Joel, thanks for your review. I'm curious about this book! I appreciate you sharing as it sparked a few thoughts for me to ponder. I find myself deeply influenced by and thankful for Schaeffer's work. However, I have also received great spiritual blessing from various teachers from whom I've learned something of this "way of wisdom" approach. That said, your review just sparked a new thought, and I wonder if Kennedy explores this much. Rather than juxtaposing the two concepts of Worldview vs. Wisdom, is it possible that Worldview is just one sub-discipline of Wisdom? It's interesting for me to reflect now that when I was a new Christian at 18-22 y.o. I would say I had more "Wisdom" teachers at that time and I felt somewhat confused by their lack of "clarity". That's not precisely it, but I'm processing aloud here haha. Then around 22-25 y.o. I encountered Schaeffer's "Worldview" through a mentor and suddenly all the lightbulbs turned on for me. It was revelatory and exciting. Afterward, standing on that "Worldview" foundation, I felt then growing into my late 20s, now 30s, that I was finally able to grow in a meaningful "Wisdom." Anyway, just a few reflections and thoughts! Thanks again for sharing!
My problem with 'Christian Worldview' is that it often means western european worldview. But I do think we all have our worldview/s and that they need to be brought into our relation to Christ.
I wish we paid more attention to Wisdom - Proverbs includes non-Israelite wise-ones and Paul quotes Greek philosophers (prophets) as true. "Every good and perfect thing" comes from god.
For over fifty years, the authors mentioned in this video (Francis Schaeffer, Os Guiness, Nancy Pearcy) wrote many books which compare worldviews, such as nihilism, atheism, and Christianity.
Generally speaking you would go to books like “The universe Next Door” by James W. Sire or “Finding Truth” by Nancy Pearcey, but these books are what Kennedy is railing against. One that is more balanced, although from a Christian perspective would be “A spectators guide to worldviews” edited by Simon Smart and “A Spectators guide to world religions” by John Dickson. Non theist alternatives include atheist philosopher John Grey’s book “Seven Types of Atheism” and a more detailed comparison of world religions can be found in the edX Harvard course “World Religions through their Scriptures” which is something I would like to do someday.
@@hanskung3278 Joshlama already did mention some above. In addition to the books mentioned in that comment, I would add "The God Who is There," and "How Shall We Then Live?," both by Francis Schaeffer, but really, *many books* that he, and Os Guiness, and Nancy Pearcy, and Peter Kreeft, have written are just the kind of "comparing worldviews" books that you mentioned wanting. These books have been around for decades. Do searches for these authors, and you will have years of reading ahead of you!
So the book is saying that dropping a fully formed worldview into a forming mind is not the best way to educate. Agreed. In reality each person's worldview will be developed and owned by that person. the advantage of worldview discussions is that it helps self awareness (and understanding where someone else is coming from). All teachers teach from their own worldview, so worldview issues are unavoidable. Perhaps the best way to understand worldview structures in education is that they are scaffolding to assist the ongoing understanding of the world. Worldview must be genuinely owned just as the gospel must be genuine owned.
Worldview discussions, the way they are being described in this video, do not sound like an appreciation of how there are many legitimate ways to see, understand, or interpret the world. All to the contrary.
As I argued in my book Divided Knowledge, and to an extent in Theosophy, Van Til, and Bahnsen, worldview is an imprecise idea and therefore does not work as an explanatory principle in epistemology. Additionally, worldview, as it has been incorporated into presuppositional theories, is a sort of foundationalism, and teaches people to look for the presuppositional foundations of other belief frameworks that they seek to critique. As such, it ignores other, anti-foundationalist, approaches such as the "world-picture" of D. Z. Phillips, or tacit systems of belief such as those described by Michael Polanyi. According to Polanyi, it is the lack of foundations which is the strength of belief systems, because they lack points of vulnerability such as foundations would constitute. This leaves open the question of whether worldview is still useful for cultural theory or for certain areas of belief, such as that defined by a body of religious doctrine, even if it is not suitable for basic philosophical epistemology.
All-encompassing world views/systems can become idols. We are called to walk with the Lord and trust, with the simple faith of Abraham, not to know. In knowing rises pride.
I don't know if he discusses this in the book, but a concept of "worldview" is not genuinely supportive of traditional Christian claims, since "worldview" is essentially a relativistic concept-it's a socially and personally constructed perspective, not THE natural or objective truth about reality. Ironically, the conservative Christian embrace of "worldview" is an example of surrendering to terminology which in principle they should oppose.
@ Yes, there are potentially as many worldviews as there are people. “Worldviews” are what is true in the eyes of the one viewing, not in the world per se.
@@АпологетикаБазинского Here, let me give an example: A modern scientist would never call the periodic table "the scientific worldview." It's considered to be simply the facts of nature. Obviously, many Christians consider their beliefs to be true, but I'm just pointing out that "worldview" itself is a relativistic term. It's just a fancy word for "opinion."
To think worldviews can be "evaluated" to determine which is "correct", shows a lack of epistemological self-consciousness as CVT would say. I struggled with CVT and Bahnsen for years, DK Naugle's "Worldview - history of a concept" was the lightbulb moment for me in terms of understanding this "no neutrality" principle. If your teacher is not actively *_for_* Christ and his Bible, he's actively *_against_* Christ, unfortunately. Neutrality is the feeble disguise of the wolf. And it turns out the Bible bashers are (often unwittingly) the smartest epistemologists in the room.
The real question isn't whether the Christian teacher is "for Christ" (of course he or she should be). The question is whether being "for Christ" means being "against" every other belief and faith (or lack thereof) in the sense of disparagement and condemnation.
But you're not really addressing the epistemological problems of Weltanshauung generally. Just because there is no view from nowhere does not mean that the 19th century Idealism associated with Weltanshauung is valid. And it certainly does not mean that the only valid worldview is one that dogmatically starts with contemporary Christian theology.
@@alexbreiding Many Christians are joining hands in a way with postmodernism via "worldview." If there are no "grand narratives" or absolute truths (per PM), then although it's a blow for Christianity in one sense, it's also seen as a great victory in the sense that secularist materialism or various atheisms also have no claim to superiority. The playing field has been radically leveled, and everyone is entitled to their "worldview."
@@KingoftheJuice18 agreed, and I see that in the textbooks used to homeschool my partner's nieces and nephews. They are taught that naturalism is just another worldview, demoted from its privileged place in modernity to a lesser, un-Christian perspective. All that said, I also see abuses and misuses of postmodernist critiques, as if postmodernism entails relativism in ethics or knowledge.
@@alexbreiding In your view, what is the most solid grounding of a postmodernist ethics? Where do the stable meanings come from necessary to produce universal ethical standards?
Joel, thanks for your review. I'm curious about this book! I appreciate you sharing as it sparked a few thoughts for me to ponder.
I find myself deeply influenced by and thankful for Schaeffer's work. However, I have also received great spiritual blessing from various teachers from whom I've learned something of this "way of wisdom" approach. That said, your review just sparked a new thought, and I wonder if Kennedy explores this much. Rather than juxtaposing the two concepts of Worldview vs. Wisdom, is it possible that Worldview is just one sub-discipline of Wisdom? It's interesting for me to reflect now that when I was a new Christian at 18-22 y.o. I would say I had more "Wisdom" teachers at that time and I felt somewhat confused by their lack of "clarity". That's not precisely it, but I'm processing aloud here haha. Then around 22-25 y.o. I encountered Schaeffer's "Worldview" through a mentor and suddenly all the lightbulbs turned on for me. It was revelatory and exciting. Afterward, standing on that "Worldview" foundation, I felt then growing into my late 20s, now 30s, that I was finally able to grow in a meaningful "Wisdom." Anyway, just a few reflections and thoughts! Thanks again for sharing!
How does this compare with James K.A. Smith’s “Desiring the Kingdom”? I wonder if this book discusses Smith’s view of Christian formation.
My problem with 'Christian Worldview' is that it often means western european worldview. But I do think we all have our worldview/s and that they need to be brought into our relation to Christ.
I wish we paid more attention to Wisdom - Proverbs includes non-Israelite wise-ones and Paul quotes Greek philosophers (prophets) as true. "Every good and perfect thing" comes from god.
Not possible!
@@vincentkeller4725 I don't know what you think isn't possible. Bringing a worldview in relation to Christ?
Worldview can be a useful analytical tool even if brandished as a combative motif. Ideas buffet against each other. Even in educational pedagogy.
But too many frame their relationship with the church and the world from the perspective of a worldview to the exclusion of the gospel.
Does he discuss Dallas Willard? I don’t find Mr Willard combative. I am curious.
I wish there was a book comparing world views, nihilism, atheism, religious.
For over fifty years, the authors mentioned in this video (Francis Schaeffer, Os Guiness, Nancy Pearcy) wrote many books which compare worldviews, such as nihilism, atheism, and Christianity.
@christianman73 In that case recommend a few.
Generally speaking you would go to books like “The universe Next Door” by James W. Sire or “Finding Truth” by Nancy Pearcey, but these books are what Kennedy is railing against.
One that is more balanced, although from a Christian perspective would be “A spectators guide to worldviews” edited by Simon Smart and “A Spectators guide to world religions” by John Dickson.
Non theist alternatives include atheist philosopher John Grey’s book “Seven Types of Atheism” and a more detailed comparison of world religions can be found in the edX Harvard course “World Religions through their Scriptures” which is something I would like to do someday.
@@hanskung3278 Joshlama already did mention some above. In addition to the books mentioned in that comment, I would add "The God Who is There," and "How Shall We Then Live?," both by Francis Schaeffer, but really, *many books* that he, and Os Guiness, and Nancy Pearcy, and Peter Kreeft, have written are just the kind of "comparing worldviews" books that you mentioned wanting. These books have been around for decades. Do searches for these authors, and you will have years of reading ahead of you!
So the book is saying that dropping a fully formed worldview into a forming mind is not the best way to educate. Agreed. In reality each person's worldview will be developed and owned by that person. the advantage of worldview discussions is that it helps self awareness (and understanding where someone else is coming from). All teachers teach from their own worldview, so worldview issues are unavoidable.
Perhaps the best way to understand worldview structures in education is that they are scaffolding to assist the ongoing understanding of the world.
Worldview must be genuinely owned just as the gospel must be genuine owned.
Worldview discussions, the way they are being described in this video, do not sound like an appreciation of how there are many legitimate ways to see, understand, or interpret the world. All to the contrary.
As I argued in my book Divided Knowledge, and to an extent in Theosophy, Van Til, and Bahnsen, worldview is an imprecise idea and therefore does not work as an explanatory principle in epistemology. Additionally, worldview, as it has been incorporated into presuppositional theories, is a sort of foundationalism, and teaches people to look for the presuppositional foundations of other belief frameworks that they seek to critique. As such, it ignores other, anti-foundationalist, approaches such as the "world-picture" of D. Z. Phillips, or tacit systems of belief such as those described by Michael Polanyi. According to Polanyi, it is the lack of foundations which is the strength of belief systems, because they lack points of vulnerability such as foundations would constitute. This leaves open the question of whether worldview is still useful for cultural theory or for certain areas of belief, such as that defined by a body of religious doctrine, even if it is not suitable for basic philosophical epistemology.
Pressupositionalismm is more like coherentism and not foundationalism.
@@АпологетикаБазинского See Richard Fumerton's Foundationalism for how they can be combined.
All-encompassing world views/systems can become idols.
We are called to walk with the Lord and trust, with the simple faith of Abraham, not to know. In knowing rises pride.
I don't know if he discusses this in the book, but a concept of "worldview" is not genuinely supportive of traditional Christian claims, since "worldview" is essentially a relativistic concept-it's a socially and personally constructed perspective, not THE natural or objective truth about reality. Ironically, the conservative Christian embrace of "worldview" is an example of surrendering to terminology which in principle they should oppose.
You mean relativistic because it is always different from person to person?
@ Yes, there are potentially as many worldviews as there are people. “Worldviews” are what is true in the eyes of the one viewing, not in the world per se.
@@KingoftheJuice18 but what if someone has correct viewing?
And where do we find the traditional Christian - eh - view/claims? Is it Saint Thomas Aquinas you allude to?
@@АпологетикаБазинского Here, let me give an example: A modern scientist would never call the periodic table "the scientific worldview." It's considered to be simply the facts of nature. Obviously, many Christians consider their beliefs to be true, but I'm just pointing out that "worldview" itself is a relativistic term. It's just a fancy word for "opinion."
You wish..:)
To think worldviews can be "evaluated" to determine which is "correct", shows a lack of epistemological self-consciousness as CVT would say.
I struggled with CVT and Bahnsen for years, DK Naugle's "Worldview - history of a concept" was the lightbulb moment for me in terms of understanding this "no neutrality" principle.
If your teacher is not actively *_for_* Christ and his Bible, he's actively *_against_* Christ, unfortunately.
Neutrality is the feeble disguise of the wolf.
And it turns out the Bible bashers are (often unwittingly) the smartest epistemologists in the room.
The real question isn't whether the Christian teacher is "for Christ" (of course he or she should be). The question is whether being "for Christ" means being "against" every other belief and faith (or lack thereof) in the sense of disparagement and condemnation.
But you're not really addressing the epistemological problems of Weltanshauung generally. Just because there is no view from nowhere does not mean that the 19th century Idealism associated with Weltanshauung is valid. And it certainly does not mean that the only valid worldview is one that dogmatically starts with contemporary Christian theology.
@@alexbreiding Many Christians are joining hands in a way with postmodernism via "worldview." If there are no "grand narratives" or absolute truths (per PM), then although it's a blow for Christianity in one sense, it's also seen as a great victory in the sense that secularist materialism or various atheisms also have no claim to superiority. The playing field has been radically leveled, and everyone is entitled to their "worldview."
@@KingoftheJuice18 agreed, and I see that in the textbooks used to homeschool my partner's nieces and nephews. They are taught that naturalism is just another worldview, demoted from its privileged place in modernity to a lesser, un-Christian perspective. All that said, I also see abuses and misuses of postmodernist critiques, as if postmodernism entails relativism in ethics or knowledge.
@@alexbreiding In your view, what is the most solid grounding of a postmodernist ethics? Where do the stable meanings come from necessary to produce universal ethical standards?
In your dreams.