“The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being.” —Socrates
Taking a page from the doomed Greek philosopher’s book, RTB’s own philosophy expert, Kenneth Samples, asserts that “the unexamined worldview is not worth believing or living out.”
Worldviews provide us with both an interpretive lens through which we see the world and a road map that guides how we live in and react to the world. Culturally, I interpret things through an American lens, specifically a Southern Californian lens. For example, when my husband, Darren, and I honeymooned in Virginia, we encountered okra for the first time at a tavern in Colonial Williamsburg. Our SoCal perspective caused us to misidentify the chunks of green vegetable floating in Darren’s stew as spicy jalapeño. He proceeded to remove it, until the Southern couple sitting near by told him it was okra and encouraged him to try it.
A person’s worldview shapes his vision of what is real, true, right, and valuable. It is the prism through which one makes sense of life and death. Controversial issues such as abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and war are powerfully impacted by worldview considerations. Therefore it is critical to have a view that is genuinely clear and distinct.
- Coherence Test: A worldview’s tenets must be logically consistent, avoid being self-defeating, and account for rationality.
- Balance Test: A worldview must maintain adequate balance between simplicity (not too much explanation) and complexity (not insufficient explanation).
- Explanatory Power & Scope Test: A viable worldview must provide an efficient (in power) and sufficient (in scope) explanation for the facts of reality—the physical world included.
- Correspondence Test: Science and personal observation provide empirical facts and experiences through which we understand reality—a good worldview must correspond to these facts and experiences.
- Verification Test: All worldviews make truth-claims (e.g., Jesus Christ is the Son of God). Can these facts be verified or falsified through studying and testing? Keep in mind that a claim that cannot be falsified, at least in principle, can neither be verified.
- Pragmatic Test: Is the worldview livable—does it produce results relevant and practical for its adherents?
- Existential Test: Does the worldview answer humanity’s big “why” questions and address our need for purpose and meaning?
- Cumulative Test: There’s strength in numbers and that goes for worldviews, too. Multiple converging lines of evidence increase support for a worldview’s validity.
- Competitive Competence Test: Finally, a worldview must stand up to the competition from other perspectives and arguments.
June 2, 2010 at 12:06 pm
That’s actually a fantastic list. I’m impressed. When I do “work” on worldviews in the future, I shall have to use Dr. Samples’ book. . . .
(And okra is one of the more bizarre parts of God’s creation, btw. It’s a tradition for us Southerners, but that doesn’t mean it makes any sense.)
June 2, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Thanks, Micah! I hope this list proves helpful in your worldview musings.
My husband says he enjoyed the okra–so I guess that makes it a tasty tradition (the best kind)!
July 8, 2010 at 9:59 am
I agree with the list for the most part, but I find that sometimes my worldview lacks finality in some areas, hence is indefensible against some of these criteria. (For example, if I believe that Noah’s Flood was local as geologic facts indicate, why was it necessary for God to include a pair of all animals on the ark to save them from extinction?)
How do I get this to line up with each test?
July 8, 2010 at 11:04 am
Great question, Lee. Reasons To Believe would argue that the animals on the ark included only those associated with humanity or living in the flood area. So if an animal didn’t live in the affected area it wouldn’t need to be on the boat.
This is one of the reasons why I had a hard time with the movie “Evan Almighty,” where Steve Carrell becomes a modern Noah in the Washington DC area. There would be no reason for a giraffe or elephant to be on an ark in that area. Deer and raccoons would be more likely passengers.
I guess those old Sunday School pictures of Noah’s floating zoo may not be quite accurate. 🙂
I’d be interested in hearing your response to this idea.
December 30, 2013 at 1:16 pm
Would seem to me the words of scripture talks about a global flood. Covered the mountains etc and that there would be no need to take any animals if local and why would Noah warn others of a coming judgement? Local flood doesn’t deal with the biblical facts.!
Don
December 30, 2013 at 3:24 pm
Hi Don,
Thanks for your comments. RTB has addressed the biblical support for a local flood model in numerous resources, including a DVD (“In the Days of Noah”) and an upcoming book (“Navigating Genesis”). Here are a couple of links that also help explain our views: http://www.reasons.org/videos/noah-s-flood and http://www.reasons.org/articles/exploring-the-extent-of-the-flood-what-the-bible-says-part-two