INTRO: WHAT’S A WORLDVIEW?
We’re building a Christian worldview from scratch this month. (SLIDE) So first let’s ask, what is a “WORLDVIEW”? (SLIDE) A worldview is a set of assumptions we hold about the basic makeup of the world. Such as
- (SLIDE) What is the nature of reality?
o Some worldviews will assume reality is fundamentally material
o Other worldviews assume reality is fundamentally spiritual.
- (SLIDE) What is the nature of people?
o Are we electrochemical machines?
o Are we sleeping gods?
o Do we have free will? Is all predestined?
- (SLIDE) What happens to us at death?
o Do we terminate?
o Are we held in spiritual stasis?
- (SLIDE) What is the basis of value or morals?
o Is it the character of God?
o Is it instinct for survival?
Now, having a worldview is like having a heart. You can go your whole life not ever talking about your heart, or seeing it operate, but everyone has one, and it is operating in you and on you ALL THE TIME. In the same way, you could hold your assumptions about the world for years, and
- never question them,
- never even give them any thought.
For most of history, this is the way it was. Why? Well, most people would live their whole life and not travel more than 20 miles from their hometown. Which means you could live cradle to grave and never meet anyone who disagreed with your assumptions about the world. So you’d just take your worldview for granted.
Ah, but today, thanks to technology and travel, other worldviews have been brought right next door. So where your Christian grandparents didn’t have to think about Islam or Secular Humanism or Zen Buddhism, or Oprah Winfrey-ism, these days you can’t go a day without an alien worldview being thrown in your face, on TV, Facebook.
Well, if you’re a rational and humble person, all this exposure to other worldviews leads to questions. Like:
- (SLIDE) Are my assumptions about the world right just because they’re MY assumptions?
- Just because they’re the answers that I absorbed from my family, or culture, does that make them RIGHT? Truthful?
So today, Christianity is not the only worldview option available to a humble rational person. We live in a world where Christianity, has to compete in a marketplace of worldviews. The question is, can it compete?
- For those of you in investigation mode, that’s the money question, right? Does Christianity have a rational basis? Are its assumptions warranted based on the evidence in the world? Does it do the best job of collecting all the available data about the world into an operating theory that A) works, B) is logically consistent and C) corresponds to reality?
o In short, IS IT TRUE?
- For those of you who are Christians, this series will challenge you. “I already assume a Christian worldview, so how will it challenge me?” Because every reason we present this month to believe it’s true, is a reason to live more boldly following Jesus and less ashamed or cowed by other views.
o (SLIDE) To both believers and seekers I say this: for a person to be intellectually honest you should not only be able to detect the worldview of other people, you should know exactly why, in light of so many options available, you think yours is true.
WHAT IS TRUTH?
Now that one word “TRUE” leads us to our topic today. WHAT IS TRUTH? When on trial, Jesus stood before governor Pilate and said:
- (SLIDE) John 18:37-38 …for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
o So it seems that the question, what is TRUE was of paramount importance to Jesus. He unambiguously claimed to be in possession of TRUTH. Then, He draws a line through the human race and says, if you want truth, you need to be on MY side of the line!
o (SLIDE) But I want you to notice what Pilates response to him was?
"What is truth?" Pilate asked.
That right there sums up a tension in our day about truth. Is truth TRUE?
VERSIONS OF TRUTH
See, I know that already some of you have a problem. Because you don’t think we should talk about TRUTH and RELIGION in the same sentence. There’s too much disagreement/conflict. So we kind of side with Pilate a bit: “What is TRUTH?” after all?
(SLIDE) When faced with that question people answer in different ways. I’ve come up with different animal metaphors to describe the different TRUTH camps we fall into:
- FIRST IS THE OSTRICH CAMP. Their answer, “TRUTH IS WHAT’S INTERNALLY CONSISTENT FOR YOU.” An Ostrich when faced with danger or threat will stick it’s head in the sand (myth). Inside its own head, the Ostrich has no problems, it’s view of the world is consistent and logical. It might not match the world outside, but it doesn’t matter as long as the TRUTH is internally coherent.
o This view has a name, the COHERENCE view of truth.
- (SLIDE) SECOND IS THE RAINBOW TROUT CAMP. Their answer, “TRUTH IS RELATIVE TO YOUR CONTEXT.” The Trout has a rainbow made up of all these different colors being refracted from the same white light. SO, for these people, truth may look and sound differently in different contexts, but somehow all truth claims are really equal or the same.
o This view has a name, the RELATIVIST view of truth.
- (SLIDE) THIRD IS THE BEAVER CAMP. Their answer, “TRUTH IS WHAT WORKS.” A Beaver makes dams and lodges and that works for him, even if it disrupts the ecosystem or environment of the forest he lives it. If it works for you, it’s true. A person who performed a native dance around their car every morning to protect it from deer collisions says, “after 11 years, I’ve never hit a deer! See, it’s true.”
o That view has a name, the PRAGMATIC View of truth.
- (SLIDE) FOURTH IS THE CROW CAMP. Their answer, “TRUTH IS WHAT CORRESPONDS TO REALITY.” A Crow is a problem solver - they’ve been known to work through a six stage puzzle using tools and uncomfortable trial and error to get a food prize. This is the person who sees different worldviews as a puzzle of clues to sort through to find what’s real.
o That view has a name, the CORRESPONDENCE View of Truth.
(SLIDE) So, which is your view of truth:
- Ostrich,
- Rainbow
- Beaver
- Crow?
Now class, let’s play Sesame Street, because ONE of these things is not like the others! See, the Ostrich, the Rainbow Trout, the Beaver truth CAMPS all say that truth is something that is DETERMINED – or chosen. (SLIDE) That is, it’s determined in some sense, subjectively, by YOU.
- By its logic
- By its context or
- By its results
(SLIDE) Only one view looks at TRUTH as something to be DISCOVERED. That’s the Crow Camp – the CORRESPONDENCE VIEW of truth. It’s this view, and only this view I want to argue, that’s correct.
So why does it matter?:
- If truth is DETERMINED (Chosen), then of course it’s silly to go about defending any worldview because there’s as many truths as there are people who choose them! So why defend one thing as true? It’s like defending the idea that RED is the best color. Ah, but…
- If truth is DISCOVERED, then that means truth is independent of you. It’s OBJECTIVE. It’s ABSOLUTE. So attempting to find out those absolute truths matters. If truth is discovered then it makes sense to do what Jesus said to do:
o (SLIDE) Luke 11:9-10 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
o If truth is discovered it makes sense to seek it out – even at the risk of losing of some cherished ideas! Because if truth corresponds to reality, it doesn’t care about how it makes you feel, about your context, or even if it works.
It only cares about one thing: What’s REAL.
And since eternity might just be on the line, I’d say reality is worth discovering.
But now let’s ask if we have reasons to define truth like the crow and not like the beaver, trout or ostrich? Do we have reasons to believe TRUTH is OBJECTIVE and not SUBJECTIVE? We do and the main reason is a little rule of logic we call…:
“THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION”
Have you heard of this? It goes like this:
- A thing cannot be both “A” and “not A” at the same time.
- You could look at it as an equation like this:
o (SLIDE) If A is true, not-A cannot be true.
- So just input any proposition into the formula and you see how it works.
o EG: The Space Needle is located in Seattle. SO:
(SLIDE) If the Space Needle is located in Seattle, then it cannot be true that the Space Needle is NOT located in Seattle. OR
• The Space Needle cannot be both in Seattle and not in Seattle at the same time.
This is easy enough. But problems start when you begin inputting worldview propositions into the formula. Take a simple idea like:
- “The Buddha offers the only way to a wonderful afterlife”
o If the Buddha offers the only way to a wonderful afterlife, it cannot be true that a non-Buddha offers the only way to a wonderful afterlife.
- God is personal
o (SLIDE) If God is personal then it cannot be true that God is impersonal.
What this means is simply this: if two religious claims are mutually exclusive, meaning, one affirms A and the other affirms non A at the same time, they violate the law of non-Contradiction. But in fact, people violate it all the time when they say things like:
- All religions are equally true.
- All religious statements are equally valid Or
- All paths lead to God.
Now, just because you’re making religious claims doesn’t make you exempt from the law of non-Contradiction. To prove it, here’s a true story of a Christian who was in a conversation with a Zen Buddhist. He asked him the following question:
if Jesus was right when He said that he was the only way of salvation, isn’t it true that the Buddha CANNOT be a way of salvation?
The man said no!
“What’s wrong with you Christians, always someone wrong and someone right. Why can’t it be that Christianity is true for YOU and Buddhism is true FOR ME?”
The Christian said, so you disagree with the law of non-contradiction? Because the law says, A cannot equal not-A. Are you saying, it’s true that Christianity is the Only way and it’s true that non-Christianity (Buddhism) is ALSO the Only Way?
Yes, he said.
So what about the law of non-contradiction?
Well, said the Buddhist, I don’t believe in that law. It’s a western idea, the East doesn’t accept it.
(And now I want you to see the diagram he drew because it shows how no one escapes the law of non-contradiction. SLIDE)
The Christian said, ‘SO you’re telling me you believe in a different law, let’s call it a law of relativism. The law could be drawn like this:
- “A” CAN equal non-A at the same time.
o The Space needle can be in Seattle and not in Seattle at the same time?
o Something can be true and it’s opposite can also be true at the same time?
- “Yes” the Buddhist said, “the law of non-contradiction is clearly false.”
Let’s call that law, “A”.
So that would mean the law of contradiction was “NOT A”, right?
“Sure.”
So you’re saying that because the law of relativism is true that the law of non-contradiction cannot be true? “Yes” said the Buddhist. (SLIDE)
- AC3 you realize what just happened?
- He was saying that Relativism was TRUE and therefore the opposite, Non-Contradiction could not be TRUE. But he used NON-CONTRADICTION to disprove NON-CONTRADICTION!
o Which shows one thing: the law is absolute, like gravity.
We have a word for what the Buddhist tried to do. It’s called self defeating. It’s like saying, “I cannot speak any English words.” Let me give you another example:
- “All Canadians are liars”. Since I’m a Canadian, for me to say that, is self defeating. If you take my statement as true, you cannot take my statement as true!
The Buddhist, in trying to deny the law of non-contradiction, asks you to accept the law of non-contradiction, thus disproving his point. Relativism is false.
So what’s my point? Any view of TRUTH that asks you to violate the law of non-contradiction is false. Go back to the Ostrich, Beaver, Trout and Crow? Remember:
- In the Ostrich view you could believe something in your head but it’s not true outside your head.
- In the Beaver view you could see something working, but it’s not in harmony with what’s going on in the forest.
- In the Rainbow view you see all claims being somehow the same, even if they don’t agree with each other.
o In each of these views of truth the law of non-contradiction is violated. Something can be both A and not A at the same time.
The ostrich can be sitting on a sunny beach in his head while he’s really about the eaten by a lion.
The beaver can be experiencing great benefits believing he’s not changing the forest at all when clearly he is.
The rainbow trout can think all the colors are one when clearly they are very different.
o Each of these try to tell you that two mutually exclusive ideas can somehow both be true. But since they violate the law of NC, all those views of truth are false.
RELIGIOUS RELATIVISM
ONLY the Crow has it right. Because only the CROW says that what’s true is simply what’s REAL. Truth is harmony between statement and reality. Well, no one disagrees with this when it comes to things that can be verified by science. But should we really hold to this view when it comes to religion?
Isn’t truth in religion different somehow?
So sure, all sane and educated people believe that the earth is round. This idea corresponds to REALITY, we say. And if you think the earth is flat, we say you are simply wrong. No if ands or buts about it. Just wrong. False. We wouldn’t say,
- well, if logically fits in your head, then the earth is flat. OR
- If it works to treat the earth as flat, then it is true OR
- Being flat and round at the same time is possible
o NO! We would say, the earth is round and your brain waves are flat!
But in religion, we think the law of non-contradiction is suspended. We look at all the competing religious ideas out there and if we held to the law of non-contradiction, we’d know these religions can’t ALL be true. But, that seems arrogant! It’s so uncomfortable for people to admit this, they try to get around it another way. A famous illustration will demonstrate:
THE PROBLEM WITH THE ELEPHANT
(SLIDE) The elephant and the blind men: This says, people of different religions are all groping around trying to find truth, like blind men groping an elephant. One has the tail, the other the trunk etc. Each one gives wildly different descriptions of the "true" elephant.
- God is like a rope
- God is like a hose
- God like a blanket
o Which one is right? They seem mutually contradictory. Ah but wait! In a way, they’re all right, because they’re all touching the same thing.
o So we're told, just like that, all religions are equally valid, they just describe a different part of the "god essence".
This gets around the non-contradiction law while remaining relativistic. How so? Well, there is a real and objective Elephant, that corresponds to reality. But our problem is that we understand only part. So it’s our partial knowledge that creates the contradictions, but underneath it all, its’ one and the same Elephant/God we reaching for.
It’s an interesting analogy but it happens to be another example of a self defeating argument. How so?
Well, it says that all of us are blind people only grasping part of the truth. “We’re all just blind men describing gods subjectively”. But wait a minute, who is telling us this? Is this person ALSO a blind man describing things subjectively? No! The person telling the elephant story makes an exception to their rule for themselves:
They see! They stand above the situation telling you the truth.
But let me ask you this question.
- How do they know this?
- Can you see the contradiction? They’re saying:
o We’re all blind, but, let me tell you how it REALLY is!
If you are or you know a religious relativist, you have to grabble with this question:
“how do you KNOW that God cannot be known?”
You see, that is itself a claim to know something, right? You know God so well that you KNOW he would never reveal himself in any ONE religion. Well, who said? You must know a lot about God to KNOW he would never limit himself to ONE way, ONE religion, ONE savior.
What if God made himself completely known to only one nameless pygmy living in Africa in 1348? And that little guy is the only one with the Truth about God. How do you know so much about God that you know he would NEVER do that? How do you know so much about God that you KNOW that he cannot be known?
So the religious pluralist, in denying you the right to make truth claims about God has made an enormous truth claim about God – and cut off the branch they’re sitting on in the process!
(BLACK) CONCLUSION
And that summarizes our point today:
- Truth is absolute. It’s what corresponds to reality.
- So when TRUTH claims are contradictory, one of two things is true:
o Either they’re both false OR
o One is true and the other is FALSE, BUT
o They can’t BOTH be true.
- We can’t get around this, not by postulating the Pineapple God theory or the Elephant God theory. They don’t work, because they either postulate a self defeating argument:
o “all truth cannot be known” – except for the statement I just made!
- OR because they violate the inviolable law of non contradiction
o “All these mutually contradictory things are true at the same time.”
So AC3, if you’re with me, we’re ready to ask the next question no one wants to ask: if TRUTH is Absolute, WHICH RELIGION IS TRUE? We should be humble here, of course. The Christian admits that we see in a glass darkly – “we know in part”. But if TRUTH is ABSOLUTE, we should eagerly examine our worldview options:
Next week: “The ISMS”
