Changing World-Views

One's world-view (German--weltanschauung) is a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint. Put simply, its how one views one's world. It includes the presuppositions and belief system through which one makes sense of what he sees and experiences in the real world.

One’s world view does shape how one interprets the evidence. There is a good illustration of this in John's Gospel (12:28-29), when Jesus said: Father, glorify your name!" Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. Note the two different interpretations of what they heard: 1) some said it thundered (perhaps the Saduccees or those influenced by them); 2) others said an angel spoke (perhaps the Pharisees or those influenced by them). One event--two interpretations. One group interpreted it within a naturalistic framework and the other within a supernatural framework.

Thus, some Christian apologists will argue that it does no good to debate with non-believers over the evidence for Christianity because the non-believer will give a different interpretation to the evidence than will the Christian. This particular school of apologetics is called the presuppositional school and is largely held by Calvinists. These apologists also maintain that since the unregenerate man cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), the Christian world-view will always seem like foolishness to him (1 Cor. 1:23-29) unless and until the Holy Spirit regenerates him. Before that happens, the natural man is blinded by Satan and cannot believe the gospel (2 Cor. 4:4).

The presuppositional apologists would say that other apologists, such as William Craig, are wasting their time trying to explain the beauty of a sunset to a blind man. They also criticize Craig and other apologists as in fact making historical evidence and philosophical arguments more authoritative than the Word of God since they use those arguments to try to substantiate the Word of God. Their thinking is that whatever you use as your authority to prove something else is superior in authority to the thing proved.

Now, I think there is a lot to be said for the presuppositionalist's criticisms of other apologists. As a matter of fact, when I was a Christian I was a presuppositionalist. Occasionally, I run into a presuppositionalist on some forums. This happened yesterday. Listen to a gentleman who calls himself Hodge (comment #91):

Evidence doesn’t EVER determine your ultimate beliefs. EVER! Your ultimate beliefs define reality and therefore identify, organize, and interpret the evidence AT ALL TIMES. Our atheism is given to us at an early age. I believe it is part of the sin nature, and fostered in our culture, mainly in implicit forms. Religious beliefs are simply stacked on top of it, or in my view, supernaturally replace our ultimate belief of unbelief with true faith. Otherwise, it’s simply a tug of war that eventually ends in the assent to it, or it’s a life of intellectual simplicity that never asks those questions. But let’s not be dishonest with ourselves and pretend that uninterpreted data moves the belief that interprets it in the first place. There is no such animal on the planet.

I agree completely that one's world-view determines how one interprets the evidence. However, I also believe that one can change world-views when one comes to realize that the evidence is more coherent within another world-view. I think Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is helpful in understanding how this change happens.

Here is a synopsis of Kuhn's thesis (from a Study Guide prepared by Frank Pajares):

1. A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs (p. 4).

a. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice" (p. 5).

b. The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs exert a "deep hold" on the student's mind.

2. Normal science "is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like" (p. 5)—scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.

3. To this end, "normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments" (p. 5).

4. Research is "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education" (p. 5).

5. A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly "subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice" (p. 6). These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific revolutions—"the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science" (p. 6).

a. New assumptions (paradigms/theories) require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community.

b. When a shift takes place, "a scientist's world is qualitatively transformed [and] quantitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory" (p. 7).

In my case, I found that the evangelical Christian world-view was internally contradictory and that the “facts” of the real world did not fit within that world-view as well within another world-view. So with great reluctance and over a long period of time, my world-view changed.

5 Steps to Apostasy?

Michael Patton, an evangelical Christian and a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, has a blog entitled: Parchment and Pen. While obviously Michael and I disagree on the truth of evangelical Christianity, I think he is a good guy and he attempts to be fair and honest in dealing with the relevant issues. At least he is willing to deal with the issues, so many Christians smugly maintain that they have the truth and that anyone who disagrees is being deceived by Satan.

Patton, by his own admission, has a fascination with those who leave the Christian faith. He has done a number of posts on the subject with his most recent being, "How People Become Evangelists Of Uunbelief” Or Leaving (Christ)ianity – An Evangelical Epidemic. In the post, he says: I have found that the two primary reasons people leave the faith are 1) intellectual challenges and 2) bad theology or misplaced beliefs. . He finds five steps in the process of apostasy:

Step One: Doubt

Here is where the person begins to examine his or her faith more critically by asking questions, expressing concerns, and becoming transparent with their doubt. This doubt is not wholesale, but expresses an inner longing to have questions answered and the intellect satisfied to some degree. Normally this person will inquire of mentors in the faith, requesting an audience for their doubt.

Step Two: Discouragement

This is where the person becomes frustrated because they are not finding the answers. They ask questions but the answer (or lack thereof) causes them discouragement. Their church tells them that such questions are “unchristian.” Their Sunday school teacher says, “I don’t know. You just have to believe.” Others simply say, “That’s a good question, I have never thought of it before,” and then go on their way on their own leap-of-faith journey.

Step Three: Disillusionment

Now the person begins to become disillusioned with Christianity in general and proceeds to doubt much more deeply. They feel betrayed by those who made them believe the story about Christ. They feel that much of their former faith was naive since not even their most trusted mentors could (or would) answer basic questions about the Bible, history, or faith. In their thinking the intellect has become illegitimized and the church is therefore an illegitimate contender for their mind.

Step Four: Apathy

At this point in the journey, the disillusioned Christian becomes apathetic to finding the answers, believing that the answers don’t exist. They are firmly on their way to atheism, agnosticism, or pure skepticism but don’t have the courage to admit it to themselves or others. Many times those in this stage live as closet unbelievers, believing it is not worth it to come clean about their departure from the faith. They want a peaceful existence in their unbelief without creating controversy. Therefore, they are content to remain closet unbelievers.

Step Five: Departure

At this stage the fact that they have left the faith has become real to them and they are willing to announce to the world. Because of their sense of betrayal, they feel as if it is their duty to become evangelists for the cause of unbelief. Their goal and mission becomes to unconvert the converted.

Since we have a number of de-converted Christians who read this blog, I would be interested in what you think of Patton's five step process and if it aligns with your own personal experience. I would also be interested to hear if you think there is anything the church or Christians could have done to keep you from walking away? Patton believes that the Church needs to deal with issues in a deeper way and not just merely dismiss them. I commend him for that opinion.

I tend to think, however, that most Christians don't really want to think very deeply. Their Christianity makes them "feel-good;" it tells them they are special and that God loves them and watches over them. It provides them with a good social outlet (and in Southern Baptist circles a lot of good food!) where they can be around people with similar beliefs. It provides a support network when problems in life, such as sickness and death, arise. Why would they want to challenge all of that with examining carefully the basis of their religion? The simple truth is that most don't. In addition, they are usually told that doubts arise from Satan and the solution is to resist the Devil, pray harder, read the Bible more, and be faithful to the all the services of the church. If there is something that you don’t understand about the Bible or theology, just have faith and God will explain it all to you when you get to heaven.

As I look at his five step process, it seems to me that I experienced only 1) Doubt, 3) Disillusionment, and 5) Departure. I did not experience #'s 2 and 4. As far as anything the church could have done, I doubt it but it would have been nice to see them try. Instead, my local church simply ostracized me and demonized me. In their mind, I am like Judas.

I look forward to hearing other's comments about their experience. BTW, my friend and fellow apostate John Loftus, recently had a post on this subject and I see he has received 218 comments on it. In addition, I have recently become aware of a book entitled: If God Disappears: 9 Faith Wreckers and What to Do about Them By David R. Sanford. Some other books on this subject which I have read include: Leaving the fold: testimonies of former fundamentalists, ed. by my friend and fellow apostate, Ed Babinski; Walking away from faith: unraveling the mystery of belief & unbelief by former Calvin College professor Ruth Tucker; Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity by my friend and fellow apostate, John Loftus; Beyond Born Again: Towards Evangelical Maturity by theology professor, Robert Price (available to read on-line; Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith by former Billy Graham associate, Charles Templeton and the book by my new friend and fellow apostate Ken Daniels, Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary (available to read on-line). And as I mentioned in a previous post, Ed Babinski has compiled a list of books by former believers.

That should provide a lot of data for anyone who wishes to investigate the reasons why Christians leave the fold. I would love to see a doctoral dissertation done at one of the leading evangelicals seminaries on this topic.