What is meant by ‘Worldview’?
Definition
Worldview: “ a set of answers to the fundamental
questions of what exists, how we know, how we ought to act, etc.”, or: “our
set of most basic beliefs about reality, knowledge, ethics, etc.”
Main Question
It either refers to:
Definition # 1. the set of most basic beliefs, in which
case everyone’s should be the same;
or it refers to:
Definition #2. an
individual’s (or defined group’s) most basic beliefs, in which case everyone’s
is or may be individual, unique, different.
The Present Debate
The eon belief
(accommodation belief (see note 1), as they all call for some kind of eon time
frame) is put up against the six-day
belief (literal belief, in lieu of knowing the precise or full meaning.)
1. The eon belief
asserts that, whether six days or eons, the meaning of ‘day’ is interposed, or
imposed onto the text;
The six-day belief insists that the “six-days”
results from not interposing, of not putting arbitrary or subjective
interpretation onto the text: it is the
result of allowing the Word to speak for itself, no more and no less. (note 2)
2. The eon belief asserts
that evolution is scientific; (note 1)
The six-day belief insists that evolution
is worldview-founded. (note 3)
3. The eon belief
insists that the literal interpretation is cultural, therefore
worldview-founded.
The six-day belief asserts that the literal
interpretation is demanded as default by virtue of a holy reverence and deep
respect for the authority of Scripture whenever any meaning is unclear.
4. The debate between the two sides is presented, at best,
as a struggle between two worldviews, as how one defines the other. (note 4)
Problem
If both are worldviews, that is, deriving from a set of
basic beliefs about reality, etc., then ‘worldview’ must be defined as #2,
since it can’t be #1.
a) If it is defined as #1 then one of the beliefs is a
mistaken worldview or a dishonest worldview, and therefore not a worldview. It
could also be that neither are worldviews. But it cannot be that both are
worldviews; that is, they can’t both be true.
b) If it is defined as #2, then both can be worldviews, but
neither can be deemed as a true belief. It necessarily follows, then, that
neither side should be defending their belief as true, but both should be
defended as worldview. But one can be true belief, and that is what the six-day belief can be. But then it no
longer is a worldview on the same level as the eon belief.
Or, to argue it differently:
If both beliefs are asserted as worldview:
a) If ‘worldview’ is defined as #1, then one is not a
worldview, the other is not a worldview, or both are not worldviews; but it is
impossible that both be worldviews.
b) if ‘worldview’ is defined as #2, then both can be worldviews,
but neither can be regarded as able to be placed beside Scripture, much less
overtop of it, out of reverence and respect for Scripture.
c) if ‘worldview’ is defined as #2, then:
i, this debate does not belong in the
church;
ii, a six-day belief does not belong in the
Confessions;
iii, an eon belief is neither Confessional nor
of the faith.
d) if ‘worldview is defined as #1, then:
i, this debate belongs in the church;
ii, a six-day belief belongs in the
Confessions;
iii, an eon belief is not a worldview, and is still
neither Confessional nor of the faith (since its’ own claims are that it is an
interposed interpretation not from but
yet onto Scripture.)
Conclusion
If both are equally interposed or imposed interpretations on
the text of Scripture, then neither is definition #1. If one is imposed and the
other not, then one is def. #2 and the other is def. #1. If neither are
imposed, but both are of def. #1, then we have an impossible situation of two
contradictory truths; in which case we are (at best) back at the first option,
of two equally imposed interpretations.
If this is a debate between worldviews of definition #2,
then the six-day belief is being
misrepresented if it is represented as a worldview only. If this is a debate
between worldviews of definition #1, then one or both beliefs are
misrepresented, because they cannot both be true beliefs.
The six-day belief
is the deliberate attempt to stay true to God’s Word, adding nothing to God’s
own words.
The eon belief is
the deliberate attempt to stay true to modern man’s arbitrary science as the
higher truth source.
To determine the truth of the matter both sides must be
represented fairly, justly, and intelligently. Therefore the six day belief ought to be represented
as determinedly lacking interposition, in comparison to the eon belief which insists that
interposition is the only possibility.
Notes:
1. Evolution can be defined
as the theory, or model, of origins of all things if Special Creation is ruled
out. It is not necessary to this discussion to define evolution as anything
more than an alternative model to the Biblical model; a more careful or refined
definition does not change the substance of ‘worldview’.
Every evolutionary model is
theistic, for some kind of selection is necessary; a preference of one thing
over another, which necessarily implies a personal choice, or an event, or
change in events, involving values not intrinsic to nature itself but which is
leading and directing nature toward a purposeful or raised end. Evolution is
not strictly science, as it is inducted and not deducted. It is deemed a
“necessary” induction if and only if Special Creation is ruled out; and it is
ruled out because it is “unthinkable”, “incredible” (not credible, not
believable): that is, not subject to examination, testing, or measuring. It
does not mean ”unimaginable” because, rather, it is impossible to imagine
without some kind of theism, or special causing and directing. Evolution is a
form of Special Creation, and no strictly all natural or scientific model has
yet been suggested, introduced, or forwarded. It cannot be suggested without
imposing the supra-natural values of truth, knowledge, and fitness.
2. An interposing
interpretation is a suggested or inducted interpretation; any interpretation
less than a necessary inference from Scripture. It may be suggested by the text
itself, or it may be that it is suggested by other factors, including insights
from men. A six-day belief is an interposed interpretation if it is insisted
upon as doctrine*; it is not an interposed interpretation if, not being
insisted upon, it is presented as the default confessional boundary. It is the
doctrine of Sola Scriptura that is at stake, not the six-day belief as doctrine, because it is not doctrinal in that
sense. It may be represented as an interposed interpretation, but it can also
be represented as Sola Scriptura, as Scripture alone. It is as the former that
it differs substantially with evolution, and as the latter that it differs
diametrically with evolution.
*It is not illegitimate to
represent the six-day belief as a
worldview for the sake of argument; however, it is unfaithful to fellow
believers, to the church, to integrity, and to the confessional standards, to
assert that it is only a worldview and nothing more, or that as a worldview it
is equal to the eon belief.
3. As to “evidence” for the eon belief, there is no direct
evidence. The main support consists of: i.
induction, a general model, from a great number* of individual facts (which
could also fit into other models); and ii.
a consensus among scientists. Neither of these, according to scientific discipline,
may be called evidence. Therefore it is characterised as ‘worldview’; and
therefore the question of the meaning of ‘worldview’.
*Some say “selected”; but
“great number of individual facts” does not refer to a preponderance of
evidences, but rather to the wide incorporation of the model into all the
fields and divisions of the sciences, which are many. There are also a great
number of facts that do not fit into the model, but evolutionists are
satisfied, generally, that this is more so because of not seeing how they fit
rather than from not fitting. But to dismiss the evolutionary model would
seriously change many fields of scientific study in our time. Thus: the “great
number” and “consensus” are seen as evidences.
4. One may well ask the
Christian evolutionist the question of Acts 26 as applied to this discussion, “How
is it that you (who believe in God) find it incredible that God should create
the world in six days?”
