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….
