A New View on Worldview
Worldview thinking has been on my mind lately. Maybe it’s been on yours?
I’ve been reading Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept by James Sire (also author of The Universe Next Door). Sire became convinced that his definition of “worldview” was insufficient, and so he reworked it, wrote this book, and put out a new edition of The Universe Next Door. This book really struck a chord in me because I had a definition of “worldview” similar to Sire’s old one.
Everyone has a worldview. It may be a true, somewhat true, or false. Odds are, all our worldviews have many flaws. I used to think of a worldview as fundamentally a set of presuppositions. I believed worldview thinking was something mostly considered by professors in their “ivory towers.” But while a worldview certainly includes this, Sire’s new definition pushes against those boundaries:
“A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently), about the basic constitution of reality, and the provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being” (122)
Worldview can be discussed academically, but we use our worldview mostly without even thinking about it. Did I ask myself what the purpose of putting my contacts in this morning was? Or do I sit here typing checking with a set of presuppositions to see if I can believe I am really typing? No, I just did these things. Worldview is lived out. It has to do with presuppositions, but they are only an explanation of one’s worldview. Yours and my worldviews are more than intellectual pursuits. They include “wisdom, emotion, desire and will, spirituality, and intellect” (123-4).
While I once thought worldviews were all nicely thought out, I now see this is not usually the case. A professor once said, “people pick up a worldview like they catch a cold.” I can see a worldview developing in my little 20-month-old sister. She says “uppease” (up please), and expects to be lifted up. She has concluded this most likely from past experience, and has figured out that the word “up please” will help achieve what she wants. Has she really thought this through? No, but she doesn’t need to. Worldview thinking begins when we are babies, not when we enter college.
At the same time, our worldview is flawed. It must constantly be critiqued. Sire acknowledged that in writing this book. Surely there comes a point at which we must question some of our held presuppositions. But where is the line? Do we have to throw away everything and start blank? Is this even possible? If I do this, haven’t I adopted a skeptic’s worldview? What do you people think, when do we question and at what point does it just become ridiculous?
Suggested Reading:
Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept by James Sire
The Universe Next Door by James Sire (get 4th edition, it is the one Sire did after he changed his definition of worldview)
Worldview: The History of a Concept by David Naugle (I haven’t read this yet, but Sire says it was a big influence on his why he felt it necessary to write Naming the Elephant)
Total Truth by Nancy Pearcy
Posts
Well, my interest is doubly piqued now. Guess I better put it on order. Here are my off-the-cuff thoughts/answers:
“Surely there comes a point at which we must question some of our held presuppositions. But where is the line? Do we have to throw away everything and start blank? Is this even possible? If I do this, haven’t I adopted a skeptic’s worldview?”
That is a difficult question. You cannot doubt everything. I suppose my technically correct but totally useless answer would be that there are some first principles that can’t be proven. What are these things? I think one danger comes when you run up against a paradox. I suppose we have to be willing to admit that we don’t understand everything. A person who attempts to live a perfectly consistent life or think in a perfectly consistent manner may be headed for the insane asylum. I think an ordinarily healthy person should be willing to admit that maybe some things he believes don’t add up perfectly.
That’s my answer to the question. My solution to the tension is somewhat different; I find it in I Timothy 3:15. At this juncture, I don’t want anyone to think I am trying win you over to my view, but I would like to share my view as a Catholic. I rely on the guidance of the Church as a child relies on his parent.
Stupid? Well, the Church, like a parent, is not perfect. I don’t think my parents would mind me saying they have made mistakes, but I learned something along about the age of twenty-something: I was ended up far better off when I listened to them than when I didn’t.
Unreasonable? The way I look at it, God exists. I won’t even say that “it is more reasonable to believe in God than not to believe in God”. IMHO, I don’t think you can really honestly not believe in God—not for long anyway; not if you really think about it.
Next, I find it more reasonable to be a Christian for several reasons, most notably the irrefutable empty tomb, and the fact that he is the only God figure whose coming was foretold before he came, and even foretold by pagans.
Within Christianity, the Catholic Church seems to me the only sensible choice. I have several reasons for this, just as I’m sure you have several reasons for believing that you are in the right church. So I trust the Church. To use someone else’s analogy, the world is a playground near a cliff. The dogmas of the faith are a strong wall within which I frolic. I’m free to go to the wall and stay by the wall if I like. I feel perfectly safe doing so because I know where the wall is.
What do you people think, when do we question and at what point does it just become ridiculous?
Civis-
I’m glad this sparked your interest. I wrote it with you in mind. Yea, the Church is certainly imperfect, but do you think there is something out there that we can really put our feet on? Something that is perfect?
If we start out with the presupposition that God exists (which I believe it is more reasonable to believe he does than he does not), we then must ask the question: Does he reveal himself, and if so, how?
The traditional Christian answer has been through revelation: both general and special. General revelation is seen in creation. It includes reason and sensory observation. We can come to know truth by these means, but they are not perfect. This is why I was glad you made the disclaimer about the church being imperfect. Special revelation is the Bible. Traditional Christianity is based upon this. Even the Pope must bow to the wisdom of scripture. Through the Bible we can really know.
Josh,
Sweet post. Not sure if the title itself is true, is it really a “new” worldview? Hard to believe there’s anything new under the sun. Maybe “another view on worldview.”
Jim
Josh and Jim,
Part of what has me interested in this book is that it is sounding like Sire is questioning whether his categories are really much help in understanding our society and the way people look at the world. I’m kind of wondering about that myself.
I’m not sure that I have a list of what would be better. Again, just off the cuff, if we really want to undersatnd the people around us I think the following would be more useful and would apply to people of all levels of society (from rednecks to egg heads). Although these are not worldviews per se, if we assume that most people have an eclectic worldview, I think the following might be components we would rountinely find:
Moral relativism
Epicureanism
Intellectualism ( Not as defined by Websters http://www.ismbook.com/intellectualism.html but as a belief that all that a person needs is thier own reason/reckoning to make decisions: no need for history, science, tradition, authority)
Egalitarianism
Radical Individualism
Tendency to view other people as objects (esp. the opposite sex)
Hmm. Maybe I’ll give this more thought during the rest of the discussion and try to refine this list.
I typed a long response, clicked “submit comment,” and then my comment never showed up……
So I’ll restate it in less words.
I said a lot about how I was unsure of whether “worldview” was a conscious thing, and I think a lot of that depends on vocabulary. Because when I hear “worldview,” I think of a person’s total view of the outside world (the lens through which they see/hear/touch/process everything) and that, I think, is COMPLETELY unconscious. A person can maybe be aware of some of his or her predilections and biases, but he or she can’t consciously think of those each time info needs to be processed. they are accessed unconsciously.
Unless worldview is more about a conscious viewing of the world.
Maybe this is all becuase I have read many times over John Kennedy Toole’s A Confederacy of Dunces: “You are, in your incomprehensible babble, unable to assimilate stimulating concepts of commerce into your retarded and blighted worldview.”
Kyle,
“What is, the novel that best nails the various personalities you meet on Chartres street? ‘I’ll take ‘Obscure but significant works of Southern Fiction’ for $5,000″
Did you like A CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES?
Before I answer, can I ask someone to please erase my first (LONGER) post. Because I fale at posting. … plz?
I loved it. I loved loved loved it.
Kyle,
It must be contagious. I just accidentally deleted a comment myself. I think your comment is worth discussing. I’d like to think about it and comment on it unless you really prefer I didn’t.
I bet you’re a Faulkner fan. I have to admit I don’t “get” most southern writers, but I read a lot of them while I was in Iraq because I missed home so much. I read LIGHT IN AUGUST and was pretty much bored and depressed by it. I read most of what Flannery O’Connor wrote and don’t relate to her fiction much, but I do like “A Good Man’s Hard to Find” and love the story about the Bible salesman that stole the woman’s wooden leg. I think the latter is her best story. I love her non-fiction writings though. I like Walker Percy, though I think he sees the world a little differently than I do. There are two pieces of southern literature I really like: I absolutely love TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. That’s one of my favorite books. I think either Truman Capote wrote TKAM or else Harper Lee wrote IN COLD BLOOD because I see the same person’s fingerprints all over both. The other one I love is LANTERNS ON THE LEVEE.
As far as A CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES, I liked that one a lot, but I have to admit it reminds me that, as much as I love New Orleans as a place to visit, I would never want to live there. It’s definitely unique!
Probably way more than you wanted to know. Ha.
I mean, go for it. There’s nothing written there I DON’T want discussed. I just felt dumb for it.
Kyle,
Done. It looks like the spam filter somehow stopped it and later got approved for commenting.
Kyle-
Good point on how worldview is unconcious. I think that is somewhat what Sire was getting at in this book. We all inherent some kind of worldview as we grow up. We “pick it up like a cold.” However, there comes a time when we can critique those glass with which we see the world. I can change my presuppositions. This is likely not easy, and many people never examine their worldview. However I would argue it is not impossible to change one’s worldview, and that a worldview does not have to be totally unconcious (though for many it always is).
I love your comments guys!
To avoid confusion:
I’m commenting on a comment by Kyle that got deleted. I copied it when I saw Kyle was requesting it be deleted.
Kyle,
“I’ve always felt the worldview discussion to be a bit ridiculous itself. I suppose it is valuable on a sociological scale, but I really think most people don’t “construct” any kind of worldview.”
I can relate to this comment in that it seems to me that no one really thinks in terms of the worldviews that Sire describes—the exception being a few professors who may try to implement them only because they lecture on them on a daily basis.
It seems to me that the goal of studying worldviews is to be equipped to read the signs of the times, relate to and reach people (I call this “being a prophet” for short). IMHO there are a lot more effective ways to do this than what I am finding in THE UNIVERSE NEXT DOOR thus far. That being said, I think sometimes the ideas he describes may be implicit in some people’s way of looking at things and some of what one learns from Sire may be useful after all. The one chapter that to me discusses a worldview that has had an effect on religion in America is Existentialism. You can see it in some of the sermons of ministers you see on television and I have seen what I think is it’s influence in the Catholic Church.
One example is that during Mass there is a point where we are supposed to examine our conscience and then we pray as a group “I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do…[yada yada yada]” Before this the priest calls us to examine our conscience. Traditionally he would say “My brothers and sisters, to prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries, let us call to mind our sins.” The key word here is “sin.” You can generally spot a more “progressive” [I consider that a euphemism] priest because he will say something like “lets us call to mind all of the times we failed to live up to the dignity of your love” or other similar soft expressions of warmth and coziness.
“I think people like to say things like “Well, I believe ________” or “I think _______” in such a way as if they have reviewed all the evidence and they have independently come to these conclusions. But people are (mostly) slaves to their cultures, races, history, families, and actions.”
Ditto. This goes back to what I have been saying about how we are not taught how to gather information/data, not taught the rules of logic, yet we are expected to have an opinion: “What do you think about that Johnny?”
“What is interesting to me is that there seems to be a lot of talk in Western thought about how you can know a person because of their consistencies. That is, so and so always ______ or so and so will always ________. I think maybe a lot of this comes from empirical data/thought (scientific theory?). And I hear people often translate this over to Eastern thought; specifically, the ying-yang philosophy.
But in the ying-yang, there is no gray. there is black. There is white. And while black and white have elements of one another, they are still black and white.
and I think the truest aspect of a person lies in their contradictory thoughts/actions. A cruel person showing kindness or a very gracious person being horrifically racist.”
Now this is a very interesting proposition: “the truest aspect of a person lies in their contradictory thoughts/actions” I have never thought of that. I’d like to chew on that for a while. Can you elaborate? I don’t know if you are thinking what I think you are thinking, but I think you are on to something insightful. I’d like to hear more.
“That is a lot of words to come to the conclusion that I think the worldview thing is bunk. We are never going to be able to understand a person’s total view of the world. I think it is impossible.”
This is one of the questions I’m wrestling with. It has been more or less implicit in some of my earlier questions (this may have been before I ran into you gentlemen), but I was planning on making a post on it. I may tweak this and post it later, but here is what I had drafted for the post:
QUESTION: How do we know a person’s worldview?
It is important to identify a person’s true worldview to know how to approach him. It may also be important in order to help a person see what their worldview really is, before you can lead them away from error.
Assuming that a person’s professed worldview may not be his true worldview, if I am speaking to Joe on the street, and I make friends with him and want to lead him to the truth, how do I identify his true worldview?
I think that we have to listen to people and assume that what they say is their true worldview, but I think this has to be checked against other things including they way they think, the way they act, the way they react.
The real thorny issue is that you really can’t get entirely inside people’s heads and it is easy to misjudge someone. Is there any systematic way that you can establish that a person has a certain worldview such that it is objective. What I definitely would not want would be for us to be like psychoanalysts who, if they say a person has an Oedipus Complex or penis envy, there is nothing the victim can say: if he says it isn’t true, he’s just “in denial”.
Yet while some people have a good grasp of themselves, there are always things that others see about them that they do not see about themselves. And while some people are hard to figure out, some are pretty transparent. I think there is a place for an outsider being about to say, “You don’t believe in X, you believe in Y.” I think that the person who can do this—I don’t think anybody but God can do it all of the time with everyone—has a gift, but I think that gift can be cultivated, I think it is one part gift and four parts an ability to observe and a sensitivity to certain cues and an ability to discard false cues. But how do we know who really has this gift? There are plenty of people walking around who think they have it, but often they quite obviously do not.
Why do I care about this? Because if someone truly has this gift, I wonder if there is a way they can talk to someone and get across/convince them “I see something about you that maybe you don’t see about yourself, but I can show you. Here it is…” Or are people who have this gift like Cassandra in Greek Mythology who always saw what was going to happen, but no one would listen to her. And how does one know if they are Cassandra or just a wannabe prophet. I think I’ve seen both: people that have the gift and need to learn how to put it to work and people who don’t have it but think they do and need to face reality.