First of all, I have to take issue with phrases like “Atheist worldview” and “Christian worldview”. What do these terms even mean? There is no uniform Atheist or Christian worldview. If there was such a thing as a uniform Christian worldview, there would not be 35,000 denominations worldwide. If there was such a thing as an Atheist worldview, we would not have subsets such as freethinkers, rathionalists, humanists, and objectivists.
Secondly, Atheists do not have to believe anything about origins. As an Atheist, I don’t know any more about the origin of the universe than Christians do; the difference is that Christians have faith that they do. And that’s it–you have faith and no concrete evidence of your view of origins.
Christians mistake scientific hypotheses about origins for beliefs about origins. The only thing scientists know for sure about the universe is that it began to expand. Nobody knows what happened to make it expand; nobody knows what happened before that expansion. Nobody. Again, Christians have faith that they do, which is not the same as knowing.
Irreducible complexity has been rejected as a hypothesis because those systems alleged to be irreducibly complex can be reduced to component parts. For example, if your eye had no cones, you would only see in shades of gray. If you had no rods, you would still perceive light.
Hi Greg,
I will answer briefly:
1. Similar to a philosophical system, a worldview is a way of explaining reality. It attempts to answer basic questions about the nature of human existence. Where did we come from? Where are we going? What is truth? What is ultimate reality? A worldview attempts to answers those questions and others.
Everyone has a worldview, whether it be Hindu, Atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc., that provides answers to these questions. It should be noted that a worldview is closely related to, but not equal to, one’s theology. There are Christians who differ on theological points, but share the same worldview. If you would like to learn more about worldviews, James Sire has done an excellent study of them in his book, “Naming the Elephant.”
2. To say that all atheists believe nothing about origins is not true. Most atheists believe in the big bang, or something similar. Perhaps you don’t believe in the big bang, but most atheists do, and do say otherwise is an unfair generalization.
Your statement raises a question in my mind. If you say we can’t know for sure about the origin of the universe,and that all we can do is guess, can you authoritatively say that it was not created by a deity? If all we have is uncertainty, it is possible that the universe was created by a deity unless you could prove authoritatively that it was not. This would require knowing for sure how the universe was created. The problem is, you have already chosen to exclude a deity from your system of belief, your worldview, and therefore exclude that from possible origins of the universe. Even though you claim we can’t know, you claim to know for sure that God wasn’t it. This is a claim of belief, not fact, as are all authoritative truth claims of atheists.
1. I take issue with lumping all Christians into one worldview, and Atheists into another, simply because painting either general category with such generalizations as “God did it” or “I have no evidence of gods” doesn’t describe a worldview at all. There are vast differences between being a young Earth creationist and a Christian who accepts the scientific estimate of the universe’s expansion timeline. There are huge differences between an objectivist Atheist and a humanist Atheist, as well; lumping them together hardly describes what shapes their thought processes. To say that Catholics (generally contextualists) and Pentecostals (bibilical literalists) have the same worldview is bordering on the ridiculous; the only position they share is the “God did it” one.
2. Some Atheists–and this is a real problem I have with some of my fellow nonbelievers–engage in scientism, which is the belief that a generally accepted hypothesis is true. They respect and trust science, but they don’t really understand it as well as they should if they’re going to engage in debate about it. If you ask scientists, they would not commit to such concrete belief.
Most Atheists I know (and I know quite a few, being a member of the Michigan Atheists State Board of Directors) do understand enough about science to know that nothing is one hundred percent certain–but there’s such a thing as certain enough. A hypothesis becomes a theory when it has practical applications and explanatory power. When an idea reaches the point of being a theory, it is certain enough.
By the way, I never said that all Atheists believe nothing about origins; I said that we don’t have to–and we don’t. I didn’t become an Atheist because of science or discussions regarding origins; I first rejected religion because I read the Bible, did research, and found it lacking in credibility. I did research on other religions after that, but none have anything more than myth to offer me.
Greg presented two coherent and articulate responses that addressed the issue precisely. It is obvious that he has a good education and he should therefore be shown the appropriate respect.
If you watch any of the widely available interviews that feature the prominent atheist Ayn Rand, she makes it is clear that she and her Randian / objectivist followers do not necessarily believe in the “big bang”. She simply says that she does not know about the origins of the world.;This is a perfectly rational, though atheist, position.
The notion of a worldview as Mr. Piper described it is much to simplistic, a “typically shallow American idea” if you will, to accurately cover the topics he proposes. Greg understood as much.
Traditionally, this worldview phrase had been used in international politics to describe the decision-making mindset of heads of state who had their respective national interests at heart.
Christianity is ultimately about us pursuing our own interests and additionally, the interests of others, with a special focus on the weak and vulnerable.
In this sense, a Christian worldview can be described as mirroring the outlook of a warrior-poet or mother. Each of these characters has imagination and sacrifice.
Imagination is the hope and vision that the warrior has for his new “Jerusalem”. And though he sacrifices his very life, the warrior is meek to the children, women and other weaker folk. He is not ashamed to associate with people of weakness, and he is not harsh with them. In this sense he is the poet.
Similarly, mothers are gentle with their children, yet have a vision for the child’s future. A mother bear is dangerous to anyone who would bring harm to her cub, and a human mother is willing to die for her baby.
The mother and warrior poet share imagination and sacrifice. They share one more thing as well.
In the end, the warrior-poet and mother are glorified above all people. This is the worldview of a Christian.
I saw that you referenced G.K. Chesterton in the latest Slice post.
You do know he converted to Catholicism, right?
That means that his “foundational truth” was not the Bible, but a combination of Sacred Tradition, the Church Hierarchy, and the Bible all in harmony.
G.K. Chesterton understood masculinity and femininity quite well – and he understood clearly the idea that masculinity is a combination of imagination and sacrifice.
Thomas,
Your comment has little to do with this article, but I will respond anyway.
Yes, I know Chesterton converted to Catholicism, and yes, we would most certainly disagree on the issue of ultimate authority. That was not the point in the post on Slice however. The post was regarding the issue of humility in asserting absolute truth claims. In that context, Chesterton was absolutely right.
I am not one to say that everyone has to agree with me on everything to say something valid. Atheists, agnostics, Catholics, and others can all say true things at times, due to God’s common grace. What is true, though, is ultimately determined by God through scipture. So yes, Chesterton and I would disagree on authority, but we would agree on the issue of humility, or modesty, in knowledge of absolute truth.
In regards to your previous comment, they are certainly an intersting perspective, but that’s all they are–intersting. Trying to boil the Christian worldview down to a literary archetype that you may have studied in school is, as you put it, far too simplistic. Despite their similarities, the Christian worldview has little or nothing to do with the archetypes you describe, and the Christian worldview most certainly did not spring from these archetypes. The Christian worldview, like all worldviews, deals with questions of ultimate reality–not simply being “meek” to children and women. Thank your for your input, but you have failed to show, other than simply making the assertion, how literary archetypes are the foundation for anything.
“Atheists, agnostics, Catholics, and others can all say true things at times, due to God’s common grace.”
This is an excellent quote, Sam.
In other words, people of all beliefs may stumble upon the “mountain of truth”, and we ought to listen to this truth and acknowledge it when we hear it. Jesus explained the same in the parable of the Good Samaritan, perhaps?
Without a full understanding, the Samaritan was “good” by accident. Through the grace of God, he had stumbled upon the portion of the “mountain of truth” that says that we ought to care for the weak and injured. He was acting in a Jewish way, even though he did not follow or understand the Jewish law.
I do feel badly that I have failed to communicate (make common) the true Christian worldview. I studied technical subjects like physics, engineering and finance in University, rather than the arts. Perhaps this adds to my difficulty in expressing clearly the nature of, well, the entire reality of the world.
Sam, the ultimate reality is our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the beginning and end, he is the Creator of all life. He is the “hyper-masculine”.
A man may imagine a future and work hard and sacrifice to accomplish a goal, but God simply spoke, and it came to be.
For us to be Christians – to pursue holiness – we must be like Christ. The only way to be like Jesus Christ is to be the shadow of the hyper-masculine in masculine or feminine manifestations.
King David was a man after God’s own heart – that is in your Bible – and this means that except for David’s adultery and murder, he behaved in the manner that God Himself would have behaved in the same situation.
David was a man, though, not a God – so it would be accurate to describe Israel’s greatest king as the masculine shadow of the hyper-masculine. King David was a strong warrior, with a meek heart. This is not a literary twist – it is the essence of a Godly man.
Solomon understood about his father, as he describes encountering one good man in a thousand, but he did not understand how a woman fits into this model.
Part of the problem we have today is rampant feminism (though it is worst in the USA compared to all other countries), where women think they are the equals of men.
If only Solomon could have lived for a thousand years, he would have found his answer.
The Virgin Mary made herself completely unequal to God. Through her ineqaulity, she became a mother – and she had the same imagination, hard work, and sacrifice for her son as King David had for Israel.
Mary was a woman after God’s own heart just as King David was a man after God’s heart. Both were holy, and the shadow of the hyper-masculine.
Furthermore, when a woman tries to be like Christ through taking the initiative and running things, she is not acting with a Christian worldview. It is only through motherhood that a woman finds salvation – though she need not be a physical mother. Sarah was a spiritual mother to all women, with her example of submission to Abraham.
Similarly, when a man does not take the initiative, or when he is a conqueror rather than the perfect warrior poet, he is not acting in a Christian manner.
God has no part feminine in his nature, yet men and women may both obtain holiness by acting through Christ and like him. The warrior poet and mother are the only ways in which to do so.
8 Comments
February 22, 2009 at 2:53 pm
First of all, I have to take issue with phrases like “Atheist worldview” and “Christian worldview”. What do these terms even mean? There is no uniform Atheist or Christian worldview. If there was such a thing as a uniform Christian worldview, there would not be 35,000 denominations worldwide. If there was such a thing as an Atheist worldview, we would not have subsets such as freethinkers, rathionalists, humanists, and objectivists.
Secondly, Atheists do not have to believe anything about origins. As an Atheist, I don’t know any more about the origin of the universe than Christians do; the difference is that Christians have faith that they do. And that’s it–you have faith and no concrete evidence of your view of origins.
Christians mistake scientific hypotheses about origins for beliefs about origins. The only thing scientists know for sure about the universe is that it began to expand. Nobody knows what happened to make it expand; nobody knows what happened before that expansion. Nobody. Again, Christians have faith that they do, which is not the same as knowing.
Irreducible complexity has been rejected as a hypothesis because those systems alleged to be irreducibly complex can be reduced to component parts. For example, if your eye had no cones, you would only see in shades of gray. If you had no rods, you would still perceive light.
February 22, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Hi Greg,
I will answer briefly:
1. Similar to a philosophical system, a worldview is a way of explaining reality. It attempts to answer basic questions about the nature of human existence. Where did we come from? Where are we going? What is truth? What is ultimate reality? A worldview attempts to answers those questions and others.
Everyone has a worldview, whether it be Hindu, Atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc., that provides answers to these questions. It should be noted that a worldview is closely related to, but not equal to, one’s theology. There are Christians who differ on theological points, but share the same worldview. If you would like to learn more about worldviews, James Sire has done an excellent study of them in his book, “Naming the Elephant.”
2. To say that all atheists believe nothing about origins is not true. Most atheists believe in the big bang, or something similar. Perhaps you don’t believe in the big bang, but most atheists do, and do say otherwise is an unfair generalization.
Your statement raises a question in my mind. If you say we can’t know for sure about the origin of the universe,and that all we can do is guess, can you authoritatively say that it was not created by a deity? If all we have is uncertainty, it is possible that the universe was created by a deity unless you could prove authoritatively that it was not. This would require knowing for sure how the universe was created. The problem is, you have already chosen to exclude a deity from your system of belief, your worldview, and therefore exclude that from possible origins of the universe. Even though you claim we can’t know, you claim to know for sure that God wasn’t it. This is a claim of belief, not fact, as are all authoritative truth claims of atheists.
February 22, 2009 at 11:39 pm
1. I take issue with lumping all Christians into one worldview, and Atheists into another, simply because painting either general category with such generalizations as “God did it” or “I have no evidence of gods” doesn’t describe a worldview at all. There are vast differences between being a young Earth creationist and a Christian who accepts the scientific estimate of the universe’s expansion timeline. There are huge differences between an objectivist Atheist and a humanist Atheist, as well; lumping them together hardly describes what shapes their thought processes. To say that Catholics (generally contextualists) and Pentecostals (bibilical literalists) have the same worldview is bordering on the ridiculous; the only position they share is the “God did it” one.
2. Some Atheists–and this is a real problem I have with some of my fellow nonbelievers–engage in scientism, which is the belief that a generally accepted hypothesis is true. They respect and trust science, but they don’t really understand it as well as they should if they’re going to engage in debate about it. If you ask scientists, they would not commit to such concrete belief.
Most Atheists I know (and I know quite a few, being a member of the Michigan Atheists State Board of Directors) do understand enough about science to know that nothing is one hundred percent certain–but there’s such a thing as certain enough. A hypothesis becomes a theory when it has practical applications and explanatory power. When an idea reaches the point of being a theory, it is certain enough.
By the way, I never said that all Atheists believe nothing about origins; I said that we don’t have to–and we don’t. I didn’t become an Atheist because of science or discussions regarding origins; I first rejected religion because I read the Bible, did research, and found it lacking in credibility. I did research on other religions after that, but none have anything more than myth to offer me.
February 23, 2009 at 5:04 am
Sam,
Greg presented two coherent and articulate responses that addressed the issue precisely. It is obvious that he has a good education and he should therefore be shown the appropriate respect.
If you watch any of the widely available interviews that feature the prominent atheist Ayn Rand, she makes it is clear that she and her Randian / objectivist followers do not necessarily believe in the “big bang”. She simply says that she does not know about the origins of the world.;This is a perfectly rational, though atheist, position.
The notion of a worldview as Mr. Piper described it is much to simplistic, a “typically shallow American idea” if you will, to accurately cover the topics he proposes. Greg understood as much.
Traditionally, this worldview phrase had been used in international politics to describe the decision-making mindset of heads of state who had their respective national interests at heart.
Christianity is ultimately about us pursuing our own interests and additionally, the interests of others, with a special focus on the weak and vulnerable.
In this sense, a Christian worldview can be described as mirroring the outlook of a warrior-poet or mother. Each of these characters has imagination and sacrifice.
Imagination is the hope and vision that the warrior has for his new “Jerusalem”. And though he sacrifices his very life, the warrior is meek to the children, women and other weaker folk. He is not ashamed to associate with people of weakness, and he is not harsh with them. In this sense he is the poet.
Similarly, mothers are gentle with their children, yet have a vision for the child’s future. A mother bear is dangerous to anyone who would bring harm to her cub, and a human mother is willing to die for her baby.
The mother and warrior poet share imagination and sacrifice. They share one more thing as well.
In the end, the warrior-poet and mother are glorified above all people. This is the worldview of a Christian.
February 28, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I love your site!
_____________________
Experiencing a slow PC recently? Fix it now!
March 17, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I saw that you referenced G.K. Chesterton in the latest Slice post.
You do know he converted to Catholicism, right?
That means that his “foundational truth” was not the Bible, but a combination of Sacred Tradition, the Church Hierarchy, and the Bible all in harmony.
G.K. Chesterton understood masculinity and femininity quite well – and he understood clearly the idea that masculinity is a combination of imagination and sacrifice.
March 17, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Thomas,
Your comment has little to do with this article, but I will respond anyway.
Yes, I know Chesterton converted to Catholicism, and yes, we would most certainly disagree on the issue of ultimate authority. That was not the point in the post on Slice however. The post was regarding the issue of humility in asserting absolute truth claims. In that context, Chesterton was absolutely right.
I am not one to say that everyone has to agree with me on everything to say something valid. Atheists, agnostics, Catholics, and others can all say true things at times, due to God’s common grace. What is true, though, is ultimately determined by God through scipture. So yes, Chesterton and I would disagree on authority, but we would agree on the issue of humility, or modesty, in knowledge of absolute truth.
In regards to your previous comment, they are certainly an intersting perspective, but that’s all they are–intersting. Trying to boil the Christian worldview down to a literary archetype that you may have studied in school is, as you put it, far too simplistic. Despite their similarities, the Christian worldview has little or nothing to do with the archetypes you describe, and the Christian worldview most certainly did not spring from these archetypes. The Christian worldview, like all worldviews, deals with questions of ultimate reality–not simply being “meek” to children and women. Thank your for your input, but you have failed to show, other than simply making the assertion, how literary archetypes are the foundation for anything.
March 18, 2009 at 1:46 am
“Atheists, agnostics, Catholics, and others can all say true things at times, due to God’s common grace.”
This is an excellent quote, Sam.
In other words, people of all beliefs may stumble upon the “mountain of truth”, and we ought to listen to this truth and acknowledge it when we hear it. Jesus explained the same in the parable of the Good Samaritan, perhaps?
Without a full understanding, the Samaritan was “good” by accident. Through the grace of God, he had stumbled upon the portion of the “mountain of truth” that says that we ought to care for the weak and injured. He was acting in a Jewish way, even though he did not follow or understand the Jewish law.
I do feel badly that I have failed to communicate (make common) the true Christian worldview. I studied technical subjects like physics, engineering and finance in University, rather than the arts. Perhaps this adds to my difficulty in expressing clearly the nature of, well, the entire reality of the world.
Sam, the ultimate reality is our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the beginning and end, he is the Creator of all life. He is the “hyper-masculine”.
A man may imagine a future and work hard and sacrifice to accomplish a goal, but God simply spoke, and it came to be.
For us to be Christians – to pursue holiness – we must be like Christ. The only way to be like Jesus Christ is to be the shadow of the hyper-masculine in masculine or feminine manifestations.
King David was a man after God’s own heart – that is in your Bible – and this means that except for David’s adultery and murder, he behaved in the manner that God Himself would have behaved in the same situation.
David was a man, though, not a God – so it would be accurate to describe Israel’s greatest king as the masculine shadow of the hyper-masculine. King David was a strong warrior, with a meek heart. This is not a literary twist – it is the essence of a Godly man.
Solomon understood about his father, as he describes encountering one good man in a thousand, but he did not understand how a woman fits into this model.
Part of the problem we have today is rampant feminism (though it is worst in the USA compared to all other countries), where women think they are the equals of men.
If only Solomon could have lived for a thousand years, he would have found his answer.
The Virgin Mary made herself completely unequal to God. Through her ineqaulity, she became a mother – and she had the same imagination, hard work, and sacrifice for her son as King David had for Israel.
Mary was a woman after God’s own heart just as King David was a man after God’s heart. Both were holy, and the shadow of the hyper-masculine.
Furthermore, when a woman tries to be like Christ through taking the initiative and running things, she is not acting with a Christian worldview. It is only through motherhood that a woman finds salvation – though she need not be a physical mother. Sarah was a spiritual mother to all women, with her example of submission to Abraham.
Similarly, when a man does not take the initiative, or when he is a conqueror rather than the perfect warrior poet, he is not acting in a Christian manner.
God has no part feminine in his nature, yet men and women may both obtain holiness by acting through Christ and like him. The warrior poet and mother are the only ways in which to do so.