Worldview matters. Clarifying worldviews is not an academic exercise, intellectual theory, or a philosophical concept. A worldview is an integral part of the lives of those you minister to on a weekly basis. It determines their relationships. It determines their successes and failure. It determines their goals and motivations. If you want to see someone change their lives, they’ll have to change how they look at the world first.
Every week as you stand before your people to share God’s Word, they’re bringing different worldviews into the room. What are some of these worldviews?
1. The one with the most toys wins.
This is the worldview of materialism – and it can be summed up with one world, more. Materialism says that the only thing that really matters in life is acquiring things. Those who subscribe to this worldview live mostly to collect things.
The Bible’s answer: Jesus said this in Luke 12, “A man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (NIV). He tells us not to judge our lives by how much we’ve got. The greatest things in life aren’t things.
2. I’ve got to think of me first.
We live in a “me first,” serve-yourself world that says it’s all about you. Commercial slogans cater to this viewpoint. Slogans like, “have it your way,” “we do it all for you,” “obey your thirst,” “you’ve got to think of what’s best for yourself,” and “You deserve it.”
For the last 40 years, the Baby Boomer generation has been called the “Me Generation.” This “me first” idea has infected entire communities. It has torn up marriages (“I don’t care how divorce impacts my spouse or children; it’s all about me”), destroyed workplaces (“I don’t care how my laziness impacts my co-workers; it’s all about me”) and even ruined churches (“Serve my needs first, forget about the lost”).
It’s a self-centered, individualistic way of life that says we should ignore the community and other people.
The Bible’s answer: Jesus says, “If you try to keep your life for yourself, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for me, you will find true life” (Matt. 16:25 NLT). Jesus says you only begin to live when you give your life away. Significance in life does not come from serving yourself; it comes from serving God and others.
3. Do what feels good.
This is hedonism – the belief that the most important thing in life is how we feel. The number one goal of a hedonist is to feel good, be comfortable, and have fun.
It’s the worldview that Hugh Hefner founded Playboy magazine on. He willingly acknowledges he is a hedonist.
It’s not just playboys who are hedonists, though. In fact, someone who lives for the goal of retirement is a hedonist. If the whole goal of a person’s life is to simply do nothing, live a self centered life, and make no contribution to the world, that’s hedonism.
The Bible’s answer: “Are you addicted to thrills? What an empty life! The pursuit of pleasure is never satisfied” (Prov 21:17 Msg). Mick Jagger’s been singing: “I can’t get no satisfaction” for 40 years. Why? The pursuit of pleasure is never satisfied.
4. Whatever works for you.
This worldview says it doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong. It doesn’t matter if it hurts anybody or not. If it works for you, fine. As that great theologian Sly Stone says, “Different strokes for different folks.”
In our multi-cultural, pluralistic world, this is a very popular worldview. Nobody wants to tell someone else that what they are doing is wrong. In fact that’s the only way you can be wrong in our society today – if you tell someone else they’re wrong.
The Bible’s answer: The Bible says, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death” (Prov. 14:12 NIV). Our ideas may seem right, but in the end our ideas lead to death. “Whatever works for you” leads to death. You don’t break God’s universal laws; they break you. Continue >>
RSS
I apologize."A Brief History of Time" is actually the name of Stephen Hawking's book, not "A Brief History in Time".My apologies to him and to all.
I do understand what you are saying about these being two different areas.However, both are under the heading of "Origins".I do agree with you that "A Brief History in Time" is a "good read".I had to read it in college "many moons ago", and it was an interesting read from what I can remember.
Actually, I was just asking a question based on the statement you just made.Do you find Creation of life by God to be just as incredible as life appearing by spontaneous generation? Because I don't.At least with God you have a cause.Spontaneous generation does not.If you can explain it to me, I am willing to listen to what you have to say, but nobody has adequately explained to me how life just suddenly appeared without a cause.
"So you think that a Creator creating from nothing is somehow just as impossible as something coming into existence all by itself? Is it self-created? Interesting!!!"
You're confusing the Big Bang with abiogenesis. The former deals with the origin of the universe. The latter deals with the origin of life on Earth. Both are separate fields of inquiry, since the origin of life on earth happened 9 - 10 billion years after the formation of the universe.
The June 2007 issue of Scientific American has a great article on abiogenesis. Also, A Brief History of Time is a great resource for cosmology and Big Bang theory.
Actually, I should use the word "incredible" not "impossible".
So you think that a Creator creating from nothing is somehow just as impossible as something coming into existence all by itself? Is it self-created? Interesting!!!
"Without a Creator, you're left to believe in "spontaneous generation", the idea that life suddenly appeared out of thin air."
Here's the bottom line for me: With a creator you're left to believe that life was created out of thin air. Spontaneous generation doesn't mean that plants and animals rose out of the ground in their current form. All it means is that somewhere, somehow, molecules started copying themselves. From there, evolution took over. That's easier for me to consider valid in the face of the available evidence than an omnipotent being creating everything, including life and then leaving no overtly convincing evidence of its existence.
"I apologize if I have characterized you as evil just because you disagree with me on the validity of Christianity."
I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you of mischaracterizing me, which wasn't my intent. The person who did the mischaracterizing was Rick Warren. Just a tip, Mr. Warren: If you want people to listen to your sermons it would be best if you don't call them evil first. (Not that I'd be in church anyway.)
"Whatever your take on it, thanks for giving me much to think about and for the tip on learning more about Quantum Physics."
I'm happy to hear I've made someone's day better and expanded their horizons.
I have been reading up on Quantum Physics.There is intrinsic randomness only if you accept the Copenhagen model.However, even within that model there is room for God, either as a Cosmic Observer or the Hidden Variable, stopping the infinite regress of causes.If the universe is seen as a quantum object, what or who outside the universe collapses its wave function? There is the possibility that all of this is illusion, in which case you and I are not even having this conversation.While Quantum Physics does seem to allow for the possibility that there is no God, it does not necesarily rule him out altogether.If you go to reasons.org, they seem to take the position that Copenhagen and Hidden Variables require a necessary being.Whatever your take on it, thanks for giving me much to think about and for the tip on learning more about Quantum Physics.It can only help me as I seek to learn more about God and His wonderful Creation!!
My purpose is not to characterize you in any negative way.We simply disagree.You want me to consider Quantum Physics, but it is only within the framework of my worldview that it even has a leg to stand on.Why should I consider it any more authoritative than anything else? Within the framework of your thinking, it only has whatever validity that we give to it.The laws of science denote a Lawgiver.I think you are open to the idea of objective truth, or you wouldn't have said it is not ok to hurt someone else.I apologize if I have characterized you as evil just because you disagree with me on the validity of Christianity.That is not my intent.We are merely having a discussion, and we just happen to disagree.I don't agree with you, but I would give my life for your right as an American to believe it.
Here is the bottom line "for me".You can have the right conditions for life all you want, but it still doesn't account for how life originated.Without a Creator, you're left to believe in "spontaneous generation", the idea that life suddenly appeared out of thin air.Poof, and there it was.It's like a magic trick without a magician.Louis Pasteur discredited it in the 19th century.Nobody has adequately explained that to me.That's why I'm not an atheist.
::begin quote::
Yes, and so do many other religious groups. This makes their claims no more or less valid than those of Christian theists. But if you think that you can make a persuasive argument based on "The bible said it therefore it's true," you're mistaken.
::end quote::
While I am not denying that some Christians willl say "The Bible said it therefore it's true", however this is not case I am making. What I was simply saying was.....Christianity has more than the Bible for it's basis for it's theistic claims. We believe we do have sufficient evidence within philosophical arguments, historical evidence, etc.
I am not saying that evidence is sufficient "enough" for everyone, or that everyone even agrees that evidence is actually evidence. Yet this is something everyone must weigh and look at for themselves.
Christianity, as a whole, is not making a claim for Theism, "Just because you can't disprove it" as the examples previously given would.
I have read The Purpose Driven Life and was in a group study of the book. It was refreshing to read and understand that God created me with a purpose and a plan in mind. That I was just poofed here out of the "black hole". To know that I was created in the image of Almighty God, had a profound impact on my life. My life had no meaning or purpose before. I was always searching and never finding answers, and my life was a living nightmare.
Through this study and other loving brothers and sisters in Christ, the Lord God showed me that my understanding and my knowledge was quite flawed and misinformed. I'm still a work in progress and I have more growing up to do. I realized that through God's teaching, that people places and things are gifts from God, but they can never take His place in my heart.
I was created for God's purpose, to love and be loved and to glorify Almighty God, I think that is a most significant meaning. God loves me and I sure do love Him, my life is not perfect in this world, but HE is perfecting me and I know that HE is working out HIS plan and HIS will shall be done on earth as it is in Heaven.
Man can choose to continue to not believe God. Rick Warren takes God at His word. Without God we have no meaning in our lives. Everything else fades away, people, places, things, they vanish, they die, the fall down, but God's love never dies! It is incredibly sad that man can be so blind to the love of God! I praise Him that HE opened my heart and mind to know the truth and I am so thankful to HIM for revealing Himself to me. HE is beyond description.
So, you can make the choice to believe God or to continue in your unbelief. Many in today's world do not want truth, they want to hear what they want to hear, and if it conflicts with what they want to do, the life they want to lead, then they dismiss it as untrue and that it has no meaning. It is because people live in rebellion against Almighty God, I know I used to live in that world too! So, I speak from experience of one who has denied God at one time in my life. I again, Praise HIM! for not counting my sin against me! I sing His praises for the Majesty He is! Wake up, we need to have a Biblical Worldview, not a humanistic one or any other kind. If you choose any other, why condemn those who choose to believe God. You don't wanna believe, so why you at a Christian web site?? Hmm, don't you have more important things to do then hang around a place where God is talked about all the time!
Thank You Jesus for opening my eyes and ears to hear Your voice and Your truth! For Your Glory Lord!
Last thing I`ve got to say, is ,...I want to THANK everyone that gets on these periodicals with a point of view/and or opinion,....because there is a HUGE education to be had out there and without trying to slam Intelligence and human smartness into a basic classification or category, I feel blessed to have my personal outlook increased alot because of the "Comment" category of Christianpost.com.,.....
Thanks again.....
"Either the universe is eternal and self-existent(which the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says is not the case), or it was created by an eternal and self-existent being.To say that it just happened by chance is non-sense"
I'd suggest reading up on quantum mechanics. Happening by chance is a perfectly valid scientific construct. Of particular interest is the thought experiment known as Schrodinger's Cat.
"If I take your TV set, how can it be wrong if there is no objective right or wrong?"
Rights only exist insofar as we agree as a society that rights exist. And the best argument for stating rights exist is that we've seen that the consequences are better if we respect human rights as universally as possible.
"[T]he evidence provided by Theists may not be convincing to the Atheist, but proof is different than persuasion. Indeed Christians have philosophical proofs (Cosmological argument, Transcendental argument, etc.), Historical proofs, and more."
Yes, and so do many other religious groups. This makes their claims no more or less valid than those of Christian theists. But if you think that you can make a persuasive argument based on "The bible said it therefore it's true," you're mistaken.
Don't get me wrong; as humanist I feel that human rights, including the rights both to believe and not to believe, are universal. I do not wish to outlaw religion anymore than I wish to live in a theocracy. I am just sick of being portrayed as evil, immoral, depressed, and nihilistic by theists, including Christians.
Well said, DannyPoo. Thanks for your input.I was sinking a little bit there!!
::begin quote::
And until we see evidence of a creator, which has yet to be found, the proper view is to assume one does not exist. Otherwise we would have to assume that every mythical creature we can imagine exists. I mean, you can't disprove that there aren't pixies making the electricity flow through a wire, right?
::end quote::
In your last sentence I understand your basic complaint. The claim to God, is in the perspective of many Atheists, a non-falsifiable claim and therefore untenable or rejectable. An example would be if I said "There is a pink unicorn behind Jupiter".
This claim would be incredibly difficult to disprove, and it would be unfair for the PinkUnicornist to say "See.....you can't disprove it....therefore it exists"
However, I hope the average Theist is not saying "see you can't disprove God, therefore God exists, this would be a great fallacy.
Yet, the Christian Theist doesnt make a claim with No evidence (such as a person claiming that a Pink Unicorn is behind Jupiter), the evidence provided by Theists may not be convincing to the Atheist, but proof is different than persuasion. Indeed Christian's have Philosophical proofs (Cosmological argument, Transcendental argument, etc.), Historical proofs, and more.
So I believe...it is unfair to parallel the Christian Theist's claims with say....the claims that a flying spaggetti monster exists.
I'll be the first to admit that Science is not my primary area of expertise.I majored in Religion/Philosophy in college, not Science.However, chance by it's very definition does not cause anything.It is the mathematical probability that something will occur.Either the universe is eternal and self-existent(which the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says is not the case), or it was created by an eternal and self-existent being.To say that it just happened by chance is non-sense(I don't mean that as a put down, but as a term of logic).Therefore, saying that there is a bing(God) who is eternal and self-existent is not akin to talking about mythical creatures.I will yield to you on the Natural Selection, since I am not a scientist and am not as knowledgeable as you are in this area.Also, you say that as long as you do not violate the rights of others, you should be free to live your life as you see fit.What if someone else wants to live as they see fit, regardless of your rights? You see the problem? The same people who say that there is no right or wrong start screaming that their rights are violated when someone does something aginst them.If I take your TV set, how can it be wrong if there is no objective right or wrong?
"Without God, there are only a couple of options. Either the universe is eternal and self-existent or everything did come about by random chance. Is there another possibility?"
Yes, but random chance is the cornerstone of quantum mechanics and at the scales that the Big Bang originated from, quantum mechanics has a significant effect. And until we see evidence of a creator, which has yet to be found, the proper view is to assume one does not exist. Otherwise we would have to assume that every mythical creature we can imagine exists. I mean, you can't disprove that there aren't pixies making the electricity flow through a wire, right?
"Some evolutionists have tried to get around this by ascribing 'god-like' qualities to nature, or using 'Natural Selection' as the explanation. Selection denotes a being capable of choosing."
The cornerstone of evolution is natural selection, and it does not imply the capability of choosing. All that natural selection means is that the beings unfit to live to breeding age and procreate will not pass their genes to the next generation. This is what's called being selected against. It's simply talking about natural genomic variations. A conscious element is never implied.
"If you say it has meaning because you say so, then it is subjective."
And what's wrong with subjectivity? I don't pretend to say what others lives should mean to them. If you find your meaning to life in acquiring wealth, good for you. As long as you do not violate the rights of others you should be free to live your life as you see fit.
It seems to me that Christians and other theists have a problem with uncertainty. The arguments against atheism tend to be about how life is "just random chance" and how atheists have "subjective morals." This says a lot about how the minds of Christians work.
This has become an interesting discussion, so I don't even know where to begin.Without God, there are only a couple of options.Either the universe is eternal and self-existent or everything did come about by random chance.Is there another possibility? Evolution is purely random, unless there is a "guiding hand" behind it.Some evolutionists have tried to get around this by ascribing "god-like" qualities to nature, or using "Natural Selection" as the explanation.Selection denotes a being capable of choosing.Also, if God does not exist, my life has no "ultimate" purpose(or purpose beyond what I ascribe to it).You can say it does have meaning and I can say it does not.If you say it has meaning because you say so, then it is subjective.This sounds like the "Green Book" in C.S. Lewis' book "The Abolition of Man".I recommend this book,by the way,to anyone who wants to hear a good discussion against relativism.
This is something interesting I`ve had forever and it makes sense, hopefully to Mr. Merkin, (absolutely no disrespectfulness intended to Mr Merkin,...obviously there is a credible opinion here) Is follows:
"And the new reality as seen by Quantum Physics aree all part of the same ineffable, invisible, meaning-giving "something" each is a glimpse from a different vantage point, each geves us a different impression that is true but not complete. Like the six blind men who groped for the reality of the elephant, we can grasp only part at a time, in this tale from India, the first blind man fell against the elephant`s side and said the elephat was like a wall. The second felt the tip of the tusk and was convinced an elephant was like a spear. The third. on feeling the squirming trunk, proclaimed an elephant was like a snake. The fourth put his arms around a leg and said the elephant was like a tree. The fifth, who felt the ear, declared that an elephant was very much like a fan; while the sixth,..on seizing the tail said of course an elephat was like a rope. All then fell to arguing about wo had the TRUTH,...while each of them had a part of the picture, all of them missed the the whole.
Or perhaps we are like Plato`s chained men in the cave, unable to see out, seeing only the flleeting shadows cast against the wall, making up theories and certainties about what is outsid the cave,....we can never fully grasp what is boundless, infinite. and eternal. Yet that small insight glimpsed or intuition felt-of the reality of the Tao, or of G--, or of self, in whatever form is psychologically central to human experience... Thanks, all......
While I can't speak for the other "worldviews" because I do not hold them (well, okay, maybe a little hedonism), I think your characterization of atheism is flawed.
While it is true that atheists or "naturalists" do not think god exists, this is far from thinking everything arose from random chance. Evolution is predictable adaptation to an environment. There is a small element of randomness, but it is, for the most part, entirely non-random.
And just because I do not think that god exists does not mean my life has no purpose. I am capable of finding my own meaning in my life. I live to better the lives of those I encounter. I have no need for a reward because these actions are rewards themselves. So your statement that naturalists have no value, meaning or purpose to their lives is false. I am proof of that.
The reason the Earth is situated on its axis how far it is from the sun is not a miracle of creation. We see the Earth the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it, or we would have evolved differently.
In other words: The Earth was not created for us, we evolved to suit most of the conditions on the Earth. What you are doing is like a water in a glass remarking at how well the glass was made to suit its form.
And it is far from perfect. Most of the places on the Earth are inhospitable to people. They can be too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, or even filled with poisonous fumes. The sun can give us horrible burns if we're in it too much. Are these, too, evidences of a designer, or of a species that has evolved to suit a niche and whose intelligence allowed it to spread around the globe?
The reason we have been such a successful species is not because of our environment, but because of our ability to learn and adapt our behavior to different environments.
I think that it is intellectually dishonest and harmful to the cause of unity to disrespect atheists this way. I am not in the habit of criticizing the beliefs of others, no matter how ridiculous I find them to be. It would be nice if you did the same.
One thing I believe the Christians should understand is this...
Christianity is the only major worldview that is not founded upon evolution. Humanism of course requires evolution. Even cosmic humanism/new age/pantheism insists upon man's evolving into god. I believe this issue has put Christians against the world in a sense because many fight so adamantly against evolution in the public school system, which, as we all should know, is where the next generation's leaders' worldview is being formulated.
As for Rick Warren, I believe he believes he's doing the right thing.
Warren forgot the most important worldview you need to guard against - the "Rick Warren Worldview." He doesn't speak for the majority of Christian believers, and I could give a hoot about his Purpose Driven Drivel. His book was incorrectly titled. He should've written the Christ Drive Church, but then again, it's all about Warren!!! Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing, especially when they smile at you and ask you to spell "P-U-R-P-O-S-E."
HampsteadPete,
To a certain degree you are correct. I am not fond of the labeling system he gave to that worldview. Mr. Warren may be using that term in reference to determined Morality, if so that phrase may be slightly more fitting. Unfortunately Mr. Warren left his description to vague to know what he meant specifically.
"You are your own God.
This worldview, otherwise known as humanism,"
What an absolute misrepresentation of Humanism, but what I would expect from this author. The following manifests a consensus of what humanists believe (from the AHA website):
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.
Nowhere in there do I find any reference to being one's own god. Nor, on the other hand, do I find any reference to being some "higher beings" puppy dog.
GoldenEagle - Thanks for the tip. Sproul is always worth reading. I'll keep an eye open for the book.
My apologies.I guess this list does deal with some of the philosophical worldviews to a lesser degree.I still think that picking up Sproul's book would be a good idea,because he goes deeper into some of the competing worldviews(much deeper than an article of this size would be able to do).
The list was not what I was expecting.I guess I was looking more for a list of competing philosophical worldviews.If you want such a list, you might want to pick up "Lifeviews" by R.C. Sproul or a similar book.He talks about competing worldviews,such as Secular Humanism and Existentialism.Just a thought.
Merkin - Look what you have to understand is that in a way Rick Warren is like the Democrats in the last election. They had to say the word "Haliburton" as many times as they could every time there was a microphone or keyboard in the room. Somehow they felt it would win the election for them. Mr Warren, in case there is a human that has managed to miss the fact, since announcing it has become part of his name, wrote a book called the PURPOSE Driven Life (and Church) To that end he finds it necessary to get it into everything he writes, says, and who knows what else. Obnoxious and annoying but there you are.
merkin,
I understand where you are coming from. I can see Mr. Warren's words can be interpreted to say that you can't "find" value in your life, or that you can't make a purpose (if that is the perspective he is coming from, then he is incorrect).
However, I think Mr. Warren is more or less taking a stab at the "Ultimate Purpose" of things, rather than the Purpose we make or apply to ourselves. In that perspective where we are merely matter, genes, flesh, etc. There is then no Ultimate Meaning or purpose other than what we "think" is some form of a purpose but in reality is just one atom being moved by another atom. In many ways, if naturalism is true, we percieve purpose where in reality there is just "matter".
DannyPoo,
Warren writes, very simply, that "For naturalists, life has no value, meaning, or purpose."
How is a "naturalist" expected to take such a condescending statement? Because I don't believe that anthropomorphic ideas like "purpose" should be grafted onto the universe at large, doesn't mean that I don't find purpose in my own life. It's insulting and arrogant to say that my world view is valueless, meaningless, and purposeless because I don't believe that I will live for all eternity. I see value, meaning, and purpose in THIS life, brief though it is. I see purpose in feeding the hungry, and fighting disease, and exploring outer space, and enjoying the companionship of my friends and family.
merkin,
Not that I am a big fan of Mr. Warren, however, his comparison is between the Christian worldview and the naturalistic worldview. If the naturalistic worldview is correct, then yes there is no "purpose", our genes may be geared towards survival. But since there is no transcendent purpose for genes, there is no ultimate purpose.
If the Christian worldview is correct, then indeed there is a transcendant purpose beyond what is natural.
I do not believe Mr. Warren is saying that your life is worthless, he is seemingly saying that in the context of naturalism, there is no ultimate purpose, merely existence. That is how I took it anyways.
For naturalists life has just as much meaning and value as it does for you, Mr. Warren. It's arrogant beyond words for you to say that my life is worthless because I don't share your faith in the supernatural. And next you'll be telling me that your Christianity has made you humble.