The goal here isn't to find a working worldview and embrace it; rather, the goal is to examine my current worldview (the Judeo-Christian worldview) and ask, "Is this worldview justifiable?" I don't think we should ask if it is true, but not because I disbelieve in truth: as I wrote in an earlier post, I believe (to put it in figurative language) that Truth is suspended high above us, and maybe the most we can do is ascertain bits and pieces of it. We're trapped in our subjectivity, and though we may believe something to be true, the very fact that it is a belief rather than some sort of factual knowledge, means that we can never be totally sure we're right, that we've ascertained the truth. A fairly accurate assumption would be that all of us, never-mind our beliefs, are mostly wrong in the way we perceive the world. All this to make the point that my search isn't one for "the truth of Christianity" but a search to determine whether or not the Judeo-Christian worldview is justifiable: "Is this a reasonable worldview that makes sense of the data and answers our questions in a coherent way?" Of course, if it is a justifiable worldview, that doesn't make it right, just justifiable. I believe there are many justifiable worldviews out there, as well as many non-justifiable ones. If the Judeo-Christian worldview turns out to be justifiable, that doesn't make it right, but it certainly makes it more reasonable than some (and by "some" I refer, at least, to the hip-hop worldview embraced in bars and clubs throughout the Western world, a worldview saturated in existentialism and Epicurean ideals while being founded, at times, on nothing more than cliches and maxims). But even allowing ourselves the luxury of shedding the burden of the pursuit of absolute truth, we've still got quite a mess on our hands when it comes to critiquing, analyzing, and declaring worldviews to be justifiable or not.
First off, any critique of an alternative worldview isn't done from some God's-eye point-of-view but from within one's own worldview. Our perception of alternate worldviews, and consequently our critique of them, is colored by our own assumptions about reality. An example: were a fundamentalist Christian to critique Islam, they might say, "Islam is a demonic enterprise." This critique, of course, is scorned by most thinking people. But it makes sense to those within that fundamentalist, Judeo-Christian worldview. Likewise, were Muslims to critique Christianity as a demonic enterprise, the fundamentalist Christian would be mortified and offended, because such a critique (though it may make sense to some Muslims) tears at the very fabric of the Christian's convictions and assumptions. I'm not saying either is a demonic enterprise, only pointing out that no matter how ridiculous a critique may seem to be, it makes sense to someone somewhere, and likewise my own assumptions about the world seem ridiculous to others. All this to say that in my attempt at critiquing different worldviews, my operating worldview and the latent assumptions holding it up will call lots of the shots. As much as I may seek to analyze things "squarely" and "objectively", the fact of the matter is that I have a theistic worldview and thus will be critiquing atheism from that perspective (albeit while trying to be conscious of this); the result of this is that the further an alternative worldview is from my own in terms of differences, the more likely I will be to deem it "non-justifiable". Subjectivity, once again, plays its trump card.
Secondly, the "subjectivity hole" gets deeper with what's called "cognitive bias": our own natural tendency to preserve the status-quo of our beliefs. We do this on an unconscious level, where we find silly reasons to discard data that goes against our beliefs, or even when we ignore counter-evidence altogether. It's difficult to change one's mind regarding big-picture things (even if the change is in a positive direction), because such a "change of mind" affects not only our perception of the world but our way of living in it; cognitive bias works to keep such a challenge from disturbing our mental safe-rooms, and this is yet another reason why the quest may be subjectively doomed from the get-go. In my current stage of this "evolving quest", I'm examining the claims, theories, and evidences of atheists for the non-existence of God, and then looking at theist responses to these arguments. I'm predisposed to discard the atheistic arguments and to embrace the theistic ones. This little mechanism is at work when I find holes in atheistic literature but gloss over them in writings I want to agree with. I'm critical of those who are challenging my view of the world, and I'm sympathetic to those who promise to keep it running as it should. Everyone does this, of course; but thinking that being aware of it will lend better results may be a misguided effort at best. Nevertheless, I'm seeking to be as critical (if not more-so) with the theist arguments than I am being with the atheist ones.
All this to say, do the subjective underpinnings of this quest render it invalid from the get-go? I'd like to think not; and if I were to say Yes, then any enterprise of intellectual thought (not just mine) is doomed from the start. That's a rather bleak way to look at things, and I'd like to steer clear. Yes, subjectivity will always be present; no, a wholly objective examination of worldviews and their merit cannot be accomplished; but I'd like to still believe in things like logic and reason, without (of course) elevating them to the position of gods as some have done (even logic and reason, philosophers will point out, can be flawed; it's not a precision field like mathematics). I'd like to believe that being aware of my subjectivity and seeking to be conscious of it in my studies will enable me to be more honest with the arguments as they present themselves, no matter what position is being argued. I'm continuing forward, trying my damnedest to be as rational and reasonable as I can be, seeking to wear critical filters that will help me see things more clearly (and, yes, this may be wishful thinking). I'm halfway through the books I've been reading on the debate about whether or not God exists; I'll be posting reviews and subsequent thoughts in due time.
No comments:
Post a Comment