Book Review: Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult
January 26, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton
|
According to J.P. Moreland and Garrett DeWeese, “The gospel is never heard in isolation. It is always heard against the background of a worldview.” (157) Therefore, part of our responsibility in sharing the gospel is to cultivate a worldview that can make sense of it. Moreland and DeWeese have written Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult to help meet the need of Christians who aren’t trained to deal with certain philosophical worldview issues. |
The book begins by explaining the basics of logic- the laws, forms of argumentation, and common fallacies. Periodically, summary definitions of key terms are placed in boxes to the side of the text. The first chapter ends describing the importance of philosophy to theology and how the two fields interact.
Following these introductory explanations, the bulk of the book is divided into the five main areas of contemporary philosophy- metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, anthropology, and science. Moreland and DeWeese seek to provide a balance of covering the current debates in each area, while not getting bogged down in all the nuances of the debates. On occasion, application is made of certain points to their importance for Christians. After the five main areas of contemporary philosophy are dealt with, Moreland and DeWeese provide a final chapter on the intellectual crisis of our day and the importance of philosophical training for Christians.
I was somewhat disappointed with Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult. I was expecting an accessible guide to the basics of philosophy. Unfortunately, I don’t think someone without prior philosophical training would be able to get through the first two chapters. Most of the book is precise and clear through its points and argumentation. However, the brief outline of Reformed epistemology and its application to apologetics is overly simplistic and confused.
What I found most useful about the book was the applications it made for why certain points are important for Christians. While being philosophically rigorous, Moreland and DeWeese demonstrate the need for interaction between philosophy and theology in a manner that brings further devotion of our hearts and minds to Christ. Though the book makes philosophy only “slightly” less difficult, it is generally a good introduction to the important philosophical issues of our day.
Related posts:
- Book Review: Whatever Happened to Truth?
- Book Review: Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey
- Book Review: The Love of Wisdom by Steven Cowan and James Spiegel
- Book Review: Is the Bible Intolerant? By Amy Orr-Ewing
- Book Review: Comparison of Da Vinci Code Response Books
- Book Review: The Gospel According to the Da Vinci Code
Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Philosophy, Roger's Posts
content rss
January 26th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Pardon me Roger for choosing only a narrow portion of your discussion of this book but I'd like to give you feedback on one of your terms.
'Worldview' is one of those terms that causes me to hear something different than what I expect you are saying. I expect if you were to replace that term with a set of bullet points that you mean by it, we would likely be in agreement about a good deal of it. However, what I hear when one uses the term worldview I receive it as something arrogant, narrow, conservative and negative.
Again, I don't expect this is what you mean by it, but I receive it as though there is one simple, correct and true perspective about what the world is, and that it looks a good deal like a late 1800's American perspective.
For more personal history on this, in the 90's my theological professors at Fuller refused to use the term worldview, and said that it was not possible for any person to have a grasp of the breadth of areas of knowledge required to claim that their view was a worldview.
Again, I expect this is less a philosophical difference than an semantic one. I expect what you mean is something different than I receive.
Would you be willing to spell out what you mean when you use this term?
January 26th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
I've been disagreeing with Bill frequently lately, so why stop now?
I think worldview is fine. It just means belief-system, and includes those self-referentially-challenged belief-systems that claim other belief-systems are too prone to claim truth.
I suspect that the negative connotation (as seen by some) arose from identifying the term with the specific views of the more conservative Christians who brought the term into more popular usage.
It'd be like me complaining about the word “diversity” because of how it is often used in academic circles, rather than what it actually means.
But I too look forward to how Roger would define the term . . .
January 26th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Well Bill, I've never heard anyone react that way to such a neutral term as “worldview.” Frankly, I don't think most people share your reaction. The definition I use, as does much of the literature I've read, is that a worldview is a system of beliefs about important things in life. Everyone has a worldview, whether it's coherent or not, whether it's directly contemplated or not. Moreland and DeWeese don't define the term (and I don't think it's really their burden to do so), but this is what I expect they mean by it.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
“. . . in the 90's my theological professors at Fuller refused to use the term worldview, and said that it was not possible for any person to have a grasp of the breadth of areas of knowledge required to claim that their view was a worldview.”
Those Fuller profs have an interesting way of viewing the world.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Better yet, they have an “interesting” worldview.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
I assure you that I am not alone in my reaction to the term worldview, so it is possible that others just haven't shared it with you.
It appears to me that you use worldview as I would use perspective, or possibly paradigm.
What is a Christian worldview? What is the perspective that you must adopt in order to receive the gospel? What are the necessary subjects in that system of beliefs about important things in life?
January 26th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Mock if you wish. These are serious, brilliant and well intended people.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
“I suspect that the negative connotation (as seen by some) arose from identifying the term with the specific views of the more conservative Christians who brought the term into more popular usage.”
I don't know the history of it, Micah. My understanding is as I presented it, that the term connotes a system of overarching right answers beyond what would be approriate.
Practically, it was as you suggested a conservative might respond to the word diversity. It was one of those words that shut off my attention. If someone used it, it signaled that the speaker wasn't academically rigorous or thoughtful enough to have a conversation I wanted to be part of.
January 26th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Bill, all we said was the view is “interesting”- yes in a mocking tone, but that's because the idea is silly. We didn't say anything about the prof's themselves, and for all we know they are as wonderful as you describe them to be. Also, I didn't say you're alone, obviously you're not if your prof's taught you this. Rather, I expect this perspective on “worldview” to be in the extreme minority.
I say the idea is silly (assuming you've described their view correctly) because it's a complete misunderstanding of what worldviews are and what the goals of worldview thinking is. Claiming something is a worldview, or to have one, has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge. It has to do with beliefs. Simply put- it's a collection of beliefs, not a claim to knowledge or a claim to grasp all the knowledge in the world in anything like that. I'd truly like to see what these prof's are reacting against. Who has used the term in the way they're describing?
Your questions would take far too long to answer- whole books have been written answering them. For example, I've used Geisler's Unshakable Foundaitons as a textbook before. It compares atheism, pantheism, and theism as worldviews in the areas of truth, the cosmos, God, law, evil, and ethics. Though I don't agree with everything in the book, including the way the categories are cashed out, I think it's a good introduction to worldview thinking. I would suggest Ronald Nash as the best though- either Faith and Reason or Worldviews in Conflict (a condensed version of Faith and Reason).
January 26th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Bill,
The word
January 26th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
From what I understand, Ptolemy was serious, brilliant, and well-intended, too. The problem was that his worldview was mistaken, and had to be replaced by a Copernican paradigm.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Then clearly we should mock him. Three jeers against ptolemy!
January 26th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Thanks Justin, that is nearly exactly how I would use paradigm.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Google Weltanschauung and the first hit says “See worldview“, which takes us to this definition:
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. 2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
According to wikipedia, worldview “refers to the framework through which an individual interprets the world and interacts in it.” Also note that the “See also” section under Weltanschauung links to paradigm.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
It is possible that my reaction to the word is more in the minority than I expect. I am though quite surprised, Roger, that you are not more familiar with such opposition, particularly since you have been in dialogue with emerging folks who would find the term unappealing at best.
Let me voice the concern that I've not yet heard addressed. I can appreciate that there would be a set of tenets that our belief systems would have to share to a large extent in order to be Christians. The notion of a “Christian Worldview” though seems to imply that there is one uniform belief system ancillary to the gospel. In contrast, while I acknowledge there would be certain tenets in our belief systems outside of the gospel that we would have to affirm in order to accept the gospel, the belief systems among Christians would otherwise appropriately vary widely one from one another.
Let me try to be more clear. The term Christian Worldview seems to infer that there is one unitary orthodox belief system ancillary to the gospel that everyone must approach the world through in order to receive the gospel. This is not something that I would affirm, as I believe there is significant latitude in a myriad of categories of understanding the world around us that would still allow us to faithfully accept the gospel.
For the sake of example, one might fear this Christian Worldview, necessary to receiving the gospel, would include an assent to capitalism, an 18th century American view of family, an American individualistic anthropology over and against a middle eastern anthropology, or a somewhat low expectation of our obligation toward creation. Now it is my belief that one could hold those, or any number of their contrary positions in their system of beliefs and still receive the gospel. This is what drives my question, what topics are included in a Christian Worldview? I would like to know what freedom does and does not exist in a system that uses this term.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:29 am
Part of my surprise at your reaction is that this is the first time you
January 27th, 2006 at 11:11 am
I think bringing it back to book will be good for this debate. The idea that by the term worldview, DeWeese and Moreland are referring to “an assent to capitalism, an 18th century American view of family, an American individualistic anthropology over and against a middle eastern anthropology, or a somewhat low expectation of our obligation toward creation” is a caricature. These things are better understood as attitudes toward the world as it is already seen, not ways of seeing the world per se. To put it another way, while these attitudes may follow from one's worldview, they are not preconditions for one having a worldview, as though in order to be a Christian Martin Luther would have to have had an 18th century view of family. According to the book, the worldviews in play today are the following: Christian theism, scientific naturalism, and postmodernism. By Christian theism, I take the authors to mean that there is a personal, transcendant, triune God. By scientific naturalism, I take the authors to mean the natural world is all that exists and knowledge comes through the scientific method. By postmodernism, I take the authors to mean that truth is relative and that reality is socially constructed. Note that there is nothing in these concerning economic systems, anachronisms with respect to families, etc., even though certain understandings of economics and family will be more at home in one worldview rather than another. That the authors are using a broad conception of the term worldview is indicated by the questions they ask:
1. What is real?
2. How do we know what we know?
3. What is right?
4. Who or what am I?
5. How should we view science and its claims?
A person's answer to these questions will be determined by the worldview (s)he has. What is real? According to the scientific materialist, only the natural world is real. In postmodernism, reality is what you make it. In Christian theism, reality is God and that which God has created. In my own particular idiom, reality means that I have to get ready for work. More later.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Timbo, giving us these definitions is helpful and very specific since as I read the posts, it seems that there are not only “as many worldviews out there as there are people,” there are just as many definitions of worldview as there are commenters in this discussion. On that note, it seems that DeWeese and Moreland have limited the term worldview — despite being broad — more than the definitions laid out in this discussion.
Justin cited this defeiniton of worldview: “[a] framework through which or by which one makes sense of the data of life.”
Timbo cited these definitions: “1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. 2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.”
All these definitions seem to be far more encompassing than DeWeese and Moreland's questions (again cited by Timbo): “1. What is real? 2. How do we know what we know? 3. What is right? 4. Who or what am I? 5. How should we view science and its claims?”
If we choose to use DeWeese and Moreland's definition, which is fine for the sake of the discussion, issues of family life, economics, etc. do not come up. If, however, we choose to use the other definitions, all of life, including science, economics, family life, etc. will be included.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Thanks, Roger, for clarifying this further. That was my hope when I wrote the post that began this discussion.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
I invite you to note, Tim, that I never entered a debate. If you've studied it, you may recognize my conflict resolution language. I began by saying that I believed I received this term differently than it was being used, and I wished to have clarified what he meant when he used the term.
I continued to share what my feelings and reactions had been to the term, but my interest and my questions all the way through were, could you clarify this more for me.
I appreciate the ways that people have clarified how they use this, and I have no interest in arguing that they are using it differently than they suggest.
If you wish to debate with someone else, though, I don't want to stand in your way.
January 28th, 2006 at 2:05 am
Bill, I can play the conflict resolution language game too, you know, and I invite you to consider how the following statements could be taken as being more than just a request for clarification:
“I receive it as something arrogant, narrow, conservative and negative”
“it looks a good deal like a late 1800's American perspective”
“the speaker wasn't academically rigorous or thoughtful enough to have a conversation I wanted to be part of”
A simple “Roger, could you clarify what you mean by the term worldview?” would have sufficed, but when you add to that request for clarification descriptions of the term which are nothing at all like how any of us would use the term, it comes across as an attempt to caricature us and lump us in with the arrogant, narrow, conservative, negative capitalists your profs seem to suggest are representative of those who use the term worldview, even though such people, if they do in fact exist, are rare at best. Perhaps that is how critics of worldview thinking hear the term, but that is not how proponents of it use the term. To imply that it is is to construct an incredibly gross caricature (not that I'm saying you meant to do this, only that that's how it came across).
January 28th, 2006 at 2:06 am
Tyler, I'll clarify this more later.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:00 am
I am not going to continue this conversation.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:35 am
For the benefit of the rest reading this, I did not read Tim's post beyond “Bill, I can play the conflict resolution language game too,”. I have emailed him to discuss this in private.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Bill, I want to publicly apologize for my “conflict resolution language game” comment. No malice was intended by it. I believe the rest of my comment explains why I felt that it was appropriate to use.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Tim privately and then publicly asked for forgiveness for his “conflict resolution language game” comment, and I have privately, and now publicly forgiven him.
He asked as well that I would respond to the rest of his post publicly.
Tim, and others, it was not my intent to caricature, or defame those who use the term worldview. Tim said, “Perhaps that is how critics of worldview thinking hear the term, but that is not how proponents of it use the term.” I was not making an accusation about those who use the term, but as Tim said, offering what I and other critics of the term would hear when one uses the term.
I wanted to give Roger and others the opportunity to see how I perceived it, and share with me in response how they were intending to use it.
I used terms like, 'I recieve it this way', and 'I fear that it could be this' to offer feedback as to how I was receiving what was written. It was not my intent to argue that my perceptions of his communication were the reality of who the people are who use the term, or what the term means when they use it, rather to respond how it appeared to me. If it were my intent to imply, argue or caricature, I would have written in that tone with statements like, 'the term worldview is arrogant, narrow, conservative and negative, and those who use it demand an 18th century view of family as a requirement to salvation.' I did not say that though, or speak in that tone, for that was not my intent.
I hope that I have made myself clear. It was my intent to respectfully and helpfully offer feedback as to how I was receiving the term worldview, and what I feared the term could mean, and then ask for clarification and an opporunity to re-communicate.
If anyone received this as an accusation, implication, or argument for my perceptions, I am sorry you understood it so. That was not what I was attemtping to convey.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:17 pm
I appologize for and regret my sarchasm here. I should have said directly, Tim you have established that my professors may be in error. You have not,though, established that it was appropriate or helpful to mock them.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:45 pm
I would like to convey how I have received all this (and I'll add that I think my view does represent reality, so far as my poor powers can perceive it, at least that's how it looks to me).
If Bill's response is to claim that his intention should guide how his words should be taken, then I suppose that Tim's intention should guide how his words should have been taken as well.
As such, Bill intended no offense, but then neither did Tim, if what I'm reading above is accurate. So there's no need for Tim to have apologized, and Bill need not have accepted it.
I don't see why we can't separate our own feelings of insult and self-worth from the positions we take, nor do I understand why questioning what professors have said questions in any way their sincerity, seriousness, or value.
When it comes to differing on things we care about, why not argue? But why not accept that we can argue and differ without taking it so personally? When we do argue (if we can even rise to that level), we should think twice about how we present something that MIGHT be offensive, and in reading differing views we should take the advice offered in the immortal movie of Bill Murray's, Stripes, and “lighten up, Francis”.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Micah, did you perceive my statements differently than I intended them? Did I err in how I presented them? I would appreciate your feedback.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:54 pm
If my statements were offensive, I apologize for the offense. I do not desire to have offended anyone.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:22 pm
[Note: I wrote the following during the State of the Union speech, so forgive me if it is shaky. I don't have time to rewrite this, but will be able to clarify it later.]
I think what is going on here is essentially a clash between two views over the nature of the ideas which we are discussing, and this analysis will be assuming the first view. The first view is the traditional, universalistic view of ideas. The ideas espoused by a person are distinct from the person, and can exist independently of the person espousing them. Thus, criticism of an idea is not necessarily a criticism of the person espousing the idea. This view is widely held by those of us here who have philosophical, apologetic, and political science (theoretical) backgrounds. The second view is the more postmodern, nominalistic view in which the ideas espoused by a person cannot be separated from the person espousing them. This view is held by those with pastoral and psychological (practical) backgrounds. Additionally, the first view is a given at TalBiola, while the second view is more in line with Fuller. So, I think what happens is that when Roger or Amy or myself, who adhere to the first view described here, write a post, our intent is to debate the ideas and their content, not the person or persons who espoused the ideas (a notable exception to this, of course, is David Hasselhoff). In this post, Roger discussed the book, but Bill, who adheres to the second view, addressed how the “worldview” idea came across to him. This prompted Roger, who adheres to the first view, to question the relevance of Bill's feelings about the term worldview, and I think this alone demonstrates that very different views of ideas are being used. I mocked the idea that 'saying that there are no worldviews' is itself a worldview, yet Bill, because he believes ideas cannot be divorced from the person(s) espousing them, took me to be mocking the seriousness and brilliance of those who espoused the idea, not the idea, or more accurately, the holding of the view, which is a corollary of the first view. So, I believe that once we acknowledge the different approaches to ideas be used here, things will be much better for everybody.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:23 pm
I've responded here.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:43 pm
No, my friend, I don't think you intended any offense, and I did not take any.
My point is I think we spend too much time taking, and worrying about, offense. You seem to want to avoid “arguing”, as if this is a bad thing in itself. I tend to think it's bad to “quarrel”, but not to argue. I could be wrong about this, I guess it''s the impression I get from your seeming to want to avoid making statements that might contradict something someone else has said (you are much more likely to report the inner state of your own thinking or feeling, which is not without value but can cut off further discussion).
I don't mind having folks contradict what I've said, if they think it's wrong, and they give me reasons for it. In fact, that's more or less what I do for a living.
As we've agreed before, we would probably enjoy “arguing” with each other (all of us) with a beer or Dr. Pepper and in person. Perhaps we need to think seriously about a CC reunion (though not restricted to CC).
January 31st, 2006 at 11:45 pm
I'd drink to that, except that I'm at TalBiola and signed this lame contract- so I can't…
February 1st, 2006 at 12:32 pm
I am sure there are others here who would be glad to drink for you until you've fulfilled your lame contract.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:17 pm
The first brief reflection on this, Tim. It is true that I do not hold that you can mock an idea without at the same time mocking the people who have just put the idea forward.
I do believe you can argue forcefully against an idea, and even call it flat wrong without implicitly attacking the people who have just put it forward.
In general, I believe mocking should be avoided wherever possible when interacting with people of opposing views.
I appreciated Roger's earlier statement that he found the critique silly as a member of the worldview in-group's perspective. Knowing how members of the in-group use and view the term, the critique seemed silly, and even amusing to him.
As to my feelings. I wanted to respond to Roger's comment about my feelings not being relevant, but I decided it wasn't worth the effort. I had gotten the clarification I was seeking. Since, though you've brought it up, Tim, I will put in what I would have said.
Roger, I agree with you that if we were looking to find the truth about how folks thought and intended to use this term within the in-group of people who read and write and talk about this set of books, my feelings are not relevant to finding that truth. However, my feelings regarding worldview were relevant if for no other reason than because I was the one having the conversation with you. Beyond this, though, my concern was not to argue that those who use the term were one way or another, but was specifically to share how I and other critics would hear the terms you were using and have you offer how you intended them. I was reflecting to you the perception of an out-group for your own public relations benefit.
Roger said he believed my views were an extreme minority of those receiving his words. That is really neither here nor there. I doubt, though that the group I represent is a substantially smaller percentage of Christianity than the substantially small percentage of Christianity that uses or thinks in the term worldview.
To answer another open question, I understand, Roger, why you would be surprised that I didn't bring it up earlier. It is true that I have had these same reactions every time I've come across your use of the term worldview on the blog. It wasn't until now that I felt it was worth the effort to try to bring up how I received it and ask for your clarification.
This is all going on so much longer than I desired though. I knew when I was bringing this up that it would be a hot issue, so, though Micah would rather I just entered an argument, I chose my tone and my words very carefully and restrained my statements intentionally. I did this because it was not my desire to offend or accuse. Despite my efforts to moderate my tone and statements, Tim was still offended. Micah says he did not find offense in my statements, Tim seemed to believe that he was not alone in finding my statements offending.
Lastly, Tim, directly back to your post, I appreciate your attempt to find a more fundamental root to the problem, and your suggestion is very thoughtful and intelligent, but I don't identify with the perspective you are suggesting. I do not have a philosophical problem with separating ideas from people. Nor have I made the connection as to how Fuller, Postmodernism, psychology or pastoral ministry would lead me to believe we could not separate the idea from the thinker. Again, I appreciate your attempt to find a perspective to make this easier to unravel, but this doesn't seem to make it any more clear for me. In this particular conversation, I was focused on my feelings and other critics for the particular purpose I mentioned above. If it is still not clear what my purpose was, I can try to spell that out again.
When a conversation becomes predominantly about what a previous conversation was and not about the present, it grows inefficient, and as efficiently as we can resolve our thoughts on the past conversation and move on to a present conversation, the better I believe we would all be served. This is not to say that I think we should sweep conflict under the table. I dearly desire that we we in the Christian faith should seek to resolve issues between us. Rather, I wish not to belabor a conversation from the past.
February 1st, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Bill, I agree that this has gone on too long, although I think at some point bringing the issues of ideas and how they relate to people who make them would be good to explore further. My attempt to sketch it out here was woefully incomplete, and I'm not sure when I will be able to revisit the relationship between nominalism and the kind of postmodernism I see at Fuller. And for the record, I was not so much offended by your definition of “worldview” as I was just baffled by the extent to which such an oblique understanding of it would be the first thing that comes to mind upon hearing the term. Your comment on my explanatory post shows you have a much better understanding of the term than your comment here gave the impression you did. I think what continues over there could be a really good conversation.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Tim, as people clarified how they were using it, I undertsood they were using the same semantic meaning as paradigm. Until then, I understood it to be something very different. That is why I posted my questions in my opening post. I am still uncomfortable with the word, but as I said, I just keep thinking to myself that I'm saying paradigm instead of worldview, and I'm okay.