Worldview Analysis: An Analysis

Question from Jerry:
I was recently debating a good friend of mine and asked him to justify Christianity or show evidence that it is the one one true religion. He claims that it is the only religion that demonstrates itself to be the best possible logical and rational choice based on worldview analysis. Worldview analysis is a tool to sift through the basics of each and all religions without having to take years of comparative religion courses or study to separate the religion which has the best chance of being true, based on the evidence. I’m researching a rebuttal to his strong argument by reading up on Naturalism, Structuralism and the ideas of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung, as I believe my friends’ attempt to compare Poetic (Metaphorical) Truth with Physical or Natural Truth to be flawed. I was wondering how many different approaches there are to counter his position?

Answer by SmartLX:
Worldview analysis is a tool for evaluating a community’s values, priorities and outlook, developed by a scientist who’s a Christian but appears to use this tool for secular purposes. The version that’s applied to try and rank religions is either unrelated or a major bastardisation. Here’s an example where you answer a bunch of questions from the perspective of a given religion’s doctrine, and compare the answers to your own values.

If your friend is throwing around terms like “poetic truth” as a serious rival to empirical fact (likely “physical/natural truth” in his terminology), the criteria on which he rates different worldviews are going to be worthless to many. He also recognises that religions need to commandeer and redirect the meaning of the word “truth” to have a decent chance of being established as “true” themselves.

I think the most important thing is for you to distinguish at any given time which of two questions is being asked: what worldview best reflects reality, or what worldview is best or nicest to have. I think your friend’s system will drive the discussion towards the latter whenever it can, because the latter legitimately does not require evidence. Christianity may be a beneficial worldview for one’s physical and mental wellbeing in a number of scenarios regardless of whether it’s true, the following two most obviously:

– If Christianity is the majority religion, and especially if non-Christians are looked down upon or actively persecuted. It sucks to be in any victimised minority.
– If the tenets of Christianity match your own values very closely, in other words if Christianity gets a very high score when you do the questionnaire above. To believe that the universe as a whole reflects your own outlook can be a big boost to the ego.

If your friend is arguing along these lines, he’s answering your question by attempting to justify Christianity as a lifestyle choice, not verify its supernatural claims. And even if his reasoning on this is rock-solid and you eventually realise it would be better for you to be Christian, it’s only going to get you so far. You could live as a Christian, worship, donate, evangelise and all the rest of it, but if nothing has actually convinced you that God is real and Jesus is his still-living son then you would be a false Christian. And hey, maybe he’s okay with that, but I don’t think I would be if I were a believer.

4 thoughts on “Worldview Analysis: An Analysis”

  1. SmartLx. Your view of Christianity is flawed. I’m pretty sure you have seen those who are attempting as Christians. If they aren’t really Christians they will actually not be making that much of a difference in the world, their communities, or themselves. They may cause others to have a dim view of Christianity, or worse, to have made them loose interest in it all together. But where Christianity is not just trying to be lived, where in the heart of the Christian, Christ has been allowed to reign supreme, where God’s love has been allowed to overflow, then that makes all the difference in the world. The problem is you believe that all the good that is done because of Christianity can be done, by a world view. You don’t even recognize that when good is not being done, it is not being done because of the world view. People who, because of the world view, think for and about themselves, more than for others. That survival of the fittest mentality, that is accepted because, we are after all, “only animals” deep down, has made the world view to be accepted by the many, even with some Christians, to be the way it is.
    And before a person comes to Christ, that is the way it is. Because, the, me,” myself and I”, norm that is idolized and cherished by those who are not Christians, and by those Christians who have not given their all, prevents them from being able to even see that life would be better if all would live as Christ, through His Word, has told us how to live. Turn the other cheek, is seen as a “good” concept, but not reality. Love your enemy, sounds like the person has not walked in “my neighborhood”. And “do unto others as you would have others do unto you”, Has been more accepted as “do unto others before they do unto me”. That is the world view. And that is because the world has not been willing to accept that the Bible is not just a book. That is not fiction. But it is a love letter from God, to us to let us see, that the way that Christ lived He will live through each and every person who is willing to want to not accept what is this reality, but what is the true reality in Christ. The word view tells you that the good being done, is by accident, much like evolution, that all the things came together accidentally and something good came from it. But, the universe, life and the good that is done, became possible, because an intelligence, made the decision to love. Love even if it hurts. Love even if it calls for sacrifice. Love even if it means paying the ultimate price. And that is not asked for in the world view, or from any other venue. We only get this from following what God has shown us to be His biblical heavenly view. And which He now wants to impart to all those willing to make that ultimate sacrifice and surrender themselves to Him.

  2. Gerad, YOUR (highly IRRELEVANT) opinion of Smartxl’s view, (that is, of SCIENCE) of the world, is FLAWED, NOT HIS AND OF SCINECE, for the simple reason that SMARTXL and all the ATHEISTS, including myself, BASE their (our) atheism (absence of belief in ‘god’ and belief in the finds of relevant newest finds of SCIENCE), in the relevant field on the newest relevant scientific finds, themselves being based on evidence, while YOU and the LIKE of YOU ‘base ‘ your world ‘views’ on the LIES RELIGIOUS idiotic books tell the GULLIBLE INCOMPETENT SCIENTIFICALLY NOT LEARNED IMBECILES like yourself.

    I didn’t even WASTE my TIME and NERVE to read the rest of your post further than your first idiotic sentence which adds up to your supporting religious lies and telling Smartxl that HE is flawed, thus saying that SCIENCE is flawed.



  3. I dare because what you are claiming as truth, is a lie. We know this because your, and all those others who claim evolution as your god, are never providing any kind of physical proof for support. I dare because of the way you become incest at the plainness and openness of the truth that I present. Your irrationality to prefer lies even though it has been shown that there is no support for this lies, shows that truth, will change your opinion, or it will cause you to be swallowed up more and more by the lie you cherish.
    I have asked you over and over again to provide what you can as support for your belief in evolution. And all you give are the same lies that you have been told with nothing as proof. All they provide are the same speculative assumptions that never have had evidence to back them up. And this is not proof. This is just pointing back at what others have told you. Proof is laboratory research that demonstrates that what was speculation was shown to be actual events. Life from non life? Ok. we understand the assumption. Now show us how this actually happened. A reduplication of the process that shows the assumption in action. Ok. All species coming from one first organism. We get the assumption. Now show us how it happened by either showing that it happened, at least once, or reduplicate the process with the micro type of evolution that you claim happened in the beginning. Remake the process. Make that first life and then make it go through same processes that brought the next species, and the next. Really. All you need to do is give us that first life actually changing into the next step in evolution. And while you are at it, provide the explanation that explains why many scientists say that it appears that all organisms appeared to have come to be all at once, just like the Bible narrative givens in the first Chapter of Genesis. Explain why Charles Darwin and other evolutionists then and now, say that the absence of transitional fossils that are supposed to show the movement from one species to another down through the millions of years, actually instead shows that each organism has produced itself and never any other organism. I hope I’m not taxing your mind, but I’m afraid that no one could do what I’v asked because the evidence you are saying is there has never ever materialized.

  4. And NIKI why are you so surprised or in denial about science being flawed. Science has always needed to go back and reform theories. Make new assumption. Erase old accepted theories and labeling them as false assumptions. Even evolution has gone through this process, with many scientists saying that they don’t understand evolution. They say that they know what it is supposed to do, but they say that they can’t see it happening as it has been said to have happened. So explain all of this, And I’ll come and dance at your wedding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *