Rick Warren aimed at clarity. He wanted us to have a better understanding of McCain’s and Obama’s “worldview.” As part of his opening he said that everyone has a “worldview.” Okay, everyone has one. But what’s the point?
Everyone has opinions and he asked the candidates about their opinions on abortion, orphans, Supreme Court justices et cetera. So why not simply say he was asking about their opinions?
Consider this statement:
we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics, because faith is just a world view, and everybody has some kind of world view. It’s important to know what they are.
Does it make just as much sense to speak simply of opinions? Consider the following:
we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics, because faith is just an opinion, and everybody has some kind of opinion. It’s important to know what they are.
That statement seems to make as much sense, and more clearly, than the first. I certainly agree it’s important to know the opinions of the candidates. And the forum allowed the candidates to express their opinions on a variety of public questions.
So what’s the point? Why did this Christian leader talk about “worldviews”? Was he concerned about mixing faith and politics? He did, you know, make it a point to have the candidates respond to anonymous critics of the forum, and assure all that there was no mixing of church and state. All that was happening, Rick assured us, was an expression of “worldviews,” which everyone has. This was not to be understood as a religious test for office.
But on the other hand, how should the faithful understand the statement that faith is just another opinion? I don’t thinks so…. Faith is not just another opinion in the Bible. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” And Obama expressed his faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of his sins. Was that just another opinion for Rick? This doesn’t seem to make sense.
So, if substituting “opinion” for “worldview” doesn’t make sense, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Rick was not aiming for clarity about opinions. But that doesn’t make sense either.
I’m not sure Rick made sense with a needless justification for asking candidates about their opinions.
But tell me, why do think Christians talk about “worldviews” instead of opinions, or instead of faith, or instead of Truth? What’s wrong with good old fashioned English? Why use this translation from German of an amalgamation that originated with Immanuel Kant?
I think the concept of “world view” goes deeper than “opinion”. I disagree that Faith is just an opinion, nor do I agree that Faith is “just a world view” — Faith certainly helps shape your world view, but people of the same Faith can certainly hold different world views or we wouldn’t have Christians who are, for example, pro-abortion.
On the other hand, a world view encompasses a set of beliefs that incorporate issues of Faith (the problem of evil, the nature of man, etc.) certainly, but go much farther than an opinion. Because a world view is a snapshot of truth as you see it. (Yes, with me, it seems we’re always getting back to Truth.) If your world view is founded on Biblical Truth, then it’s going to shape every nuance of every action of every part of your life. If your world view is founded on something other than that, the same applies. As such, I think we know plenty about our candidates opinions, but not nearly enough about their world view. Because it’s their world view that is going to be behind their policy – it’s their world view that is going to shape the next 4 years of what America as a general population comes to see as acceptable. And since we’ve already had Clinton’s world view convince us further that truth can be defined situationally (what is the definition of is?) and that sex is not a holy union ordained by God for marriage alone (oh sure, that was out there long before Clinton, but he pushed our noses in it and rather than standing up and making a change, America collectively swallowed the lies and her world view shifted just a little more). World view goes deeper than opinion, and it’s a little less obvious because most people haven’t taken the time to examine or consciously shape their world view. So while they might be able to effectively verbalize an opinion, very few can effectively verbalize a world view — or even the definition of what a world view is, as Warren himself just demonstrated.
Beth, thanks for the elaboration, but I still don’t think there’s clarity with the use of “worldview.”
If a worldview is not just one opinion, but “many beliefs,” why not speak about many opinions, including opinions about religion? Even for explaining actions, opinions seem sufficient. What’s wrong with saying that someone did this or that because he had the opinion that it was the best action to take?
Do you think a “worldview” is a psychological term about someone’s impulses, i.e. a subconscious force underlying opinions? But if so, how does it spread and corrupt others?
What’s wrong with that old way of speaking and talking about corrupting opinions and manners with bad opinions and bad examples? What’s wrong with speaking the truth instead of speaking about a “worldview” of it?
Why not ask people their opinions so the wisdom of those opinions can be rationally examined? For example, shortly after the forum I heard a commentator note the conflict in Obama’s abortion position and in saying that he thinks we should watch out for the “least.”
According to dictionary.com, “opinion” is “1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.” Later on, the definition says this, “An opinion is a belief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction, certainty, or positive knowledge; it is a conclusion that certain facts, ideas, etc., are probably true or likely to prove so: political opinions; an opinion about art; In my opinion this is true.” So, given that definition, an opinion is not based on Truth, but on some probabilistic notion that things are “probably” true.
“Worldview,” on the other hand is defined as, “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.” So, my opinion is what I think could be true, but about which I have no certainty, while my worldview is the collections of what I know as truth, or Truth, and which provides my overall perspective of the everything.
So, when I meet someone with my same worldview, I may note differences in opinions, but I also know that on the core truth, we agree. And that agreement means that I can have greater trust in the decision making of that individual because we have the same perspective.
In a practical sense, then, my worldview on abortion is in tune with the claimed worldview of Sen. McCain, and differs wildly from the worldview of it expressed by Sen. Obama. Therefore, I am of the opinion (carefully chosen word) that I am more likely to be able to trust Sen. McCain with a decision in that area than I am Sen. Obama, although I cannot have certainty in that area.
Worldviews affect our opinions, not the other way around. You cannot take the original statement and replace worldview with opinion, they are not the same word.
So the sentence, “we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics, because faith is just a world view, and everybody has some kind of world view. It’s important to know what they are,” can be changed to say, “we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics, because faith is just the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world, and everybody has some kind of overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. It’s important to know what they are.”
Hey Pop,
Bravo for the dictionary!
I think, however, you’re trying to slip it over on me again….
Somehow you went from the definition of worldview to the truth.
Worldview is an overall view, not a true one, except, perhaps, to you. So you think it’s true, but if it’s not, why shouldn’t I call it a false opinion? Likewise for “a collection of beliefs….”
Perhaps this simply means that Rick Warren was asking McCain and Obama to tell us what they really think, i.e. what they think is true about public issues. Of course, in asking his questions the candidates were quite free to say what they thought was probable as well….
Everyone has a perspective, just like they have opinions. Some might be more elevated than others. So I’m still in need of convincing that political/moral discourse needs the confusion of “worldviews.”
Ditto what Pop said.
(It’s very much what I wanted to say but was trying to rush — and even then not sure I’d've managed the eloquence.)
I think the point is that you can’t separate worldview from truth. (You certainly can separate it from Truth, however.) Even if the worldview is based on something false, it’s different than an opinion in that I believe much of someone’s worldview isn’t a consciously chosen thought. I don’t think that’s how it *should* be – but I think in actuality it’s how it is. For example, many (most?) people have an opinion about abortion, however very few have an understanding of the worldview that allowed them to choose that opinion. Worldview is the underpinning of our opinions, and in fact our worldview is going to dictate whether or not we hold fast to our opinions and beliefs.
Now, whether or not political/moral discourse needs adding in the term of worldview when many (most?) won’t see the difference between that and an opinion…I can’t say. But ultimately, I believe it’s easier for someone to compromise on an issue that is purely an opinion than it is for an issue that is truly part of their worldview.
Hey Beth,
Thanks for trying again, but I’m still not seeing it….
Worldview can’t be separated from truth. Okay, but neither can opinion according to Pop’s dictionary, because it appears to be true.
And if the point is to emphasize perspective, well okay, they’re not chosen. I didn’t choose to be me, and so I didn’t choose my perspective. But I don’t think that was quite your point….
As to what allows me to choose opinions, well, okay, maybe I don’t understand the mind and the soul etc. But what’s wrong my using the words “mind” and “soul”? I don’t think “worldview” clarifies this.
And as far as what opinions are more changeable than others, well, I suppose hard, long established ones are harder to change, than new and inchoate ones.
Beau, I thought Beth did an excellent job of distinguishing between “worldview” & “opinion”. I thought your point following that was that using either of those terms avoids talking about Truth with a capital T, that there is one Truth, not your truth, my truth, someone else’s truth. Those terms, to me, smack of political correctness. This attempt to avoid offense muddies the waters of discussion. So give tell me the truth, was that your point? Or is it just my opinion?
Hey Barb!
Yes, truth clarifies.
If we talk about truth as “my truth” and “your truth,” or “my worldview” or “your worldview” then we’re not using the word “opinion.” But, as Pop observed, truth is not completely absent from the definition of opinion; it is not contrary to opinion. With opinion, there’s the possibility of truth, and the responsibility to examine it for the truth.
Worldview is the foundation on how I see the universe. My worldview changed when I became a Christian, shifting to a new perspective. But worldviews don’t change often, nor is any worldview change trivial. Worldview is based on what one sees as unchanging truth. For some, worldview is based on the Everlasting Truth. We may disagree on the basis of worldview, but the bottom line is that worldviews don’t easily change.
Opinions, on the other hand, come and go based on new information that may arrive and be assessed from my worldview.
So, worldview is based on what I hold as truth, in my case The Truth, while opinions are based on what I think is probably correct, but which can shift as new information either affirms or undermines the probabilities.
Given that, what Pastor Warren was trying to get to for the two candidates was, “What is at your core belief system? From where do you assess the Universe?” I may choose to differ with your opinion because one or the other of us knows different “facts,” or has different probabilities assigned to the likelihood of those “facts” being accurate, but if we share worldview, then as our “facts” come into alignment, we should agree on opinions. If your worldview is not the same as mine, then even if the facts align, our resulting opinions will differ.
Example: My worldview is that man has not and cannot affect global temperatures in any significant way. In fact, I’m uncertain global warming actually exists since the “facts” don’t support the alarmists claims. So, my opinion is that global warming does not exist. But even if new facts arrive to establish beyond doubt that the globe is warming, that still doesn’t change my worldview that we didn’t cause it. I may shift my opinion to agree that the globe is warming, based on that new information, but my worldview that we didn’t cause it remains unchanged. To shift that worldview is going to take a major upheaval much greater than to shift my opinion that global warming is bogus.
Hey Pop,
Okay, okay, okay, I’m getting worn down. (So much work…:)
But I’m not there yet. In fact, I’m becoming more impressed by the force some kind of political correctness has on the minds of people today….
Generally, your example of facts and worldviews almost sounds like worldviews are more important than the facts. Are worldviews more important than the truth? Or are “facts,” in some sense, not true?
Do you mean that people with different “worldviews” see the same facts differently means the same thing as people with different opinions about the relevance or importance of certain facts reach different conclusions?
Being an old fashioned kind of guy, let me inject an old fashioned term. If “worldview” is believed (opined?) to be true, to be “what one sees as unchanging truth,” why not call it orthodoxy? Don’t the orthodox hold to the unchanging truth?
Was Rick Warren asking the candidates how orthodox they are?
And, to use another old-fashioned term, why not speak of opinions changing because of revelation?
In order:
1. Yes, the forces of Political Correctness are running rampant with the language. The PC police want to control the discussion and to frame it in terms that sound good but are hollow in meaning. Paul said to Timothy, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Tim. 4:3-4) The forces of PC want to control the discussion to just tickling the ears.
2. “Worldview” is shorthand for “The truth as I am able to know it, even if I don’t have all the facts.” Now for some, that statement smacks of relative truth but what I’m trying to say is that our worldview is the summation of what we know as truth. For example, an atheist would have a worldview devoid of God. Even though the atheist is wrong, that’s the worldview atheists hold. For the Christian, the worldview is based on the Truth. Worldviews are not more “important” than the truth, they ARE the truth as I know it. For my worldview to shift would require a major disruption in truth. That is why so many people have so radical a life-changing event when they come to Christ. Becoming aware of Him and His salvation radically shifts one’s worldview from “my truth” to “The Truth.”
3. That shift in worldview does mean I see “facts” differently. (And yes, “facts” can be untrue. The world is flat was a “fact” for many years, until people sailed all the way around and discovered it was not flat after all.) The confounding thing about worldview and opinions is that we can have differing worldviews and yet get to the same opinion. (Both the Christian and atheist can get to the same opinion that murder is wrong, for two very different reasons.) The corollary is that shared worldviews can still lead to different opinions. (You can be Christian and not accept global warming as man-caused and you can be Christian and totally blame mankind for global warming.) Same facts, different opinion, still based on the same worldview.
4. Orthodoxy is a PC-incorrect word these days. Back to the dictionary…”belief or orientation agreeing with conventional standards” is what dictionary.com has in one definition. So, yes, the question is, are the candidates’ worldviews orthodox? But the PC Police have orthodoxy carrying a lot of baggage that they don’t want people to think about. Dictionary.com defines orthodox as,
“1. of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2. of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.
3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
4. sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, esp. theological or religious doctrine.
5. conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.”
The question about orthodoxy is what is the “approved” form in the first definition? Of course, for a Christian, the fifth definition provides the answer, but for the non-believer, the debate is about what exactly is the “approved” and “customary” doctrine and philosophy? Hence the desire to find out the worldview of the candidates. The goal is to identify what doctrine and philosophy defines their orthodoxy.
5. Opinions do change by revelation. That’s the exact point of the difference between worldview and opinion. Worldview sets the framework for that revelation, my opinions are grounded in that worldview, based on things that I only know as probably true rather than absolutely true and change as the facts change and the probabilities change. Of course, a larger Revelation can shift my worldview, but that Revelation may or may not shift my lesser held opinions. I can accept Christ and thereby shift my worldview and still not change my opinion on global warming.
It still boils down to Pastor Warren trying to expose the candidates to his congregation (and the rest of us) and to get them to define what it is they accept as their philosophy or doctrine against which they are orthodox (i.e., their worldview). If we share worldview, there is a greater chance that we will come to the same opinion more often.
Wow Pop, you’ve written a whole essay on “worldview.”
Okay, I’ll take the points in turn….
1. Sounds right….
2. Um, here I am again. “‘Worldview’ is short hand for …” what? opinion? So Rick could say the Atheist has the incorrect opinion there is no God….
3. Untrue “facts” … well, I guess that does characterize the problem. The same “facts” and the same “worldviews” producing differing opinions doesn’t sound too confounding, however. Mistakes in logic produces that result.
The problem I think that “worldview” has been used to address (or to avoid) is the problem of differing premises leading to differing conclusions, with both using valid logic. The problem there is the conflict between people that is not logically resolvable, i.e. not just as a matter of formal logic. So, to solve the conflict (and to ensure peace) we’re all relativists. The religious have their premises (“worldviews”) and the non-religious have theirs and we’re all equally correct in terms of logic. Voila, your opinion is not better than mine…. you can’t judge me, etc. “We all have worldviews….”
4. PC is incorrect? From that first definition, PC IS orthodoxy….
And okay, you got me on 4 and your conclusion. Instead of “opinion,” doctrine and philosophy make perfect sense. Rick Warren could have said that the “doctrine and philosophy” of the candidates is important for us to understand. And because leaders teach, saying doctrine and philosophy is better than just saying opinion. Saying doctrine and philosophy emphasizes Beth’s point that leaders can corrupt the people with their teaching.
5. First, paragraph…. Um, saying that worldviews being the framework for revelation and changing with Revelation doesn’t persuade me that “worldview” adds clarity.
I’m not sure the term “worldview” is intended to add clarity. What it does is get us away from talking about orthodoxy, or philosophy, or doctrine. Those words make liberals uncomfortable because they could lead to a discussion of absolute standards, and they cannot abide absolutes. By shifting the discussion to “worldview” the argument ensues, as it has here, that my worldview is just as valid as your worldview. Of course, that claim is bogus. There is only one True worldview, which is God’s worldview. And His worldview includes absolutes, orthodoxy and standards.
Hmmm, Pop, are suggesting Rick Warren is undermining belief in absolutes?