World View Evaluation II

In our last essay we discussed some of the issues involved in evaluating world views in general. In this essay we will provide one method or algorhythm for subjecting prospective world views to analysis. Hopefully, this will provide a useful tool for the consideration of the world views which readers most commonly encounter.

Some may wonder why it is necessary to evaluate world views. While it may seem intuitively obvious, we will suggest an answer here. When presented with choices between competing world views, it is wise to select the one which provides the most explanatory power, that is, the ability to best explain all of visible and invisible reality. If one world view "sheds light" on many problems and issues, and another is deficient in crucial areas or respects, then it is obvious that the more "powerful" world view should be considered seriously.

Nash has suggested (in his book "Faith and Reason"), that there are 6 criteria worthy of consideration, (1). He suggests "testing" each prospective world view in light of these 6, or 2 sets of 3. They are; 1) the tests of reason and experience, 2) the tests of the outer world and the inner world, 3) the tests of theory and practice. Nash has contended that these 6 criteria can be summarized or thought of as "elaborations" of one basic word, Coherence,(2). The concept of coherence is really the idea that all of the 6 criteria should be consistent, that is "hang together" in one "construct" which allows the best explanation of reality.

The first set of 3 criteria is Reason and Experience, and can be thought of as a reformulation of the Law of Non-Contradiction, one of the First Principles of Reality. Any world view which is self-contradictory is invalid, that is, it can not be adequately defended against logical critique. If a world view is logically incoherent, it is unable to "hang together" and is of minimal value in explaining the world in which we live, particularly if the incoherence involves central beliefs intrinsic to the world view. Some of the world views presently embraced by society "suffer" from logical incoherence. These are discussed elsewhere. Nash posits that the test of reason is a negative one, that if a system is contradictory, it is in major difficulty. The absence of contradiction however, while helpful, does not guarantee that the world view is true,(3).

Experience is the other aspect of Reason and Experience. Simply put, no world view can be taken seriously if it fails to comport with common sense experience. While some have argued that this suggests a form of empiricism, that is that only sense experience is valid, it is not necessary to embrace empiricism and hold to this world view test. An example of World Views which fail this test are; All reality is an illusion, or Pain and Death are illusions.

The next group, The Tests for Outer and Inner Experience, are a bit more difficult as they sometimes suggest other things to some people. For example, some readers imagine that we are discussing the "Mind-Body" problem or a theory of "sense perception". Nash provides an excellent discussion of this point, by purporting that this criterion makes use of phenomenological language, that is, it describes the way different things "appear" to us, (4). A good example would be that the world is now known to be round. At one time, some people thought it was flat. While that was once reasonable, it no longer is, because of knowledge that has been gained at least in part as a result of "sense experience". The astronauts have clearly "seen" the round world as they orbit it. To be a "flat earther" in the 21st century is to fail the test of the "outer world".

World Views must not only "fit" with what we know about the Outer World, but with what we all commonly "know" about ourselves. For example, we all share certain things in common. Everyone "knows" they will die, that they have "memories", or that they can "imagine" that other people have minds as they do, even though they have difficulty proving it. These are examples of human knowledge of the "inner world". C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity" argues that "Materialism" or "Naturalism", fails the test of the Inner World, because it can not account for moral consciousness.

Last is the category of Theory and Practice. This test is much simpler. The real question here, is; can an individual actually live the world view he or she espouses, or is it only applicable to the "Ivory Tower" of academia? Many people profess one world view and yet constantly "borrow" from competing world views on important issues. This is very common in materialism, or naturalism, which frequently borrows moral concepts (when convenient) from Theism. The difficulty, is that many individuals who vigorously espouse naturalism, do not realize that they misappropriate concepts from other world views which are inconsistent with their own. One of the tasks of world view analysis is to carefully and logically "sift" or "sort-out" these inconsistencies. Nash quotes Francis Schaeffer: "Only the presuppositions of historic Christianity both adequately explain and correspond with the 2 environments in which every man must live, the external world with its form and complexity, and the internal world of the man's own characteristics as a human being",(5). If true, then world views which are contrary to the basic tenets of Christianity will be found grossly lacking in these 2 areas, that is, Inner and Outer World, and Theory and Practice.

The final issue is really one of method. In all the world, we have 2 basic ways in which to approach the evaluation of problems. The deductive or the inductive methods. The a priori, or deductive method proceeds from cause to effect, is associated with the mathematical, logical and the form is such that the result (when properly formulated), provides logical certainty, such as 2=2=4. This is because the conclusion of a valid deductive argument never contains information that is not already present in the premise,(6). On the other hand, inductive reasoning is a posteriori, that is, it proceeds from effect to cause, is not mathematical, and does not produce logical certainty, only probability or plausibility. Examples of this would be the way a detective "reconstructs" a murder case. The degree of certainty or probability or plausibility can vary, but it can never be "absolutely" proven in the same sense that a deductive argument can be proven.

World View analysis is a form of inductive reasoning, a posteriori, that is it proceeds from what we "know" about reality, seen and unseen, to the "best fit" or best explanation for it. The process is much like that of a detective at a crime seen. We must evaluate all the evidence which can be brought to bear on the issue before selecting the "best-fit" or correct World View. The scientific method is also an example of a type of inductive reasoning, that is stating a hypothesis about how something works, and then performing tests to see if the hypothesis is valid. This essay has provided some basic tools to employ in considering competing world views. Other essays will utilize these principles and others in greater detail.

Ref.:

1) Nash, Ronald H. "Faith and Reason": Searching for a Rational Faith. Grand Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan, 1988, p. 51.

2) Ibid, p.52.

3) Ibid, p.55.

4) Ibid, p.56.

5) Ibid, p.59.

6) Ibid, p.59.