On Worldview And Culture
By Sam Weaver (10/01/03)
Defining “worldview”
Webster’s New World Dictionary (Third College Edition) defines worldview as “a comprehensive, esp. personal, philosophy or conception of the world and of human life.” This comprehensive philosophy is ultimately founded upon four institutions (i.e., established ideas or conceptions).
These four "institutions" are the elements of all rational, intelligent thought. All philosophical thought is rooted in one or more of these four concepts: Religion, Politics, Economics, and Science. An individual’s worldview is based entirely upon his inclusive perception of these four concepts and upon his personal understanding of how society is best served by this perception.
Any form of thought that is not conceived in one or more of these four institutions is set upon the shaky ground of raw emotion. Purely emotional thought is the result of impulses, or drives. Animals have drives. The capability of rational, intelligent thought is one thing that separates mankind from the animals. [A conscience—the innate ability to discern good from evil—is another.] Emotional, or impulse-driven, thought may seemingly benefit an individual in the short term, but can (and almost always does) have devastating consequences in the long run. Logical thought, on the other hand, looks forward to the long term. In the decision-making process, logical thought tends to consider history. In other words, a logical person will analyze both the rewards and the unfortunate consequences of similar decisions made in the past. A purely emotional thinker will generally go with what seems, or feels right at any given moment; often despite lessons that could have (and should have) been learned from the past. Moreover, rational, logical thought tends to consider not only the individual; it examines society as a whole as well. Decisions that are rooted in coarse emotion are often focused on instant personal gratification.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY, of course, that a “proper”, or a “respectable” worldview philosophy should—or even could—be formed with pure reason and totally devoid of emotion! Neither am I proclaiming that emotion-driven thinkers never consider the well-being of society as a whole. [If truth be told, some of society’s greatest problems are the result of emotional—rather than logical—ideas of how best to govern society!] Emotion is a vital attribute of the human psyche. Emotion is an integral part of any worldview. History shows, however, that any worldview that is dominated by vulgar emotion is doomed to fail. A “proper” worldview, if it exists, must therefore maintain a perfect balance between logic and emotion. A “respectable” worldview would never withhold the precise dose of intuition.
Worldwide, there are almost as many worldview philosophies as there are humans. Every human being who is both capable of and inclined toward rational thought has one. Any person who does not have a worldview philosophy is either mentally impaired or is so consumed with prurient or trivial amusements that he has not taken the time to consider the fundamental concepts of religion, politics, economics and science. In both cases, such a person has no substantial idea of how his government should approach the issues that it must face on a daily basis. In either case, such an individual has no business voting! Because of the inherent (selfish) nature of man, any individual who has not formed a worldview philosophy will always vote according to his own (selfish) interests. Any individual who has not analyzed the issues in terms of these four worldview institutions has shirked his first responsibility as a member of a democratic society. The primary duty of every voter is to be moral, educated, and informed.
Religion is the cornerstone of every worldview
All of the world’s religions have two major components. Every true religion has both an explanation of origins and an ethic. An explanation of origins is an account of how the universe, the earth, and all life on earth came into existence. An ethic is a fundamental moral code—a system of principles or rules—by which every individual should conduct his life.
A person’s religion—above any of the other three worldview institutions—determines his concept of truth. [I discussed the two concepts of truth—relativism and absolutism—in my previous column on this site, “On truth and liberty”.] When all is said and done, a person’s concept of truth influences his overall outlook on life more than any other concept.
Even still, there is another aspect of religion that figures heavily in the determination of an individual’s worldview. This important—yet little discussed—religious aspect is the conception of the nature of man. Most of the world’s religions assume that the nature of man is basically good. Virtually every religion—with one vehement exception—asserts that man can achieve salvation [i.e., acceptance by the Deity (or deities), nirvana, ultimate peace, ultimate justice, ultimate righteousness, etc.] by reaching deep within himself to discover his fundamental goodness. In other words, “salvation” is obtained through works. A person gains salvation, enlightenment, or ultimate peace/justice by doing certain things—by following a system of principles, rules, or guidelines to the letter. In all but one of the world’s religions, the religious ethic is the key to “salvation” and/or the path to ultimate peace and justice.
The Judeo-Christian faith—that one vehement exception—teaches that every human being is tainted by the “original sin” of one man. The religion—indeed, the worldview—of Judeo-Christianity proclaims that human nature is fundamentally corrupt (i.e., selfish, or evil); and that the only hope for salvation is through blood sacrifice—via the shed blood of an unblemished Lamb; a Messiah, a Savior!
An individual’s religious beliefs are the cornerstone of his worldview. From both an intellectual and an emotional standpoint, a person’s political philosophy cannot form his religious ideology. Neither can a person’s economic philosophy determine his religion. A person’s scientific outlook is shaped by his religion, not the other way around. [Of course, there are pseudo-religious cults that are based upon pseudo-scientific and even upon economic philosophies. There are probably even cults established upon political theories. Cults, as a rule however, either reject outright the true meaning of religion (generally ignoring any logical explanation of origins and/or any sensible moral ethic); or they require their members to forgo all reason and to follow with blind emotion some power-mad, deranged “leader”. Few, if any cults are founded on true religious principle.]
Ultimately, any individual’s political, economic, and scientific philosophy is grounded in his religious faith or ideology. A person’s worldview philosophy begins with his understanding of how the physical universe came to be, with his idea of how every responsible human being should conduct his life, and, perhaps most important, with both his concept of truth and his idea of human nature. Religion is the foundation of every worldview philosophy. A person’s conceptions of politics, economics, and science rest upon his religious creed.
Two political philosophies
In terms of worldview philosophy, “politics” is little more than an idea of how a society should be governed. Long before Plato, men and women were pondering this idea. When it comes down to brass tacks, there are only two rudimentary concepts of political philosophy. Any other political notion involves some form or some degree of one or both of these two political ideas.
The first of these political concepts is the idea of either authoritarian or authoritative CONTROL. The idea of authoritarian control is seen in every monarchy and every dictatorship since time began. Authoritarian control is represented by brute force. The word and the whim of the ruler is “law”. Any violation of the ruler’s “law” is punished by the word and the whim of the ruler. The notion of authoritative control is at least as old as Plato’s Republic. This political concept seemed for a time to have met its demise in the Western world with the end of feudalism. Unfortunately, the idea of authoritative control is making a strong comeback in the West with the increasing power and scope of centralized bureaucracies. Authoritative control can be defined as power and authority that is ceded by the people (along with certain degrees of individual liberty) to some “benevolent ruler”, or some governing body in exchange for perceived security.
The second political concept was successfully launched for the very first time on July 4, 1776. It is the idea of individual LIBERTY. It presupposes a Supreme Creator Who is the Author of Law. No king—indeed no government—has the authority to enact law without the consent of a moral, educated and informed electorate. Rights are given to every human being by the Creator. It is the duty of government to secure these God-given rights. A strong, yet necessarily limited national government must protect the people against any foreign enemy that might threaten the inherent rights of the whole people. Too much power in the hands of a national government, however, places the liberty of the people in severe peril. State and local governments are established to protect the people from domestic threats to liberty (e.g., from criminals and unscrupulous businessmen).
The depiction of the first political worldview tenet is monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, feudalism, or bureaucracy. Control of the people, even if shrouded in “benevolence” or “the greater good of the people”, is the ultimate goal. The second worldview vision of politics is expressed in the Constitutional Republic that was bequeathed to every American by America’s Founders. The individual liberty of the people, in the original American political ideal, is the ultimate goal. The powers of the government must be limited, and powers within each branch of government must be checked and balanced by the other branches. In order to maintain their individual liberty, it would be the duty and the responsibility of the people and their posterity to keep themselves moral, educated and informed. Power and control is the inclination of politicians and governments. Liberty never comes cheap and it cannot prevail without constant vigilance and an enduring struggle.
Two economic philosophies
The philosophy of economics involves the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. It considers such factors as labor, capital, property, and taxation. Economics deals with relationships between or among these economic factors. Ultimately, the philosophy of economics is all about an individual’s (and, eventually a society’s) pursuit of happiness.
As in the case of politics (or political philosophy), there are two basic concepts of economic philosophy. One concept of economics is socialism. The other is free-enterprise. One requires some form or some degree of government control, and the other demands individual liberty. One craves ever-increasing magnitudes of taxation and government spending. The other strives for fair and limited taxation and minimal government spending. One has caused the economies of nations all over the globe—even throughout history!—to crumble. The other has made the United States of America the greatest economic powerhouse the world has ever known.
The economic worldview doctrine of socialism, by definition, requires some model and/or some extent of fiscal control by government (society) over the people. Inherent in the doctrine of socialism is the assumption that some members of society are incapable, for whatever reason, of the pursuit of happiness on their own. Every form and every degree of socialism is some attempt at forced (i.e., government-sponsored, or government-controlled) economic “equality” among individual members of society. In reality, whenever socialism achieves its climax, all members of society are brought down to the lowest common denominator. The absence of competition and incentive will always make forced “economic equality” a miserable existence for all.
The other tenet of economics--free-enterprise--means absolute economic liberty. Economic liberty means that every person is totally free to acquire property and to pursue happiness unless or until he violates the law. When a person (or a corporation) violates the law, he (it) must be held accountable. Liberty—in all of its forms—is dictated by the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God (i.e., Natural Law). Just law is enacted by a duly elected legislative body; not by the mandate of some tyrant, some bureaucracy, or some judge. However, a legislative body that has been elected by an immoral, uneducated, and un- (or mis-) informed people has not been duly elected. Law that has been enacted by such a legislative body is not just law. Liberty commands responsibility and accountability. Again, the primary duty of every voting citizen is to be moral, educated and informed. Failure of voters to meet this obligation portends despotic rule. Liberty cannot exist whenever the responsibility and accountability of citizens, voters, and public servants is lacking or ignored. The only alternative to liberty is control.
Two scientific approaches
Science is a passionate, yet necessarily objective quest for knowledge and understanding. Among today’s scientific community, there are two methods of engaging this quest. One is the new, “innovative”, “progressive”, and “modern” style. The other is the old, tried-and-true, systematic approach.
The “new” and “progressive” method of “scientific” discovery has its roots in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s philosophy of dialectic. [Hegel’s philosophy was a driving influence in the formation of Marx’ and Engel’s communist ideology.] It is, basically, “discovery” by consensus. A group of “experts” convenes in a symposium to discuss the latest hypothesis (or hypotheses). After hours, days, or even weeks of very serious debate and compromise, the experts might reach a conclusion. This conclusion, if achieved, becomes the “accepted” (or conventional) “theory” of the day. This, not surprisingly, is called the dialectic method of scientific discovery. Many of the latest “theories” (e.g., the Big Bang “theory” and the modern “theory” of evolution) have become “legitimized” by this method. Disregarding empirical evidence and lacking verifiable proof, these “theories” are held as virtual fact in schools and by various media outlets. For example, many science programs on PBS, The Learning Channel, and The Discovery Channel assume the “facts” of the “Big Bang ‘Theory’” and the “’Theory’ of Evolution” without any question or reservations.
The traditional method of scientific discovery is the empirical method. In this method, a scientist proposes a hypothesis based upon observations and an educated guess. On its way to becoming an accepted (i.e., a scientific) theory, every hypothesis must meet certain criteria and withstand a battery of tests. There is no room for argument or debate. If a hypothesis cannot pass the test, it has no chance of becoming a theory. Every scientific theory must be totally objective. It must be able to withstand the stringent scrutiny of empirical, scientific observation and investigation. If there is even the slightest evidence that a hypothesis could be false, that hypothesis cannot become a theory.
As an institution of worldview philosophy, science is by far the broadest in scope. Besides the method of scientific discovery, the worldview institution of science encompasses—but is not limited to—education, mathematics, language, art, sports, and entertainment.
Worldview and culture
Worldview is to an individual as culture is to a nation (or to a society). An individual’s worldview is characterized by his overall perceptions of religion, politics, economics and science. A nation’s culture is defined by its religious tenets, its political structure, its economic system, and its language, art, customs, and technologies.
There are two fundamental, dominant worldviews in modern Western society. The deep and pervasive influence of Hegelian dialectic philosophy in Western culture has convinced many if not most of us that both of these worldview philosophies should be rejected. Hegel teaches, if nothing else, that a “happy medium” can and ultimately will emerge from the “extremes” of these two worldviews.
In my next three columns, I will attempt to disclose and to explain these two opposing worldviews as I have come to understand them. I ask you, the reader, to weigh the evidence as I present it. As I make my case, please have the courage to make your own decisions and to arrive at your own conclusions. In full liberty, seek your own ways and means to refute my assertions if you feel the need. You will only be cheating yourself if you rely on “conventional wisdom”, propaganda, preconceived notions, or the untested rhetoric of others to refute my evidence. You will be cheating me, though, if you do not inform me, after objectively considering the evidence, of my errors.
My quest for Truth will never end. I both need and welcome all of the genuine help that I can get in pursuit of this quest! If any assertion that I make in the remaining eight columns of this series seem inadequate, misleading, biased, or wrong in any way; then please give me your feedback! I want to hear from you, my readers; and I sincerely want to learn from any intelligent source!
NOTE: This is the second in a series of columns designed to proffer my own personal thoughts on the two Western worldviews (or, ideologies) that are vying for dominance in modern Western culture. Politically informed Americans know these two ideologies as “liberal” and “conservative”. To define these two worldviews in political terms would be to tell only one-fourth of the complete story. My aim in this series of columns is to convey the whole truth of that “story”.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Sam Weaver
