Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 54 No. 3 Winter 2018

15.2 MB·English

by  Creation Research Society

Creation researCh soCiety
Q
Quarterly
Volume 54 Winter 2018 Number 3
• Bighorn Basin: MonuMent to the Flood--Part ii
• integrating ConteMPorary aPProaChes to “WorldvieW”
V 5 4 N 3 • the ruin-reConstruCtion theory oF genesis 1:2
Q
178 Creation Research Society Quarterly
Creation Research
Society Quarterly Volume 54
Number 3
Winter 2018
Articles Departments
Integrating Contemporary Approaches Notes from the Panorama of Science ........................213
to “Worldview” ....................................................180
Steven Chisham
Letters to the Editor ...................................................217
The Bighorn Basin, Wyoming—
Monument to the Flood Media Reviews ............................................................223
Part II: The Retreating Stage ..............................187
Michael J. Oard
Instructions to Authors ...............................................235
The Ruin-Reconstruction Theory
Membership/Subscription Application
of Genesis 1:2 .......................................................204
and Renewal Form ...............................................237
John C. Whitcomb, Jr.
Order Blank for Past Issues ........................................238
Minutes of the
2017 Creation Research Society
Board of Directors Meeting ...............................210
Haec Credimus
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh.—Exodus 20:11
Volume 54, Winter 2018 179
Creation Research
Society Quarterly Volume 54
Number 3
Winter 2018
Cover by Michael E. Erkel, Afton, Virginia
Design services by Cindy Blandon, [email protected]
Cover photo: Buffalo Bill State Park, Wyoming,
by Martin Kraft (https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:MK01052_Buffalo_Bill_State_Park.jpg), CRSQ Editorial Staff
“MK01052 Buffalo Bill State Park,” https://creativecom- Danny R. Faulkner, Editor
mons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode Bill Barrick, Biblical Studies Editor
Jerry Bergman, Biology Editor
The Creation Research Society Quarterly is published Don B. DeYoung, Book Review Editor
by the Creation Research Society, 6801 N. Highway Eugene F. Chaffin, Physics Editor
89, Chino Valley, AZ 86323, and it is indexed in the George F. Howe, Assistant Biology Editor
Christian Periodical Index and the Zoological Record. Jean K. Lightner, Biology Editor
Robert Mullin, Assistant Managing Editor
Send papers on all subjects to the Editor:
John K. Reed, Geology Editor
[email protected] or to
Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy Editor
Danny R. Faulkner, 1414 Bur Oak Ct,
Theodore Siek, Biochemistry Editor
Hebron, KY 41048.
Jarl K. Waggoner, Managing Editor
Send book reviews to the Book Review Editor:
Don B. DeYoung, 200 Seminary Dr.,
Winona Lake, IN 46590, [email protected].
CRS Board of Directors
All authors’ opinions expressed in the Quarterly are not Don B. DeYoung, President
necessarily the opinions of the journal’s editorial staff Eugene F. Chaffin,Vice-President
or the members of the Creation Research Society. Glen W. Wolfrom, Membership Secretary
Danny R. Faulkner, Treasurer
Copyright © 2018 by Creation Research Society. All
Gary H. Locklair, Recording Secretary
rights to the articles published in the Creation Research
Rob Carter
Society Quarterly are reserved to the Creation Research
Robert Hill
Society. Permission to reprint material in any form, in-
D. Russell Humphreys
cluding the Internet, must be obtained from the Editor.
Jean K. Lightner
Michael J. Oard
ISSN 0092-9166
John K. Reed
Printed in the United States of America Ronald G. Samec
Creation Research Society Quarterly 2018 54:180–186.
180 Creation Research Society Quarterly
Integrating Contemporary Approaches
to “Worldview”
Steven Chisham*
Abstract
The human worldview provides the truth-predictive component of
man’s epistemological framework, approximating and/or simu-
lating perfect knowledge of reality for purposes of decision making.
This article examining worldview dynamics correlates, compares, and
contrasts several popular and contemporary worldview approaches,
demonstrating how all successful methods at least partially answer the
universal question: “How do I understand myself relative to ultimate
truth?” Also, emotional and moral components inherent in a worldview
are briefly examined.
Introduction
A reasonably accurate definition for worldview
Practically speaking, what does being
in toto would be: The mechanism by which finite mean, and how does that affect
our rational ability to know? Modern
finite beings perceive, assimilate, evaluate, theories of knowledge stipulate that
“knowledge” must be true and then
and respond to infinite reality. Moreover, it is examine how we know and to what
certainty. Consequently, philosophers
eagerly attempt to either prove or dis-
what it means for a being to be both finite and
prove that human knowledge can and
does accurately describe truth. Rarely
rational, which involves synthesizing a working
has anyone explored its limits, however,
where things cannot be humanly certain
model of reality of a size he can comprehend
but rationality must continue. Hence,
while most epistemologies ask how we
and, as a consequence, also defines him to be
know truth, the opening quote examines
what moves one to act because this re-
a moral being. (Chisham, 2015, p.16)
ally gets to the core of why we wanted
to know anyway.
Consequently, this epistemology is
not primarily concerned with perception
* Steven Chisham, Wichita, KS, [email protected] but with decision making, the superset
Accepted for publication February 12, 2018 that perception feeds into. While imme-
Volume 54, Winter 2018 181
diate decisions or judgments may appear of this new approach’s utility. Although of range, resolution, and accuracy. Even
identical with perception, in no way previous approaches may have unstated our ability to rationalize has granularity,
does the need to get a pesky squirrel off limitations or unintentional errors, com- as language becomes the finest resolu-
your newly painted deck compare with mentators have aided our understand- tion of our finite perspective. Without
long-term retirement planning. The ing; so how does this new understanding words to formulate a thought, creativity
first is a simple, immediate response to of worldview dovetail with successful is brought to a grinding halt. This is
reality; the second engages a perception aspects of traditional and popular ap- what being finite means. Thus, language
of predicted truth. Since most decisions proaches? holds a fundamental role in worldview
are processed between the extremes development. Our language base (in-
of straightforward sense responses and cluding general sense experience) is
perceptive models of reality, the distinc- The Need to Restrict Scope both our communication medium and
tion blurs as we lose sight of our pre- in Discussing Worldview the fundamental fabric our rational-
sumptions and consequent bias. Worse, Rather than broadly asking someone to ity manipulates, providing the virtual
our finite constructs describing reality state their entire general sense of reality, “objects” needed to form conclusions.
appear for all intents to be reality – and worldview discussions intuitively narrow For example, creating a new surgical
generally we would argue they are! focus toward specific areas of interest. procedure requires vocabulary for ratio-
The first development in this new Subdividing our “digitized reduction nalization, as well as extensive practical
decision-based epistemology reduced of reality” (Chisham, 2015, p. 10) into experience. Only by porting reality into
worldview down to answers to a single “bite-sized chunks” is simply required to the virtual (Aquinas would say spiritual)
question: “How do I understand myself engage most people in useful, interac- realm via symbolic language are we
relative to universal truth” (Chisham, tive discussions regarding worldview able to reason to project logical con-
2012). Aristotle was right that every cog- matters. The introduction to Focus on sequences. Language provides names,
nitive pursuit is driven by our desire to the Family’s worldview tutorial, The concepts, visualization, and sensations
choose “the good” (Jefferson’s “pursuit Truth Project (Tackett et al., 2006), notes for truth identities (Chisham, 2012,
of happiness”). Thus, worldviews form Tackett’s objective of building pp. 64, 65), all of which populate our
as our construct for situational awareness, a systematic framework in which worldview structure, which is rationality’s
functioning as a truth predictor assisting you’re going to be able to put all of reservoir of identified truths (Chisham,
navigation toward “the good.” In terms those truth claims from [a series of 2014). Moreover, since our conclusions
of philosophical priority, truth must first categories he would construct] into are time sequential, earlier conclusions
apply to ourselves; consequently, world- some sort of a logical framework that may cascade in the way of downstream
view defines our self-image. Worldview will make sense of it all. It will be decision errors or successes.
thus is our understanding of reality something like putting hooks and For that reason, one natural way
synthesized from finite information for shelves in your closet. of narrowing the universal worldview
the purpose of predicting truth in order Unfortunately, hooks and shelves fail question is to subdivide it by time—past,
to judge courses of action we believe to when improperly placed on metaphori- present, and future. So, “How do I
be most beneficial. cal closet walls. Having re-inspected understand myself relative to universal
These novel epistemological depar- worldview structurally (Chisham, 2012, truth?” becomes:
tures (Chisham, 2012, 2014, 2015) arose 2014, 2015), the current effort is to 1. “Where did I come from?” (How do
because existing definitions, descrip- survey several methods used to focus I understand myself relative to my
tions, and discussions of worldview are worldview discussions, demonstrating infinite past?)
often mistaken due to the simple fact how well-placed hooks and shelves really 2. “How did I get (to) here?” (How do I
that “worldview” and its underlying do aid our understanding of worldview explain my current existence?)
systematic mechanisms have never been and engagement with others. With this 3. “Where am I headed, and what are
precisely defined and explored. in mind, there are at least three signifi- the potential consequences of my
However, with more than 250 years cant ways to parse worldview. actions?” (What meaning can my
of commentary from notable men and actions have on my infinite future?)
women, prudence seems to obligate: These simply describe the normal
(1) a demonstration of points of agree- Parsing Worldview learning process in search of meaning
ment between this approach and prior Using the Prism of Time (i.e., background knowledge, current
methods, (2) an attempt at correlation Every sense mechanism is constrained conditions, desired results—seeking “the
and harmonization, and (3) a discussion by the classic measurement limitations good,” per Aristotle), projected without
182 Creation Research Society Quarterly
artificial time constraints. The point of and Consummation—simply provide The skeptic claiming “scientific”
contact obviously starts in Question 2 more granularity regarding Christian superiority over another’s “mere faith”
(current existence), which cannot be temporal perspectives. Thus, subdivision will often dismiss evidence contrary
fully answered without engaging Ques- by time provides a natural, intuitive ap- to his view because he magically (i.e.,
tion 1. proach to worldview evaluation since it preferentially) “knows” unverifiable
Nancy Pearcey (2005, p. 26), who is acquired in like manner. things. The American Atheists Conven-
coauthored How Now Shall We Live? tion address (Thomson, 2009) entitled
with Charles Colson, rightly credits Apologetic Benefits of “Why We Believe in Gods” (now a
the philosophy of Dutch Reformed Subdividing Worldview by Time book: Thomson and Aukofer, 2011)
thinkers like Kuyper and Dooye- 1. Recognition of worldview’s time con- demonstrated just such philosophical
weerd, whose ideas were seminal for straints highlights practical limitations overreach. Then CFO for Richard
How Now Shall We Live? especially in experimental science. Soundbite com- Dawkins’s Foundation for Reason and
its overall framework of Creation, ments like “you believe in religion, but Science, Thomson’s three premises were
Fall, Redemption, and Restoration. I believe in science” often suggest long, that religious ideas are:
Kuyper and Dooyeweerd influenced technical, or convoluted replies will not • a by-product of cognitive mecha-
Cornelius Van Til, who mentored Fran- be endured. One simple method of re- nisms “designed” for other purposes,
cis Schaeffer. Shaffer in turn influenced directing this tacit claim to omniscience • an artifact of our ability to imagine
many modern worldview commentators is pointing out experimental science social worlds, and
including Nancy Pearcey, Charles Col- (since scientific method is the normal • simply human concepts with altera-
son, David Noebel, Del Tackett, and implication) requires test repetition, tions.
many others. which is bounded by Question 2. Any While some of his cognitive mecha-
Both How Now Shall We Live? (Col- view claiming certainty regarding origins nisms may well, for example, contribute
son and Pearcey, 1999) and Total Truth or the future is by nature belief (i.e., to the fact “children will spontaneously
(Pearcey, 2005) reduce those framework necessarily religious) because Questions invent the concept of god without adult
points to simply “Creation, Fall, and Re- 1 and 3 lie outside human certainty. Any- intervention,” Thomson never examines
demption,” shorthand among Reformed one claiming otherwise may be a good his basic presumptions that (a) psycho-
commentators for Christian answers to scientist but is a poor philosopher! This logical mechanisms alone explain why
the three worldview questions. Unfor- common fallacy is the (self-refuting) people hold (presumably) false religious
tunately, Colson and Pearcey (1999, p. philosophical mistake in positivism, beliefs, (b) rational people, therefore,
14) suggested those questions were: (1) which cannot be scientifically, logically, ought to be atheistic, and (c) belief in
“Where did we come from?” (2) “What or mathematically validated because it God (or gods) is therefore meritless,
went wrong?” and (3) “How do we fix claims too much. requiring his explanation—particularly
it?” Chisham (2014, p. 144) noted their When pushing the boundaries of given his admission to its ubiquity in
last two questions innocently but ille- time, all endeavor to use logic, science, human experience. By representing his
gitimately admit the Christian presump- history, religion, etc. for information; view as objective science, he implies the
tions that (a) something “went wrong” however, “proving” a past, unattended epistemological superiority of his belief.
and (b) needs to be “fixed.” Atheists, for singularity is a forensic (i.e., induc- To validate that no god exists, however,
example, reject both as loaded questions, tive) exercise, not a deductive proof. requires perfect knowledge over infinite
unrepresentative of their worldview, and Consequently, every view on origins time and infinite reality (including mate-
would likely say life was headed nowhere ends in a statement of faith with its rial and immaterial universes)—a point,
and had no grand point (e.g., Nietzsche). probability resting on its assumptions, like Hume’s skepticism of miracles, that
Consequently, generic questions frame the significance of which should be he failed to appreciate.
the principles more effectively. Also, acknowledged. Note that actual truth Even granting some of his points,
their questions should have been stated is based in reality, not in the likeli- removing Thomson’s atheistic premise
in first person since “worldviews are hood of our knowing or validating it. would certainly (a) admit the potential
first and foremost personal” (Chisham, Some truth undoubtedly exists quite rationality of other faith options, and (b)
2014, p. 142). apart from our ability to predict, know, force him to defend his faith position
Expanding worldview in time, An- or to know it exhaustively. Failing to against other rational competitors. Thus,
swers in Genesis’s “Seven C’s” (McK- appreciate this difference confuses our viewing worldview in time clarifies that
eever, 2010)—Creation, Corruption, worldview (approximation of reality) finitude levels the epistemological play-
Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, with actual truth. ing field. It is unsurprising, then, that
Volume 54, Winter 2018 183
Table I
the Supreme Court identified atheism
as religious in Kaufman vs. McCaughtry
That That
and Torcaso vs. Watkins.
we were created by Jesus of Nazareth Implied belief
An important corollary is that in-
a Theistic Creator rose from the dead system(s)
tentionally rejecting views competitive
to evolutionary doctrine from public False False Atheism, Buddhism
education shows undue favoritism to-
True False Judaism, Islam
ward one particular belief framework.
False True Hinduism
Preventing examination of even contrary
evidence does not remove religion from True True Christianity
the public sphere but establishes a na-
tional religion, or at least the philosophi-
cal mechanistic worldview framework
for it. any biblical truth. A Hindu, moreover, Specifically, a worldview should
2. Time division of worldview demon- may reject a theistic creator but still ac- contain a particular perspective
strates Question 1’s importance, despite cept Jesus’ resurrection, viewing Him regarding each of the following ten
its faith nature. Paradoxically, any answer as just another avatar (or god). Hence, disciplines: theology, philosophy,
to Question 1 also answers Question 3 arguments from nature (i.e., general ethics, biology, psychology, sociol-
because the nature of the universe’s revelation) are necessary to establish ogy, law, politics, economics, and
origin indicates its natural destiny. If a pre-evangelistic, theistic framework history.
the universe were self-caused, it would (cf. Romans 1:19–20). It might be said, Worldview’s definition is more
be eternally self-existent. If something then, that orthodox Christianity rests sweeping than Noebel imagined, es-
outside the universe created it, that force on the historicity of only two events: (1) sentially providing the mechanism and
would be independent of the universe Creation and (2) the resurrection (Table framework by which humans integrate
(non-contingent) and eternal. It would I). knowledge, forming one’s entire non-
be absurd to suggest the fundamental time-constrained, interactive mental
nature of the universe’s cause would image of reality. Nonetheless, Noebel
Dissecting Worldview
change through time; rather, time must helpfully points out that worldview per-
Categorically
be a product of whatever caused the spectives may be subdivided categori-
universe. Hence, answering Question 1 The previous discussion quickly nar- cally.
consequentially identifies the universe’s rowed toward religion because evalu- Likewise, The Truth Project’s (Tack-
nature and purpose (and, thus, mine). ating worldview through the lens of ett, et al., 2006) “systematic framework”
3. Time also provides natural apolo- time naturally funnels toward meaning serves as “something like putting hooks
getic preferences. The ability to per- (revealing the mechanism driving our and shelves in your closet.” One of its
ceive another’s worldview through the “God-shaped vacuum,” which Thom- graphic analogies resembled the Greek
lens of time can differentiate between son’s atheistic address entirely missed: Parthenon, having three massive foun-
“pre-evangelism” and “evangelism,” de- our worldview, generated by rationality dational stone steps supporting four
pending on whether Question 1 or 2 is itself). However, many pertinent topics pillars, which then supported a roofline
under consideration. Sometimes termed were inadvertently left out, such as social holding seven embedded orbs. The
“two-step apologetics,” classical Christian views of government (Weltanschauung), three foundational steps represented
apologetics establishes the logical neces- categorical scientific limits, or philoso- theology (“who is God”), anthropology
sity for a Creator followed by evidence phy and epistemology. These omissions (“who is man”), and veritology (“what
for the resurrection to establish Jesus’ point toward another way of dividing is truth”). The four pillars were mind
authority. An individual unconvinced worldview. Consider Dr. David Noebel’s (philosophy), matter (science), time
his existence requires an independent (1997, p. 8) definition: (history), and values (ethics). Finally,
Creator may or may not find the resur- The term worldview refers to any the roofline contained the sociological
rection compelling. Thus, Question 1’s ideology, philosophy, theology, spheres of law, politics, economics, art,
critical nature usually requires an answer movement, or religion that provides science, music, and literature. Similar
before pushing forward. Certainly, one an overarching approach to under- to AiG’s “Seven C’s” above, the building
unconcerned or convinced God does standing God, the world, and man’s illustrates a finely granulated categorical
not exist is unlikely to be convinced of relations to God and the world. breakdown of worldview.
184 Creation Research Society Quarterly
Similarities between Noebel’s and As I use the term [worldview], it prioritizes a hierarchy of human need.
Tackett’s categorical approaches are refers to the fundamental cognitive “Civil rights” is defined here as the
not accidental, as both were disciples of orientation of a society … subgroup mitigation of rights in conflict. They
Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer famously or … individual [encompassing] fun- argued that God created all men equal
drew parallels between philosophical damental existential and normative and granted them “certain … rights,”
shifts in social worldviews to illustrate postulates or themes, values [often making those rights “unalienable.” The
how those shifts were mirrored through conflicting], emotions and ethics; secret to civil equality, however, lies
the visual arts. Schaeffer concluded that it includes conventional cognitive in their order; reversing any of them
how individuals and societies view them- models of persons, spirits, and undermines civility. The right to life
selves affects how they behave, creating things in the world.… It includes is necessarily the highest order right,
analogous shifts across categories. as well metaphorical … structuring for without it all others are mute. The
of thought. second is liberty. Last of all, every indi-
Apologetic Benefits of Categorical Because social groups communicate, vidual is entitled to pursue happiness
Subdivision of Worldview they influence each other by sharing (i.e. Aristotle’s “good”). Slavery’s evil,
Apologetic benefits exist for categorical opinions and knowledge. For example, for example, was promoting one man’s
division, just as the temporal approach we often identify the “spirit of the age” right to personal happiness (wealth) at
showed above. First, it is possibly the by observing linguistic or generational the expense of another’s more basic right
most common and intuitive method. boundaries (e.g., boomers, millenni- to freedom, reversing the second and
People discussing worldview typically als, etc.). Likewise, belief groups (e.g., third based on preferential skin color.
want to consider how ideas affect practi- religious, political, etc.) are often identi- Consequently, the nation fought its first
cal life judgments and intentionally limit fied by their defining social beliefs and two major engagements over these same
scope for clarity, perhaps later relating viewpoints. principles, testing “whether (this) nation,
parts to a bigger picture. Moreover, or any nation so conceived and so dedi-
nothing prevents dividing worldview Worldview Constraints Highlight cated, can long endure” (Lincoln, 1863).
categorially to consider one aspect and the Balance between Personal (The answer, of course, always depends
subsequently subdividing that by time. Freedom and Societal Restraint on whether the politically empowered
For example, many of Francis Schaef- Human life span, rational capacity, and have the commitment of character and
fer’s works illustrate worldview changes language boundaries preclude omni- will to act as guardians on behalf of the
by examining its effects on a category science, forcing rationality to simulate natural rights of the underprivileged and
such as art and then evaluate that over perfect knowledge to arrive at practi- unempowered.) Martin Luther King’s “I
time to demonstrate philosophy’s influ- cal, actionable conclusions (Chisham, Have a Dream” speech expressed these
ence on a period’s artistic expression, as 2015). It should be clear, then, that same ideals.
well as other aspects of human existence. finite beings are theoretically incapable Today the world grapples with
of being perfectly unbiased with the abortion, apparently inverting the first
possible exception of matters involving and third rights. The deciding factor
Dividing Worldview by Natural direct observation and perception, since no longer is civil principle but how an
and Conventional Boundaries worldview represents the basis of one’s individual is valued by others. Strangely,
It should be apparent that any barrier to perspective. This fact means humans since 1973 the Supreme Court has
human communication, because of its are sure to arrive at a variety of (often remained silent on this pivotal ques-
effect on human knowledge, presents conflicting) views, underscoring why tion of when life begins, which should
a possible way to subdivide worldview. religious freedom is a crucial principle. have been their first consideration. By
For example, generational differences Otherwise, states engaging in worldview avoiding judgment, they declared a
(Shallcross, 2009; Keeter and Taylor, (thought) policing effectively grant a fetus nonhuman de facto without taking
2009; Pew Research Center, 2007) or person or elite group the inherent privi- judicial responsibility for enumerating
language are two obvious methods of leged assumption of perfect knowledge their legal justifications. This seems
division. The idea of Weltanschauung in judging someone else to be wrong, like the penultimate dereliction of duty
demonstrates that time, language, or which is despotism. given their guidance over a nation so
nationalism can all account for differ- For this reason, the authors of the conceived, which used those civil prin-
ences in human perceptions to varying Declaration of Independence (US, ciples alone as justification for secession
degrees. Cultural anthropologist Gary 1776) established a worldview-neutral from England. Indeed, given the un-
Palmer (1996, pp. 113–114) noted: basis for governance: civil rights, which qualified ubiquity of the “unalienable
Volume 54, Winter 2018 185
rights” statement, as penned it appears readiness, and matters of trust surround- Buying is a special case of decision-
to provide the basis for international law. ing perceived obligations. Cressey (1996, making.… By ignoring or working
Every individual has a worldview p. 657) comments that the Bible views against the customer’s decision-
because thinking generates it. But knowledge (a worldview’s foundation) making process, you ensure confu-
even when we disagree, being free to as similarly multifaceted: sion, resentment, and—sooner or
admit and acknowledge each other’s The Greek [New Testament] ideal later—lost sales.
worldview provides a basis for human of knowledge was a contemplation They note further:
dialog and understanding, freeing all of reality in its static and abiding In traditional selling, product
to choose their beliefs and convictions. being; the Hebrew [Old Testament] knowledge was a magic elixir.
Christian and atheist can both be at … primarily … conceived knowledge Coupled with glibness—allegedly
peace knowing this is their natural as an entry into relationship with the sales professional’s contribution
(i.e., God-given) freedom. Freedom of the experienced world which makes to human interaction—it could
thought can be constrained only when demands not only on man’s under- turn the most recalcitrant buyer
preventing one from violating someone standing but also on man’s will. into a willing victim by enabling
else’s higher-order rights. So it is with For example, the Hebrew word the salesperson to “sell” her whether
Islamic extremism, for example. They (yāḏa’) is used regarding knowing the she wanted to buy or not. Hence
are free to hold their views but not to loss of children (Isaiah 47:8), grief (Isa- the ultimate salesman cliché: “He
impose them on others by enslaving iah 53:3), sin (Jeremiah 3:13), God’s could sell iceboxes to Eskimos.”
or killing those who do not. Accepting hand and might (Jeremiah 16:21), and (pp. 19–20)
a person’s right to hold a view is not His vengeance (Ezekiel 25:14) and as But, they assert:
admission it is correct but simply ad- a euphemism for sexual relations (e.g., People buy for their own reasons,
mits every individual’s freedom to hold Genesis 4:1; Judges 11:39). not for yours. (p. 22)
convictions without compulsion from Likewise, an evangelistically inter- Thus, it might be said a person
the state or suffering harm from civil esting question is why a person, given all merely intellectually convinced is only
rights violators. his intellectual answers, would not im- one-third of the way to full conviction.
Moreover, the First Amendment’s mediately convert to Christianity (which Something more is required to even rise
freedom of speech is necessary, other- tends toward the Greek notion above)? to a simple majority in his mind. More-
wise we cannot learn from each other. Such conversions are the exception, over, those who are “persuading” need
Persuasion or public proclamation however, not the rule. Calvinistic ap- to see others holistically, not relying
should never be confused with control. proaches might attribute this disconnect simply on rational argument or strictly
Freedom is a social phenomenon that to predestination and election, whereas emotional appeal. Though a cliché, we
exists only if others are free to disagree. an Arminian might complain this makes must live our message, not just preach
for an easy and quick excuse, failing to it. While an individual must ultimately
understand what drives the individual’s encounter God, not just be “sold” some
Worldview Involves convictions. Either position ought to truth, this suggests parts we play in help-
More than Logical appreciate an observation regarding the ing others to make, really, all manner
Manipulation of Knowledge greatest Mosaic command, which Jesus of decisions. Perhaps this explains Lee
Traditional approaches to epistemol- said was to love God with all one’s heart, Strobel’s (Murashko, 2012) appeal for a
ogy focus on “judgments,” which is a mind, and soul (Matthew 22:36–38). If more “relational” apologetic approach:
present-tense preoccupation (e.g., “Is believers must love God these diverse The trend is toward dialogue, discus-
that a squirrel in my backyard?”). In ways, it seems logical individuals com- sion, and conversations. I call it “re-
contrast, worldview is about decision ing to faith must also come to love lational apologetics.” This isn’t your
making: how does one’s current mass God those same ways: intellectually, grandfather’s apologetics, where we
of information influence his future ac- emotionally, and as a matter of duty or line up people against the wall and
tions? Consider what factors motivate a conviction. machine gun them with a barrage of
decision—any decision. For example, As a matter of fact, these same areas facts. It’s where we invite spiritually
why does a person buy a certain house, do play a part in every personal consid- curious friends and neighbors into
start a business, or convert to a religion? eration of consequence, whether a major a safe environment where we can
Beyond cold judgment, there are nearly purchase or a religious conversion. Sales engage with them, listen, empathize,
always a range of influential circum- consultants (Heiman et al., 1999, pp. validate them as people, and help
stances such as finances, emotional 31–32) note: them get answers to the “spiritual
186 Creation Research Society Quarterly
sticking points” that are holding up Understanding these dynamics answersingenesis.org/bible-history/
their journey toward Christ. surrounding worldview helps us relate so-what-are-the-7-cs-anyway (accessed
to others in healthier ways, rather Sept. 20, 2017).
than trying to control other people’s Murashko, A. 2012. Lee Strobel: We’re on
Conclusion thoughts and opinions. It also helps to cusp of golden era of apologetics. The
Having examined worldview mechanics draw healthier boundaries for those who Christian Post. January 22, 2012. www.
(Chisham, 2012, 2014, 2015) and find- would overstep their ability to know, pos- christianpost.com/news/lee-strobel-
ing them to forge a rational simulation sibly violating the civil rights of others, were-on-cusp-of-golden-era-of-apologet-
of reality from finite data, this article such as the intellectual right to freedom ics-67654 (accessed Sept. 20, 2017).
correlated that new epistemological of thought and belief or even the right Noebel, D. 1997. Understanding the Times,
understanding with contemporary and to life itself. 8th printing. Harvest House Publishers,
historical approaches. Though world- Eugene, OR.
view is a single, unified principle that Palmer, G.B. 1996. Toward a Theory of
drives human decision making, its global References Cultural Linguistics. University of Texas
perspective often makes it difficult to CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quarterly Press, Austin, TX.
visualize and understand. Consequently, Chisham, S. 2012. Anatomy of a worldview: Pearcey, N. 2005. Total Truth: Liberating
people typically subdivide worldview the eternal self-identity. CRSQ 49:63–72. Christianity from its Cultural Captivity.
when discussing it. Worldview can be Chisham, S. 2014. Clarifying four meanings Good News Publishers, Wheaton IL.
conceptually subdivided at least three for “worldview.” CRSQ 50:141–145. Pew Research Center. 2007. A portrait of
ways: by examining one’s worldview Chisham, S. 2015. Using analogies to un- “generation next.” www.people-press.
conclusions through time, by discussing derstand “worldview.” CRSQ 52:7–17. org/2007/01/09/a-portrait-of-generation-
the categories worldviews affect, or by Colson, C., and N. Pearcey. 1999. How Now next/ (accessed Sept. 20, 2017).
observing effects on perception result- Shall We Live? Tyndale House Publish- Shallcross, L. 2009. From generation to
ing from worldview’s natural boundar- ers, Carol Stream, IL. generation” Counseling Today. http://
ies (e.g., mortality and language) or Cressey, M. 1996. Knowledge. In Wood, ct.counseling.org/2009/11/from-gener-
conventional boundaries (e.g., religion D.R.W., I.H. Marshall, A.R. Millard, ation-to-generation (accessed Sept. 20,
or nationality). J.I. Packer, and D.J. Wiseman (editors), 2017).
Moreover, decisions are typically New Bible dictionary, 3rd ed. InterVar- Tackett, D., M. Walters, J. Fitzgerald, R. De
not entirely based on objective, cold sity Press, Downers Grove, IL; Leicester, Sa, and S. Scionka. 2006. The Truth
facts. For a person to make a decision, England. Project. DVD. Focus on the Family,
particularly an important decision, he Heiman, S., D. Sanchez, with T. Tuleja. Colorado Springs, CO.
must be convinced not only intellectu- 1999. The New Conceptual Selling. War- Thomson, J.A. 2009. Why we believe
ally but also by intuition, which involves ner Books, New York, NY. in gods. American Atheists Con-
one’s emotions and sense of duty, as well. Keeter, S., and P. Taylor. 2009. The millen- vention 2009. www.youtube.com/
However, each individual will assign his nials. Pew Research Center. www.pewre- watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg (accessed
own weight to these aspects, depending search.org/2009/12/10/the-millennials Sept. 20, 2017).
on his natural and situational disposition, (accessed Sept. 20, 2017). Thomson, J.A., and C. Aukofer, 2011. Why
which is why what convinces one person Lincoln, A. 1863. The Gettysburg Address. We Believe in Gods: A Concise Guide to
to act in a certain situation may be very McKeever, S. 2010. So what are the ‘7 C’s’ the Science of Faith. Pitchstone Publish-
different for others in the same scenario. anyway? Answers in Genesis. https:// ing, Charlottesville VA.