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.

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?