World View and Morality
Ethics and our social moral ideals rise from our worldview. A world view is a fundamental assumption about reality held by individuals and societies; a set of all encompassing preconceptions of what constitutes reality. Example: in many countries in the Middle East Islam is the fundamental preconception of reality (worldview) held by hundreds of millions from Egypt to Iran. From the time a Muslim child is born they hear the repeated creed “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet”. This creed colors everything the child will come to believe about reality and guide her in all of her private and social interactions. In the United States there is a melting pot of worldviews from Atheism to Christianity. Within each of these categories of worldviews there sub categories of presuppositions that further define and color a worldview. There are different denomination and traditions within the Christian faith, such as, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodox, and in Islam there are the Sunni and Shia traditions.
So what do worldviews have to do with ethics? How we perceive reality is how we cultivate our individual and social character. If an individual believes God exist and will hold them accountable for their thoughts words, and deeds she will direct her behavior accordingly. If an individual sees the world as a cosmic accident with no reason or purpose he will direct or alter his behavior according his perception of reality.
The western mind might find it difficult to comprehend the personal and cultural practices within other nations, such as, the reverence of cows in India, the mandated national prayer times in Islamic nations, or why some individuals abandon society to live in contemplative solitude. Outside of the United States some do not understand our idea of individualism and personal freedom. The way individuals and societies perceive reality through their worldview is how they will decide to develop the day to day norms and habits of their own culture as well as others.
How many worldviews are there? There are seven categories of worldviews:
1. Monotheism: There is an eternal, unchanging God who created the world and acts and speaks through prophets
2. Deism: There is an eternal, unchanging God who created the world, but does not act or speak in the world
3. Polytheism: There are many gods
4. Pantheism: God is everything and everything is God. The universe is eternal
5. Panentheism: God is present inside everything: God and the world interact and change like a soul in a body.
6. Atheism (Naturalism): There is no God. The universe is either eternal or a cosmic finite. All phenomena are naturally explained. Non-supernatural
7. Agnosticism: There is no way of knowing if God exist
All worldviews fit into one of these seven categories, so no matter how complex and diverse cultures may appear, the fundamental principles from which they rise will be related to one of the seven worldviews mentioned above.
According to Douglas R. Groothuis, Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary, There are eight criteria a worldview must meet to be considered logically and rationally viable:
- A worldviews essential ideas cannot be contradictory or appealed to as an unexplainable mystery. Example: if an atheist claims the world just exploded into existence from nothing, she cannot appeal to mystery. It is not logical that something comes from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing.
- Internal consistency. None of the essential ideas of a worldview can be contradictory with each other. Think about a courtroom. The witness is telling their story. If the facts within their story are contradictory they are not believed but if their story does not contradict itself the story could be true.
- All ideas must be coherent and interrelate. The essential ideas of a worldview cannot assert random facts, but provide a cohesive integrated explanation of reality. Example: if you ask me how to make a pizza and I start out with pizza sauce, then describe how to ice skate, then proceed to the proper oven temperature for baking pies, then describe proper grammar, I have not answered your question even if all of the information I have given you is correct.
- The more a worldviews essential ideas correlate to scientific, historical, and empirical discovery the more possible its truth claim. Example: Christian Science denies there is evil in the world, but our human experience of unjust suffering i.e. slavery, and terrorism contradict Christian Science claims.
- The worldview must be “existentially viable” and avoid “philosophical hypocrisy”. In other words, we must be able to live out the consequences of the worldviews essential ideas: Example: Atheist, author, and journalist Christopher Hitchens was asked if humans have intrinsic value since there was no God or apparent reason for human existence. Mr. Hitchen’s claimed we must believe humans have value even if it is not true because if we do not, the human race will not survive. This is an incredible statement! So what he is stating is we must live in opposition to the reality of the worldview of Hitchen’s Atheism. Existence is unexplainable, random, and without purpose, but according to Hitchen’s we must live as if this was not true.
- The worldview must lead to cultural and intellectual abundance and creativity. I would add to this human flourishing for all humanity. Groothuis points out that even Hitler brought flourishing to Germany, but it was limited by race and was ultimately short-lived.
- A worldview is suspect if the essential idea(s) it is formed by are contradicted by counter evidence. Example: Buddhist claim the universe is eternal, but scientific evidence suggest the universe had a beginning.
- A worldview explanation should not be more complicated than necessary. In other words if should not have to go outside itself to explain itself. Example: atheism cannot appeal to non material evidences, such as, a universe with purpose, goals, and values since these concepts are outside of an unguided evolutionary mechanism without mind. Atheism must borrow these concepts from other worldviews.
These eight criteria should be applied to all seven of the worldviews listed above. Despite our backgrounds and personal preferences or wishful thinking about reality we need to make sure our most important ideas of the world in which we live can pass the test.
Now I am going to examine each of the seven worldviews and how each position impacts knowledge (epistemology) and ethics. I have to address a worldviews impact on epistemology because without the possibility of knowledge or true and false knowledge we cannot know anything about ethics. As I have mentioned above, what we think we know is directly related to our behavior. There is an old phrase that “perception is reality” and I would disagree with this as a truth statement concerning reality because it is too relativistic, it is true in the sense that people behave according to what they perceive to be true.
Monotheism, Knowledge, and Ethics
The assertion
First lets examine a monotheistic worldviews impact on knowledge and ethics. Monotheism asserts there is an eternal, unchanging God who created the world and acts and speaks through prophets. Three main religious traditions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic. There are differences on the nature of this one God, but I will not address the differences since each are still essentially monotheistic. First in regards to knowledge, each monotheistic tradition believes God is a personal being with infinite knowledge who created everything seen and unseen through this knowledge. This God is perfect in knowledge and is without error and incapable of error. Since God has a mind, through creation God has passed the ability of knowing to his creatures. Judaism and Christianity assert that God created man and women in his image and part of this image bearing includes reason and knowledge. Islam does not assert the image of God in humans but does accept that God gives humans the ability to reason and obtain knowledge. Although humans can possess incorrect knowledge because we a finite and capable of moral and epistemological error, truth is possible because the “True Mind” exist and has made true knowledge obtainable through the creation of minds that can learn, comprehend, and self-correct. God is the foundation of all true knowledge and makes truth possible because God is by nature truth. Since God is truth and makes truth obtainable by giving humans reason, true knowledge is possible. What about ethical knowledge? Since true knowledge is possible we can have true knowledge concerning what is ultimately good. Since we can know what is good we can know what is evil therefore moral knowledge is possible.
The Monotheistic problem:
If God is the source of all moral knowledge how does God determine what is good and what is evil. The question was asked by Socrates more than 2,300 years ago,”Is the holy holy because it is loved by the gods, or do they love it because it is holy?” Socrates was a polytheist but the question is more than appropriate for a monotheist. A current monotheist would ask, is the good good because God says so or because God loves what is good. The problem is that if what is good is good because God says so then it appears that the good is according to God’s personal whim or a random choice. However if something is good because God loves what is good, it appears that good is outside of God, separate from God. If this is so then God is subjecting himself to a standard and this would imply the standard is greater than God, so the standard becomes the real god. Philosopher and Christian ethicist Norman Geisler has a solution to this metaphysical and epistemological dilemma. Geisler makes a distinction between a voluntaristic and essentialist view of the good. A voluntaristic view of good suggest that something is good only because God wills it, but an essentialist view would suggest that God wills something is good because the good is within his own nature. Therefore what is good is not arbitrary or outside of God but flows from his being and goodness is an essential attribute of God’s nature. Goodness is who God is (Geisler,1994).
Deism, Knowledge, and Ethics
The assertion
Deism asserts there is an eternal, unchanging God who created the world but does not and has never acted or spoken through prophets. Deism was born out of the enlightenment and preached reason over revelation. Deism is rationalist in its approach to knowledge and is the primary means of obtaining and evaluating knowledge. God is considered omnipotent and perfect in knowledge and goodness and created the physical universe and endowed humans with with reason, but does not interact in the world or with humans. Everything that can be known or God intended to be known can be apprehended by human reason. True knowledge is possible because God’s knowledge is complete and has been imparted to creation and nature through reason.
Since God is perfect and complete in knowledge and goodness, God’s moral will is also apprehended by reason. Human beings can know what is good and holy through rational discovery. Deism is also known as “ natural religion” and stresses moral cultivation and virtue as its religious obligation. There are no ritual or priestly rites only moral obligations. Deism is more a philosophical position and not a religious tradition or denomination.
The Deistic problem:
Deism cannot account for different moral points of view. If morality can be reasoned to like a mathematical equation, shouldn’t everyone come to the same conclusions regarding ethics? There are no differing opinions over 1 + 1 but there are continual disagreements over what constitutes good.
Deist who deny the possibility of divine revelation cut themselves off from any authoritative religious traditions confirming their concept of God. Since God has never revealed himself outside of nature there is nothing to confirm the Deist concept of the divine. Deist start with an assumption and move forward with reason. Since nature is a closed off system from the divine the Deist has no way to confirm if what is revealed in nature is reliable regarding human nature, reason, and the good. Reason is assumed to be the supreme test for truth but there is no way to test the idea of reason being a valid test since reason must be assumed. But this is truly a starting point for everyone, regardless of the worldview.
Polytheism Knowledge, and Ethics
The Assertion
Polytheism asserts that there are many gods. The greek and roman cultures were immersed in polytheism within the state, the cities, philosophers (educators), the poets, the craftsman, and even the family gods. Today polytheism is found in Mormonism, some forms of Hinduism, and New Age.
Cicero declared the gods as perfect in virtue, happiness and knowledge (Nature of the Gods, 2006). There are as many theories about the nature of the polytheistic gods are there are the gods enumerated. Some believed that the gods were incorporeal spirits, other believed these gods inhabited the sun, moon, planets, and stars, and others believed they could be found in reason, the wind, fire, and within all of nature itself. Some had low opinions of the gods and some had very high opinions of the gods. Cicero criticized the ancient poets like Homer for corrupting the gods virtue with stories of murder, adultery, and revenge (Nature of the Gods, 2004).
Polytheism in mormonism is different from ancient polytheism because through salvation man becomes a divine being. Mormons identify themselves as members of "The Church of Jesus Christ," but affirm the elevation of man to godhood which is a contradictory teaching according to historic christian teaching, the jewish concept of God found in the Old Testament of there being only one God (passantino, 1991)
Polytheistic ideas in some form of hinduism allow for as many gods as you might imagine but in other forms of hinduism the plethora of gods are only emanations of the Brahman. This is more of a panentheism than polytheism.
The New Age idea is that we are all gods but have failed to recognize our deity. Like hinduism this appears to be a quasi polytheism, but is more akin to pantheism. New age ideas can be as diverse as the number of gods in polytheism. There are no cardinal rites, doctrines or literature governing New Age ideas.
The Polytheistic problem:
Polytheism is such a fragmented metaphysic that there is no way to have a unified, coherent view of the nature of the gods, their relation to creation, or how the gods interact with and through reason. Without understanding the true nature of the gods there is no way of determining their expectation of humans. If we cannot have a coherent metaphysic of the gods we cannot have any idea of their pronouncements of good and evil.
Other issues for polytheism are the following:
- which god determines good and evil?
- Which god has the authority to hold humans accountable for their actions?
- Do the other gods agree or disagree?
- How is good and evil determined by the gods
- By what authority of revelation or reason has it been determined who the gods are, what they expect, and how humans should live
- Why has traditional polytheism mostly vanished
The bottom line is there are no convincing evidences, either philosophical or revelational that invite us to consider the possibility of the polytheistic truth claim. Since we have no coherent, traditional, authoritative knowledge regarding the gods, we have no hope of a foundation for a theory of knowledge. Since have have no epistemological foundation for knowledge within polytheism, a polytheistic ethical system is useless.
Pantheism, Knowledge, and Ethics
The Assertion
Pantheism asserts that everything is god. The rocks, trees, sky, planets, and humans are all god. According to Goothuis, A pantheistic God is (1) impersonal and (2) exists beyond all dualities. The divine reality is taken to be identical with the totality of being. In other words, it is nondual (or monistic). There is no Creator-creation duality, as in theism (Groothuis, 2013). All is one there are no parts or distinctions of beings within the universe.
The Pantheism Problem
Since everything seen and known is god and there are no distinctions pantheism cannot account for true and false knowledge. If pantheism were to be true there could be no true or false knowledge only knowledge. This would allow contradictions in knowledge. I could say two plus two is 4 but two plus two is also five without considering either statement to be in error since each idea or statement comes from god. Since there is no true and false knowledge there could be no true or false ethical knowledge. Hitler and Mother Teresa would be moral equals since each was god.
Pantheism asserts god is finite and changing. If god is finite and changing this would imply that knowledge is changing too and if knowledge is changing there is no reason to exclude a change in moral knowledge. If moral knowledge is changing and there is no true or false moral knowledge, what can be known about anything? How can we practice goodness if the concept is constantly evolving? It is impossible. If god is always changing and there is no true or false knowledge we cannot know into what or why this god is changing. Simply put the god changes for any and all reasons. There can be no account as to why humans disagree or contradict each other since we are all the same god.
Atheism, Knowledge, and Ethics
The Assertion
Atheism is a belief that there is no god or gods. The existence of the universe is explained through natural mechanisms only. There was and is no mind creating or guiding the universe to a particular goal or state and human beings are byproducts of random happenstances of natural cause and effects.
The Atheism Problem
Since there is no mind outside the world or within the world how can there be knowledge. If all that exist is what can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted how are non-material concepts to be accounted for? How is there knowledge of mathematics, good, evil, beauty, truth, meaning, or hope since none of these ideas are seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted? one plus one is an idea not a material property. Since there is no goal, purpose or intrinsic worth to existence of anything, how can meaning and goodness be applicable to a valueless universe which contains no moral imperative for its continued being? If survival is the only imperative of nature then values are only evolutionary mechanisms and subject to change according to will-less evolutionary needs for continued life. Since moral imperatives are boiled down to pure survival instinct, moral good is an illusion. Since good is an illusion there is no moral truth only instinct.
Some who accept an atheist worldview turn to science for ultimate truth. According to J.J.C. Smart, After all, it will be contended, scientific method is the only reliable and indubitably successful and self-correcting method of attaining knowledge (pure mathematics perhaps excepted), but the problem with science is that science is descriptive by nature not prescriptive. Science can tell us what we can do but science cannot tell us what we should do. Science can test physical hypothesis and tell us what works today but without guarantee that the truth of a hypothesis will continue. Also there are limitation to scientific inquiry. Example: science can tell us what will happen to the human body if subjected to radiation from a nuclear bomb, but scientific hypothesis cannot tell us if using a nuclear bomb is good or evil. Scientist can dissect a human body but no information can be found through the process to determine if the person was good or evil. Sociologist or psychologist might be able to explain why a person molest children, but they cannot tell you if such an act is morally reprehensible. Scientist may have an opinion on the evil of child molestation but not based on any scientific experimentation because human value and worth cannot be scientifically verified. So, if human beings turn to science for all truth we can no longer validate our own worth.
Agnosticism, Knowledge, and Ethics
The Assertion
According to J.C.C. Smart, the term agnosticism was introduced by T. H. Huxley at a party in London to found the Metaphysical Society. Huxley took it from a description in Acts 17:23 of an altar inscribed ‘to an unknown God’. Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe (Stanford, 2004). Agnosticism neither confirms or denies that a god or gods exist, only that we cannot know if either is the case. Although we could use the term agnostic about almost any topic, I am using the term to refer to belief or knowledge about the existence and nature of God.
The Agnostic Problem
Traditional agnosticism states we cannot know, not that that we do not know and might or could someday know. It appears that the agnostic is contradicting their worldview. Why? Because the agnostic believes they know something about God and that is we can't know God. This appears to be positively asserting a negative. If the agnostic does not know God how do they know theist do not know God. Even if the agnostic does not appreciate theistic arguments she cannot prove a theist does not know because the agnostic is without any knowledge of God. This does not prove the agnostic incorrect, only that she has a weak and possibly contradictory position on the subject.
Since the agostic cannot account for the universe how can they account for knowledge? If the source of knowledge is in dispute is the veracity of knowledge in dispute? Agnostics also run into the same metaphysical conundrums that atheist do. Since no mind behind the universe can be determined outside the world or within the world how can there be certain knowledge. If all that exist is what can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted how are non-material concepts to be accounted for? It appears we are left with a comprehensive scepticism.
No comments:
Post a Comment