistic worldview
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
WORLDVIEW TESTS
The other night, my 17-year old son, Ben, and I were discussing the topic of worldviews. I think—with a bit of “I’m-going-to-rock-my-dad” kind of humor he turned to me and asked, rhetorically, “How do we know any of these are true anyway?”
Now, of course, I thought it was important to respond to this question—regardless of the seeming motivation. It was a great question! And, furthermore, the more I attempted to give a cogent and concise explanation, I kept coming up short. That really bothered me!
As a result, Ben’s question sent me back to the, so to speak, “drawing board” where I took some time to thoughtfully consider how I might best respond to his question. Furthermore, you and I have undoubtedly had that conversation with a friend or acquaintance who is sincerely searching and I think it is important to help guide them in the process of their search. I mean, let’s face it, there are a number of worldviews “out there” and how important it is for us to provide some guiding principles to help our friend evaluate which ones are truly worthy of consideration.
I would like to suggest four guiding principles that would, at least, allow you to help guide your friend so that they might better evaluate the merits of a particular worldview. Of course, in the process, what I hope to demonstrate, as well, is the tremendous merits of the Christian worldview! Now—remember!—I am not a philosopher. So I do not want you think these principles are exhaustive…but at least hopefully helpful as you dialog with those who are involved in a sincere search for truth.
The fact of the matter is, you and I are wired to think systematically and logically. By and large, the majority of those with whom you interact will accept cause and effect, 2 + 2 = 4, and so on. That is one reason, for example, why I have difficulty accepting the Eastern worldviews, Buddhism or Hinduism. At least from my perspective, one has to reject that which seems to be a fundamental premise of life: that the “reality” we have come to know is, ultimately, not truly that—it is either illusory or a distant reflection of that which is truly real.
Of course, that motivates the question: “So, if all is from that Eternal Source, that Void, World Soul or whatever, then from where did this grand illusion of ‘reality’ come? And why is it that humankind is so attracted to that which is not real and that which is truly real so difficult for us to comprehend?”
Thus I would like to posit that a worldview—if I am really going to live it out and live with it—must be logical. That is, one should be able to grasp its tenants and principles using the processes of thinking and perception that seem to be hard-wired into each of us.
It is important, as well as being logical, that a worldview explains the world in which we live. That means that, rather than simply being descriptive, a worldview should also address why things are the way they are and, in view of this, it should also be prescriptive—that is, it should also suggest how things should be as well.
The naturalistic worldview fails at this point. It tells us what is but cannot tell us what should be! It tells us that animals fight for survival, but cannot tell us why it is wrong to murder. And, in particular, it cannot tell us why it would be wrong to kill someone especially if, in fact, it could be demonstrated that the murderer was in need and that need required a desperate measure for survival.
On the other hand, for example, the Christian worldview would suggest that because humankind has been made in the image of God each person has intrinsic value and worth and, because of that, murder is wrong—even when one’s life may be benefited by the committal of such an act.
So, is the particular worldview instructive? Does it address the "Why?" as well as the "What?" And does it suggest what should beas well as what is?
Quite frankly, holding a worldview that does not play out in experience is a worldview not worth holding. Now let me add a word of caution here: As apologist Ravi Zacharias cautions, truth should always be borne out in experience, though experience (by itself) is not necessarily a reliable path to truth. One’s experience may be the result of a number of factors, but the realities of a credible worldview should surely play out in the fabric of life.
That is one reason I find the Christian worldview so compelling. It posits the existence of a sovereign God who has allowed humankind the freedom to act—even to the point of rebellion against Him. Thus, one can understand the existence of good as well as of evil as well as the basis—the existence of a personal Law Giver—from which one is able to suggest a moral code. Pain and suffering are indices of a world gone wrong—a world which is a far cry from the way God intended it. And the search for meaning and significance in life suggests that we are here for far more than simply the continuation of the species.
And here’s the key: the truthfulness of those claims has not only been validated in the experience of one but in the experience of countless thousands and millions of others over the past 2000 years.
I would like to suggest three tests that—at least in my thinking—are important.
• Are its truth claims clear? That is, are its principles able to be easily enunciated so that there is a basis for discussion leading to understanding? A worldview which is nebulous—one which inculcates principles that can be interpreted many different ways—may be one which is difficult to argue against, yet it is also one which one may find difficult to argue in its favor as well.
• Is there a tangible basis by which to evaluate its claims? Let’s face it, anyone can say “I had this or that conversation with God in the recesses of my mind, or in a dream, or in a vision-like experience…” Yet, how does one really know? The followers of Jesus were careful to attach real-life incidents with the accounts of Jesus’s life as well with the truth-claims of Christianity in general. For example, when the authors of the New Testament books spoke of Jesus’s resurrection, they didn’t simply suggest it was a spiritual resurrection (i.e.—one which could not be subjected to any kind of testability) but they claimed that Christ’s resurrection from the dead was a physical, bodily one and pointed to eyewitness accounts of an empty tomb and of a rather mediocre Christian populace that was energized by that reality.
• Can it be falsified? Now I do realize there is much being made—particularly in scientific circles—about the idea of “falsifiability.” Likewise, in the philosophical / religious realm, there is surely something to be said about the importance of knowing when a philosophy of life or a worldview isn’t measuring up and should be tossed.
For example, there are those who suggest that all that is necessary to change one’s circumstances is to believe that the negative doesn’t exist; evil and sickness are illusory. So what’s the problem? Well, whenever evil and sickness are left unconquered, the fact that they are still being perceived is relegated as the problem of the beholder and not as a problem of the worldview. By default, the worldview is assumed to be true regardless of the experience one has. This, logically, begs the question and means there is no way in which one can meaningfully evaluate the merits of the worldview.
One quick, final note: Christianity does include a basis of falsifiability: the resurrection of Christ. The Apostle Paul—one of the earliest Christian apologists—makes it clear in his writings that if Jesus’s resurrection can be proven false, then Christianity has no merit!
So…4 key questions to encourage one to ask when evaluating particular worldviews:
Is it Logical?
Is it Instructive?
Is it Realistic?
Is it Verifiable?
Now, of course, I thought it was important to respond to this question—regardless of the seeming motivation. It was a great question! And, furthermore, the more I attempted to give a cogent and concise explanation, I kept coming up short. That really bothered me!
As a result, Ben’s question sent me back to the, so to speak, “drawing board” where I took some time to thoughtfully consider how I might best respond to his question. Furthermore, you and I have undoubtedly had that conversation with a friend or acquaintance who is sincerely searching and I think it is important to help guide them in the process of their search. I mean, let’s face it, there are a number of worldviews “out there” and how important it is for us to provide some guiding principles to help our friend evaluate which ones are truly worthy of consideration.
I would like to suggest four guiding principles that would, at least, allow you to help guide your friend so that they might better evaluate the merits of a particular worldview. Of course, in the process, what I hope to demonstrate, as well, is the tremendous merits of the Christian worldview! Now—remember!—I am not a philosopher. So I do not want you think these principles are exhaustive…but at least hopefully helpful as you dialog with those who are involved in a sincere search for truth.
First: Is it LOGICAL? In other words, does it make sense?
The fact of the matter is, you and I are wired to think systematically and logically. By and large, the majority of those with whom you interact will accept cause and effect, 2 + 2 = 4, and so on. That is one reason, for example, why I have difficulty accepting the Eastern worldviews, Buddhism or Hinduism. At least from my perspective, one has to reject that which seems to be a fundamental premise of life: that the “reality” we have come to know is, ultimately, not truly that—it is either illusory or a distant reflection of that which is truly real.
Of course, that motivates the question: “So, if all is from that Eternal Source, that Void, World Soul or whatever, then from where did this grand illusion of ‘reality’ come? And why is it that humankind is so attracted to that which is not real and that which is truly real so difficult for us to comprehend?”
Thus I would like to posit that a worldview—if I am really going to live it out and live with it—must be logical. That is, one should be able to grasp its tenants and principles using the processes of thinking and perception that seem to be hard-wired into each of us.
Second-- Is it INSTRUCTIVE? Does it possess “explanatory power?”
It is important, as well as being logical, that a worldview explains the world in which we live. That means that, rather than simply being descriptive, a worldview should also address why things are the way they are and, in view of this, it should also be prescriptive—that is, it should also suggest how things should be as well.
The naturalistic worldview fails at this point. It tells us what is but cannot tell us what should be! It tells us that animals fight for survival, but cannot tell us why it is wrong to murder. And, in particular, it cannot tell us why it would be wrong to kill someone especially if, in fact, it could be demonstrated that the murderer was in need and that need required a desperate measure for survival.
On the other hand, for example, the Christian worldview would suggest that because humankind has been made in the image of God each person has intrinsic value and worth and, because of that, murder is wrong—even when one’s life may be benefited by the committal of such an act.
So, is the particular worldview instructive? Does it address the "Why?" as well as the "What?" And does it suggest what should beas well as what is?
Third: Is it REALISTIC? Does it work in the real world?
Quite frankly, holding a worldview that does not play out in experience is a worldview not worth holding. Now let me add a word of caution here: As apologist Ravi Zacharias cautions, truth should always be borne out in experience, though experience (by itself) is not necessarily a reliable path to truth. One’s experience may be the result of a number of factors, but the realities of a credible worldview should surely play out in the fabric of life.
That is one reason I find the Christian worldview so compelling. It posits the existence of a sovereign God who has allowed humankind the freedom to act—even to the point of rebellion against Him. Thus, one can understand the existence of good as well as of evil as well as the basis—the existence of a personal Law Giver—from which one is able to suggest a moral code. Pain and suffering are indices of a world gone wrong—a world which is a far cry from the way God intended it. And the search for meaning and significance in life suggests that we are here for far more than simply the continuation of the species.
And here’s the key: the truthfulness of those claims has not only been validated in the experience of one but in the experience of countless thousands and millions of others over the past 2000 years.
Fourth: Is it VERIFIABLE? How do you determine the validity of this particular worldview?
I would like to suggest three tests that—at least in my thinking—are important.
• Are its truth claims clear? That is, are its principles able to be easily enunciated so that there is a basis for discussion leading to understanding? A worldview which is nebulous—one which inculcates principles that can be interpreted many different ways—may be one which is difficult to argue against, yet it is also one which one may find difficult to argue in its favor as well.
• Is there a tangible basis by which to evaluate its claims? Let’s face it, anyone can say “I had this or that conversation with God in the recesses of my mind, or in a dream, or in a vision-like experience…” Yet, how does one really know? The followers of Jesus were careful to attach real-life incidents with the accounts of Jesus’s life as well with the truth-claims of Christianity in general. For example, when the authors of the New Testament books spoke of Jesus’s resurrection, they didn’t simply suggest it was a spiritual resurrection (i.e.—one which could not be subjected to any kind of testability) but they claimed that Christ’s resurrection from the dead was a physical, bodily one and pointed to eyewitness accounts of an empty tomb and of a rather mediocre Christian populace that was energized by that reality.
• Can it be falsified? Now I do realize there is much being made—particularly in scientific circles—about the idea of “falsifiability.” Likewise, in the philosophical / religious realm, there is surely something to be said about the importance of knowing when a philosophy of life or a worldview isn’t measuring up and should be tossed.
For example, there are those who suggest that all that is necessary to change one’s circumstances is to believe that the negative doesn’t exist; evil and sickness are illusory. So what’s the problem? Well, whenever evil and sickness are left unconquered, the fact that they are still being perceived is relegated as the problem of the beholder and not as a problem of the worldview. By default, the worldview is assumed to be true regardless of the experience one has. This, logically, begs the question and means there is no way in which one can meaningfully evaluate the merits of the worldview.
One quick, final note: Christianity does include a basis of falsifiability: the resurrection of Christ. The Apostle Paul—one of the earliest Christian apologists—makes it clear in his writings that if Jesus’s resurrection can be proven false, then Christianity has no merit!
So…4 key questions to encourage one to ask when evaluating particular worldviews:
Is it Logical?
Is it Instructive?
Is it Realistic?
Is it Verifiable?
Monday, March 22, 2010
SEARCHING MAY
Last night I attended our church’s evening service with my good friend Jeff. At the service we met up with his sister, Loren--who is nineteen and came to know Christ a couple of months ago. It has been such an encouragement to observe the enthusiasm she so openly exhibits about her new faith and the open manner in which she has “announced” that faith to her friends. In fact, it is not unusual for her to bring a friend or two along with her to the mid-week service!
Last night was no exception.
After the service, Loren introduced Jeff and me to two of her friends. I’ll call them May and Sarah; that’s not their real names, but my guess is they would prefer I not reveal their names as they are still exploring the merits of Christianity.
As we traded introductions and spoke briefly, I wondered whether either May or Sarah had a personal relationship with Christ. So, I thought I would go ahead and test my premonition.
“So, May and Sarah,” began my query, “I would like to suggest there are two, key questions in life; two questions virtually everyone addresses at some point: ‘Is there a God?’ and, ‘If there is a God, is He knowable; can one have contact and communication with Him?’ What do you think?”
Sarah nodded indicating a “yes” response to both questions. Then—in a sort of “pass the baton” glance—she looked over to May. With Sarah’s glance, May shook her head in the negative. I wasn’t sure if that “no” was in answer to both questions or to the second; so I needed to clarify.
“So, May, are you saying ‘no’ to both questions or only to the second—that if there is a God you question his ‘knowability’?”
“Hmm.” May was obviously giving thought to her response as she turned her head and flipped her black artistically—entangled hair from one side to the other. “I think there is a God,” she responded hesitatingly. “I’ve recently looked at Buddhism and Hinduism.”
“I see what you mean. I’ve also looked at the writings of Karl Marx.”
“Well, it has been awhile since I studied Marx.” I have to confess I was becoming increasingly impressed by the breadth of May’s readings. Wanting to engage May more than simply talk at her, I thought it best, at this juncture, to ask a question. “May, if I remember correctly, Marx’s was primarily an economic model of society. Am I correct in this?”
“Completely economic,” May affirmed.
“I suppose my question would have to be what is at the root of human greed. In other words, why do the bourgeoisie seek to suppress the proletariat? Furthermore, I am also interested by what was discovered after the fall of the Soviet Union---how the leadership lived in luxury while the people often struggled so severely. You know, Jesus taught that it was that which was inside a person that defiles a person. In other words, if we are going to correct the ills of society it must begin inside…inside the hearts of people.”
“Yes, I suppose [Marx’s economic model] is a bit simplistic.” May concurred. Then, as she considered the wide range of options she had suggested she was exploring, May questioned a bit sheepishly, “I’m contradicting myself, aren’t I?”
“No, May, you are thinking and thinking deeply. I think that is excellent; you are to be commended!” If she only knew how many students seldom give serious thought to life and its purpose!
At this point in our conversation it seemed evident to me that it would be good for me to suggest at least some kind of direction for May’s search—especially since we only had a very limited time for this particular conversation. May was obviously a very sharp, young lady. Yet, she seemed to me to be a bit like the rookie captain of a ship in rough waters—attempting to keep her vessel afloat, having little idea the direction to safe harbor.
“So, May, when you wake up in the morning, what do you hope for, dream for, live for?”
May responded without hesitation. “I don’t know. I just want to go somewhere else. When I’m at home I keep to myself like I’m in my own little world. I guess I am just trying to find out who I am.”
“May, thanks for your openness. Let me say that if there is a God and He has created us, then it seems quite possible we are have been created for a purpose. I mean, why is it that we hope and dream for something more? I think those very qualities—exhibited throughout humankind—point to the fact that, intrinsically, we believe that life is more than simply eating, sleeping, and bearing kids. Does that make sense?
“Yes, I see what you mean,” May responded.
“Furthermore, May,” I continued, “I would like to suggest that—if the existence of such a purpose may be part of God’s ‘signature’ on us—it would make sense that, to ‘find yourself,’ you must begin, first, by finding God. Do you mind if I make a recommendation?”
“O.K.” May’s sincerity was evident. Jeff, Sarah and Loren had become observers of the conversation between the two of us (although I am quite confident Jeff and Loren were praying for me all along!).
“Begin by interviewing Jesus.” I knew this statement required explanation, so I continued. “Take that Bible you received tonight and read one of the books which are like mini-biographies of Jesus’s life. For example (and I showed her the Gospel of Mark), begin with this book. As you read, ask the following questions: ‘What do I think about what Jesus said?’, ‘How did He treat people?’ and, ‘How do His claims mesh with reality?’” [The next time I will include the following question as the sine-qua-non of the ‘interview’: ‘Why would I or, why would I not, want to follow this person?’]
“You’d be a good teacher,” May commented sincerely.
“Yes. I am currently reading Anna Karenina by Tolstoy.”
“Then, I am going to buy you a book tonight that you should read. It is entitled Mere Christianity and its author is C.S. Lewis—whom you will know from Chronicles of Narnia fame. Lewis was an Oxford professor. He was, at onetime, an atheist. But through an extensive search he became a theist and, then, a follower of Jesus. If you would be willing to read it, I’ll buy it for you.”
“Carmen, you don’t need to do that.”
“It would be my privilege to.”
That night, as May left carrying the bag containing Mere Christianity I was grateful God had allowed me the privilege of sharing His reality with one who was sincerely searching. And, I was grateful for Loren’s willingness to make her faith known at such an early stage in her walk with Christ. How awesome it is to partner together—with God and His family—in sharing the greatest news ever!
Last night was no exception.
After the service, Loren introduced Jeff and me to two of her friends. I’ll call them May and Sarah; that’s not their real names, but my guess is they would prefer I not reveal their names as they are still exploring the merits of Christianity.
As we traded introductions and spoke briefly, I wondered whether either May or Sarah had a personal relationship with Christ. So, I thought I would go ahead and test my premonition.
“So, May and Sarah,” began my query, “I would like to suggest there are two, key questions in life; two questions virtually everyone addresses at some point: ‘Is there a God?’ and, ‘If there is a God, is He knowable; can one have contact and communication with Him?’ What do you think?”
Sarah nodded indicating a “yes” response to both questions. Then—in a sort of “pass the baton” glance—she looked over to May. With Sarah’s glance, May shook her head in the negative. I wasn’t sure if that “no” was in answer to both questions or to the second; so I needed to clarify.
“So, May, are you saying ‘no’ to both questions or only to the second—that if there is a God you question his ‘knowability’?”
“Hmm.” May was obviously giving thought to her response as she turned her head and flipped her black artistically—entangled hair from one side to the other. “I think there is a God,” she responded hesitatingly. “I’ve recently looked at Buddhism and Hinduism.”
I sensed by the tone of May's response that her investigation, though seriously intended, was more cursory in extent. It was, therefore, important that she come to grips with the outplay of one of the fundamental assumptions proffered by Eastern worldviews in general: the ultimate unity of all that is.“My problem with Eastern religions, May, is that I have a difficult time believing that all is ultimately ‘one.’ For example, in Buddhism all that exists is considered as coming from an Eternal Source or Void. Even good and evil will be seen, ultimately, to be varying shades of the same ‘oneness.’ Furthermore, if all is ultimately from that Eternal Source, then from where does this sense of false reality come? In traditional Buddhist thought that which we consider to be real in this world is, at least to some degree, illusory and the path to enlightenment comes only as we deny the very concept of ourselves which we hold so strongly.”
“I see what you mean. I’ve also looked at the writings of Karl Marx.”
“Well, it has been awhile since I studied Marx.” I have to confess I was becoming increasingly impressed by the breadth of May’s readings. Wanting to engage May more than simply talk at her, I thought it best, at this juncture, to ask a question. “May, if I remember correctly, Marx’s was primarily an economic model of society. Am I correct in this?”
“Completely economic,” May affirmed.
“I suppose my question would have to be what is at the root of human greed. In other words, why do the bourgeoisie seek to suppress the proletariat? Furthermore, I am also interested by what was discovered after the fall of the Soviet Union---how the leadership lived in luxury while the people often struggled so severely. You know, Jesus taught that it was that which was inside a person that defiles a person. In other words, if we are going to correct the ills of society it must begin inside…inside the hearts of people.”
“Yes, I suppose [Marx’s economic model] is a bit simplistic.” May concurred. Then, as she considered the wide range of options she had suggested she was exploring, May questioned a bit sheepishly, “I’m contradicting myself, aren’t I?”
“No, May, you are thinking and thinking deeply. I think that is excellent; you are to be commended!” If she only knew how many students seldom give serious thought to life and its purpose!
Whenever I have the opportunity to encourage a young person I find it is something which God has used so often to turn a “one time” conversation into additional opportunities for continued interaction.
At this point in our conversation it seemed evident to me that it would be good for me to suggest at least some kind of direction for May’s search—especially since we only had a very limited time for this particular conversation. May was obviously a very sharp, young lady. Yet, she seemed to me to be a bit like the rookie captain of a ship in rough waters—attempting to keep her vessel afloat, having little idea the direction to safe harbor.
“So, May, when you wake up in the morning, what do you hope for, dream for, live for?”
May responded without hesitation. “I don’t know. I just want to go somewhere else. When I’m at home I keep to myself like I’m in my own little world. I guess I am just trying to find out who I am.”
Her openness at this point was compelling. It is at times like these that the work of God’s Spirit is so evident. Otherwise, how could one explain why a young person, such as May, would allow herself to become so vulnerable before a complete stranger as myself?I continued.
“May, thanks for your openness. Let me say that if there is a God and He has created us, then it seems quite possible we are have been created for a purpose. I mean, why is it that we hope and dream for something more? I think those very qualities—exhibited throughout humankind—point to the fact that, intrinsically, we believe that life is more than simply eating, sleeping, and bearing kids. Does that make sense?
“Yes, I see what you mean,” May responded.
“Furthermore, May,” I continued, “I would like to suggest that—if the existence of such a purpose may be part of God’s ‘signature’ on us—it would make sense that, to ‘find yourself,’ you must begin, first, by finding God. Do you mind if I make a recommendation?”
“O.K.” May’s sincerity was evident. Jeff, Sarah and Loren had become observers of the conversation between the two of us (although I am quite confident Jeff and Loren were praying for me all along!).
“Begin by interviewing Jesus.” I knew this statement required explanation, so I continued. “Take that Bible you received tonight and read one of the books which are like mini-biographies of Jesus’s life. For example (and I showed her the Gospel of Mark), begin with this book. As you read, ask the following questions: ‘What do I think about what Jesus said?’, ‘How did He treat people?’ and, ‘How do His claims mesh with reality?’” [The next time I will include the following question as the sine-qua-non of the ‘interview’: ‘Why would I or, why would I not, want to follow this person?’]
“You’d be a good teacher,” May commented sincerely.
I knew there was One who had allowed this opportunity and who had already accomplished a work in May’s life so a conversation of this depth—especially in this particular context (i.e.—with friends observing)—was even possible.“Thank you, May. By the way, I assume you like to read?”
“Yes. I am currently reading Anna Karenina by Tolstoy.”
“Then, I am going to buy you a book tonight that you should read. It is entitled Mere Christianity and its author is C.S. Lewis—whom you will know from Chronicles of Narnia fame. Lewis was an Oxford professor. He was, at onetime, an atheist. But through an extensive search he became a theist and, then, a follower of Jesus. If you would be willing to read it, I’ll buy it for you.”
“Carmen, you don’t need to do that.”
“It would be my privilege to.”
That night, as May left carrying the bag containing Mere Christianity I was grateful God had allowed me the privilege of sharing His reality with one who was sincerely searching. And, I was grateful for Loren’s willingness to make her faith known at such an early stage in her walk with Christ. How awesome it is to partner together—with God and His family—in sharing the greatest news ever!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
