[2] Testing Worldviews

In the previous essay I defined a worldview, and stated its characteristics. A worldview refers to a person’s belief system. It is a network of inter-related presuppositions which should ideally cohere and form a recognizable pattern. Since it involves belief, it posits a claim to knowledge, as opposed to feeling or opinion. Also, since it is a system, the individual propositions of the worldview are related to each other, and ideally they should not contradict each other. But, if the individual propositions contradict each other, the entire worldview will self-destruct. Such a worldview reeks of inconsistency and any person with a minimum level of intelligence should not take such a worldview seriously.

Also, we noticed that in each worldview there is a hierarchy of propositions. For example, one cannot make a statement that same-sex marriage is wrong, unless one goes through a sequence of propositions in the reasoning process. Stating that same-sex marriage is wrong assumes that there is right way of marriage. And why is heterosexual marriage right, as opposed to homosexual marriage? So this involves a presupposition about human sexuality. But one cannot talk about sexuality, unless one talks about human nature. And you cannot stop there. You should talk about the origins of humans before that. And you cannot stop there too; you should talk about the origin of everything else before that. Before you do all this, you should tell us how you know all your statements are true. So, in every worldview there is an order of propositions in which each one is dependent on the other, progressing up the chain where one finally comes to the starting point.

The First Principle

Every worldview has a starting point. This is called the first principle. This is the ultimate authority in any worldview. The rest of the propositions in the worldview hang upon this first principle. If the first principle cannot stand rational scrutiny, then we should not take rest of the propositions seriously. You should keep going up the sequence of propositions until you come to the starting point. If a worldview does not have a starting point, then it cannot even begin, let alone proceed, and make other statements about reality. If a person denies that his worldview has a starting point, then don’t waste your time listening to him. Tell him that he would be more useful as a jester in the circus rather than discussing worldviews.

In every debate we should take the discussion to this level – to the starting point. For unless the validity of the first principle is established, it is futile to debate around the other propositions which are derived from it. Just playing around with the peripheral propositions while ignoring the first principle is a cunning way to skirt the fundamental issue. We should not minor on the major (the first principle) and major on the minor (propositions which are derived from the first principle).

A first principle, by virtue of being what it is, is the first. A starting point, by definition, is the beginning of the worldview. It cannot be deduced from some other higher proposition. If it is so, then it is no longer the first principle, and the proposition from which it was deduced becomes ultimate. Every worldview has a first principle and it is unavoidable.

Now, if you randomly catch somebody and ask “what is the first principle of your worldview?” most (if not all) of them (unless they have thought through these things) would not be able to tell you what it is. They might not even understand what you are talking about. It is up to us to patiently take them through the sequence of reasoning, and bring them to their starting point. Then we should explain to them about how the rest of the propositions in their worldview hang upon their first principle. We should then ask them to defend their first principle as we subject it to logical analysis.

Remember that the first principle is everything in the worldview. It sets the tone for the rest of the worldview. If the first principle crumbles under rational analysis and cannot be defended, then the rest of the worldview will collapse. If a worldview cannot start, it cannot proceed, and surely cannot finish. Such a worldview is incomplete and incoherent, and has no place in the marketplace of ideas. When the first principle is destroyed, then the worldview which claims to proceed from it is a farce.

Since the first principle is so important, we need to spend time looking at the criteria it should fulfill, for it to be rationally defensible. As I mentioned earlier, a first principle cannot be “proved,” in the sense that it cannot be deduced from a prior proposition. But that does not mean that it cannot be defended. Recall that I had earlier demonstrated that if you want to have “proof” for everything you cannot have proof for anything. You will land up in an infinite regress, and you cannot even begin. So, the first principle should be the starting point and the rest of the worldview proceeds from it. I am reiterating these things again and again to impress them strongly in your mind so that you realize that it is important to lead a debate or discussion up to this point.

Self Justification

A first principle should be self-justifying. That is, it should contain information to satisfy the very demands it is making. It should validate itself. Now, this does not amount to circular reasoning. In circular reasoning there are two propositions, X and Y, where you would use X to justify Y, and Y to justify X. But when it comes to justification for the first principle, you don’t have two propositions; you have only one. Or putting it another way, the conclusion is already assumed in the premises. But this is the way it should be with any ultimate intellectual criterion. Since the first principle is the ultimate proposition in any worldview, it should authenticate itself. It should not contradict itself and not depend upon some other proposition for its validation.

Most worldviews, as we will shortly see, will fail to satisfy themselves on this level. Even if a worldview claims to have a first principle that can satisfy the demands it makes, we must scrutinize the rest of the propositions in the worldview, to make sure that they are in fact derived from the first principle and do not contradict it, and each other.

The Possibility of Knowledge

A first principle should make knowledge possible. Just because a first principle does not contradict itself, does not automatically salvage the worldview. The first principle should pave the way for the rest of the propositions in the worldview. In other words, the rest of the propositions in the worldview should follow from the first principle. If there is a proposition in the worldview which is not deduced from the first principle (the parent proposition), then it should be rejected, since it is an illegitimate proposition.

This is another way of saying that a worldview should not borrow from propositions in other worldviews to help itself. If it is so, then it is no longer adhering to its first principle, and there is lack of consistency right there. Such a worldview contradicts itself right at that point. If a proposition is not derived from its first principle then where is it from? It is relying on some other first principle, which means it rejects its own first principle. It is not possible to have two first principles, because for any worldview, there is a starting point, not starting points. A first principle, by definition is “first.” It is not possible for two propositions to be first. One of them will be first and the other will either follow from it, or be unrelated to it. Just as how it is impossible for a baby to have two fathers, it is impossible for any worldview to have two starting points. So, if a proposition in a worldview is not deduced from its parent principle (first principle), then it is a bastard proposition, and it should be rejected, and the inconsistency exposed right there.

Let us quickly sum what we have discussed till now. A first principle should be self-justifying. But that alone is not enough. All the propositions in the worldview should be deduced from the first principle. In other words, a first principle should lead to the other propositions in the worldview, and thus make knowledge possible.

Ultimate Thought Categories

Every worldview has to provide answers regarding ultimate thought categories. These include epistemology, metaphysics, anthropology, ethics, soteriology, and eschatology.

Epistemology refers to the theory of knowledge. It is derived from two Greek words, episteme, referring to knowledge, and logos, referring to study. It deals with the possibility, source, scope, nature, limits of knowledge, and methods of its acquisition. The most basic question to ask anyone is, “how do you know?” For unless the validity of his knowledge is defended there is no reason to take the rest of the propositions in his worldview seriously. The questions that epistemology deals with are the ones such as these: does knowledge come from our senses? Or, does knowledge come from reason? What is the difference? What is the difference between faith and reason?

Metaphysics deals with what philosophers call “ultimate reality.” In Greek, meta means beyond, and physics, refers to the material world. Thus, metaphysics deals with study of questions which are beyond the world that is observed with our senses. The questions considered are: does God exist? Is the universe eternal? Who made the world? Did the world create itself? Did God create the world? Are God and the universe identical? What is the nature of the universe? Is there a purpose to the universe? Are miracles possible?

Anthropology deals with the study of man. In Greek, anthropos refers to man, and logos refers to study. It deals with questions such as, where did man come from? What is the purpose of man’s existence? What is the nature of man? What is the connection between the soul and the body? Does the soul exist after death?

Ethics deals with theories of right and wrong. We make moral judgments about individuals and nations almost on a regular basis when we see, read, or hear about any even which occurs anywhere. Ethics answers questions such as: why is murder wrong? What is wrong with stealing? Who defines right and wrong?

Soteriology deals with salvation. That is, is discusses what has gone wrong with man, and what should be done to remedy the situation. What is man’s problem? What is the solution to fix it?

Eschatology deals with the theory of time. Is time cyclical? That is, do events repeat themselves in endless cycles? Or is time linear? That is, does it have a beginning and an end?

In any worldview, the propositions in each of these categories should be consistent with each other. For example, one proposition in ethics should not contradict another proposition in metaphysics or anthropology. And all the propositions regarding these categories should all be derived from the first principle.

In the forthcoming essays, I will discuss about various schools of thought in the history of philosophy and religion and see whether they can stand up to ruthless rational analysis. We will begin with their first principle, and if that itself cannot withstand logical investigation, we need not waste our time with the rest of the propositions. If the worldview cannot even start, then how can it make authoritative statements regarding other things? As I will demonstrate, most worldviews will crumble right at the starting point. Even if a worldview appears to have a stable starting point, when we look into the other propositions derived from it, we will find that they will crumble down. After that, when the dust settles down in the arena after the demolition of these false worldviews, I will proclaim and defend the only True Worldview which is the only logical hope for mankind which will provide true spiritual illumination. Get ready….

[1] What Is A Worldview?

Introduction

The term “worldview” is popular in many Christian circles nowadays. There are quite a few books and many websites which exist to teach believers about how to understand their worldview and relate to people who affirm other worldviews. It’s a good sign that believers are finally taking the interest in thinking through and working out their worldview. In this brief essay, I intend to define the term “worldview,” trace the etymological roots of the word, note the general characteristics and nature of a worldview, and observe the function one’s worldview serves in life.

The term worldview came into the English language as a translation of the German word Weltanschauung. Worldview refers to the beliefs one holds about reality and the way it is interpreted. It is the belief system through which one views the world and makes judgments and conclusions regarding anything. Some people use the phrase “world-and-life-view” to refer to the same thing, expanding on the depth of the definition. For the sake of convenience we will restrict ourselves to the term “worldview.” The term is also interchangeable with “philosophy” or “religion” since they too are systems of thought.

Influence of worldviews

Worldviews are like glasses. Depending upon the color of the sunglasses you wear, your sight will appear tainted according to the particular shade. Likewise, for worldviews, the belief system will color the understanding of reality. Your worldview will determine the way you interpret and evaluate any event or experience in your life or the world around you. Nobody can claim not to have a worldview. They might not be skillful enough in stating it, but that does not mean that they do not have one. Incompetence in articulation does not translate into absence of a worldview. Those who say that they do not have a worldview affecting their interpretation of reality would congratulate themselves thinking they are “objective” while the rest of the world is biased. But this is false, as we will look into this in detail towards the end of the essay.

So, what is a worldview?

I earlier said that a worldview is a “belief system.” Let us dwell for a moment on these two words. First, it relates to belief. A belief refers to an affirmation of what one considers to be true. It is mental assent or persuasion to a proposition (or set of propositions) which is considered to be true. Now, a belief can be held just about anything. It can involve the ultimate philosophical categories of thought and the daily mundane events of life. Thus, beliefs can be held ranging from the metaphysics of pantheism to the violation of traffic rules. There is no category about which one cannot hold a belief. When someone claims to “believe” something, he is making a cognitive claim – that is, a claim to knowledge. This is opposed to feeling or opinion. Feelings are vague dispositions of the mind where there is disturbance of thought. This is why most people cannot clearly express in words what they “feel” so passionately. An opinion is frequently confused with belief. However, they are not the same thing. When you opine, you do not claim certainty, whereas, in belief, there is a claim to certainty – to knowledge.

It might help here to briefly touch upon the link between belief and truth. Something is not true just because you believe it. That is, your belief does not create reality. Truth is independent of belief. So, a belief should follow from truth, and not the other way round. For example, at one point in time, people believed that the earth was flat. Later on, somebody set sail around the world, and then people believed that the earth is spherical. In this situation, it is not that “truth” had changed. Rather, people changed from holding false belief to a true one. Truth was what it was all along. Belief, in and of itself, cannot create reality. A belief is a mental state regarding the state of affairs about reality. You hold a belief about something. And this something is not what it is just because you believe it. It is what it is regardless of your belief. You can have a false or a true belief about it. Belief does not create truth. Rather, your belief should be based on truth. Truth is prior to belief.

Next, the word “system.” A worldview consists of collection of propositions which relate to each other. It contains a network of inter-related presuppositions. These propositions will usually cohere together in an orderly fashion to form a recognizable pattern. This is important because a worldview should be consistent. That is, the individual propositions in the worldview should not contradict each other, and the other propositions deduced from them. If a worldview is not consistent, then it will self-destruct, and nobody with critical faculties should take such a worldview seriously.

Another thing to be noted is that, a worldview is about the “basic” beliefs about reality. “Basic” beliefs are those fundamental propositions which have to be affirmed before one can talk about others. For example, one cannot make a statement regarding human sexuality unless one first knows about man. But you cannot talk about nature of man without talking about the origin of man, which in turn, would depend upon the origin of the world. Thus, in any worldview, there is a hierarchy of propositions. Some propositions are more central to the system than others.

The First Principle

Therefore, every worldview should have a starting point. This is referred to as the first principle. Since this is the starting point of the worldview, this is the ultimate proposition. The rest of the propositions in the system hang upon this proposition. If the ultimate proposition cannot stand rational scrutiny, then the rest of the worldview will collapse. Being “ultimate” it cannot depend upon some other proposition for its justification. If it does, then it is no longer ultimate. An ultimate proposition should be self justifying. That is, a first principle should justify itself. This does not amount to circular reasoning. In circular reasoning there are two propositions (X and Y), where you would use X to justify Y, and use Y, in turn, to justify X. But when we are talking about self-justification, you don’t have two propositions to justify each other. The ultimate proposition should justify itself. That is why the first principle is called the starting point.

A starting point, by definition, does not have anything before it. Every worldview has to have a starting point, or otherwise there is nothing left to such a “worldview.” If a worldview cannot start, it cannot proceed and make any statement regarding anything. A first principle or starting proposition is unavoidable. If every proposition should be justified by a prior proposition, then you cannot have justification for any proposition. That is, to justify X you need X1, and to justify that you need X2, and to justify that you will need X3, and to justify that you will keep going on and on into infinity. Thus, you cannot even begin. If you cannot even begin, how can you proceed, and why should anyone waste their time listening to you? If you want to have justification of every proposition you cannot even start, let alone work out the other details of your worldview. This is why a worldview needs to have a self justifying first principle for it to start and then construct a system which is consistent, in which the other propositions derived from the first principle do not contradict each other. We will look into this in more detail in another essay when we discuss about the fundamental questions any worldview should answer.

The relation between the first principle and the other propositions in the worldview can be illustrated by comparing the axioms and theorems which are found in geometry. Axioms are the foundational principles from which theorems are deduced. Axioms, by their very nature, are not deduced from some other higher proposition. They are taken as the starting point. You don’t prove an axiom. It has to be assumed. Axioms cannot be “proven.” In fact, they have to be assumed, if you want to have proof for something else.

But what about evidence?

There are some who think they are very “rational” and deride those who make assumptions. They claim that they don’t assume anything. They have “evidence” and “proof” for everything. But, this only proves the carelessness of their thinking. One should only question these characters on the proofs they have. Keep questioning the proof they have for everything they state. Keep moving them up their ladder of thinking, and you will find that they will come to a starting point, beyond which they cannot have “proof.” There, you will find out their intellectual hypocrisy. They will implicitly assume something, and explicitly deny it. They will assume something and act as though they don’t.

Like I said earlier, if you want proof for everything, you cannot have proof for anything. For proving A you will need B, and to prove that you will need C, and to prove that you will D, and thus, you will keep moving on and on into in an infinite regress. So, if you cannot start, how can you proceed, let alone finish? You say you will accept something only with proof and evidence. And when we question you and ask you proof for everything you state, you will soon land up with some assumptions for which you do not have “proof.” And you will scoff at those who “assume” something, as though you don’t. You assume that you do not have any assumptions. And you think you are “rational” and smart? It doesn’t take long to strip one of his intellectual hypocrisy and expose his double standards. He judges other worldviews based on some criteria and tries to protect his worldview from the very same criteria he is applying to other worldviews. If you have a sense of shame, you will acknowledge your duplicity rather than know about the inevitability of assumption, and then lie about it. Please go and stand in front of a mirror and congratulate yourself on your “rationality.”

Worldviews and objectivity

Now, there are those who say that having a worldview means that one cannot be “objective” when it comes to interpreting reality. That is, they say that if you have some prior presuppositions, then you will be “biased.” Let us think through this carefully. The word “bias” refers to the idea of personal preference in evaluating something as opposed to the “correct” interpretation of something. So, before you can complain that somebody is “biased” you should already know the “correct” interpretation. For unless you know the correct interpretation, you cannot state which interpretation is false. That is, before you can judge falsehood, you should know the truth. If I were to tell you two plus two equals thirteen, immediately you would immediately correct me. Why? You already know that two plus two is four, which is why you can immediately recognize the false statement. Therefore, for recognizing falsehood, you should already know the truth.

So, before you can say that someone is “biased” you should already know the truth. I can just as easily state that you are “biased” and stump your claim to “objectivity.” Usually when the word “bias” is used, it is set in opposition to “objectivity.” Objectivity is taken to refer to neutrality. But intellectual neutrality is not possible. Everybody has presuppositions based on which they interpret reality. It not about who has presuppositions and who doesn’t – everybody does. The real issue is who has the true presuppositions which will render correct interpretation possible. If an “objective” perception refers to true interpretation, then you need to have presuppositions anyway. You cannot avoid presuppositions. You cannot even think without presuppositions, let alone “objectively” interpret reality. Intellectual neutrality is sheer fantasy. It does not exist. If you have believed in it till now it’s about time you woke up.

Summing this up, every one has a worldview – a belief system – based on which one perceives reality. It is not possible to have a neutral perception – that is, without any presuppositions coloring their interpretation. It is not possible to have a “colorless” state. Even when you contemplate the term “colorless” you will think of white or something, which is a color in the first place. Presuppositions are inescapable. The real issue is who has the true presuppositions, and therefore, the true worldview.

Impact in life

Now, we should briefly mention about the importance of a worldview in a person’s life. A worldview is totalitarian – if affects the way one thinks about everything. Your worldview will control the way you think and make judgments regarding each and every minor and major decision in life – whether it is about the amount of oil to add in cooking, or the choice of a spouse. A worldview will affect the poet’s pen, the sculptor’s chisel, the artist’s brush, the doctor’s medicine, engineer’s design, and so on. A worldview serves as a compass, or a guide through which one navigates or “makes sense” of life. It orients you to the world, and shapes your perspective regarding what you find in it.

So, now the issue, finally, is not about whether you have a worldview or not. Rather, do you have the true worldview? Do you? If you do not have the true worldview then your whole interpretation of the world till now has been false. It’s scary to realize such a thing, especially if you have lived with false presuppositions all your life. It will strike at the heart of your ego, for nobody likes to have their fundamental assumptions challenged. Perhaps, you always thought you were right, until somebody came and told you otherwise. It might be hard for you to give up on your false presuppositions easily, considering the fact that you have grown old with them. But truth is not a matter of convenience or desire. Truth is independent of your affirmation or denial of it. Do you, my reader, have the true worldview? How do we know which worldview is true? Which worldview is built on true presuppositions? I will discuss this and more in the forthcoming essays.