I have contrasted the Enlightenment and Postmodern Epistemologies, while at the same time developing the story of the concept of Worldview. I now want to advance a different conceptualization of Worldview, one that I think does a better job justly recognizing the contributions of Reason, Experience, and Faith to Knowledge. At the same time Heideggar was writing, a Dutch philosopher, Herman Dooyeweerd (1894–1977) was also wrestling with Worldview. In 1932 Dooyeweerd wrote a book entitled, “The New Critique of Theoretical Knowledge” in which he asserted that Reason was not Neutral. This, of course, was not a radical new claim. However, the explanation he provided was significant in that Worldview1 played a key role. Worldview, Dooyeweerd argued, is best understood as a function of the Realm of Faith. And it operates in a religious manner on Reason and Experience. I want to quickly unpack his claim. I take Dooyeweerd to mean that the nature of Faith is commitment. It is an allegiance to something, setting apart of something as unique. If I am a committed fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers, then my allegiance lies with the Steelers. I may enjoy watching other football teams play. But when it comes down to it and I have to cheer for a particular team, I side with my beautiful Gold and Black Steelers. I wave my terrible towel. Doing so demonstrates my committments. It marks me as one of the faithful. Even when they are down, if I am committed to their success, I am a pulling for them, my hope is oriented toward them. Even before they take the field, and even though their opponent is 10 and 0, if I am steadfast in my confidence of their success, if I am committed to seeing them through, I am faithful. I have a vision of them winning the Super Bowl. And I interpret their actions according to that commitment. The degree to which my commitment is strong is the degree to which others say I am a religious fan. Worldviews are religious because the nature of commitment is that it demands its adherent to be faithful.
THE HEART
According to Dooyeweerd the religious impulse is part of human nature. It is not a component of mind, therefore rationalistic, nor is it a component of body, therefore subject alone to our experiences. Rather it is located in what Dooyeweerd called the heart. Whether we are conscious of it or not, we have set our hearts on something. In the words of Woody Allen, “The heart wants what the heart wants.” The implications of our religious impulse is that humans are never neutral in our position toward Reason and Experiences. We have some degree of commitment to them. Reason and Experience, he argued, could never be free from the commitments of an individual.
RELATIONAL COMMITMENT TO THE STRUCTURE OF KNOWLEDGE
Commitment, however, is relational. If I am a fan of the Steelers, I may attend a game and yell at the top of my lungs. And the Team will respond to my commitment. A team plays very differently at Home then Away. Very differently in front of fans then in front of empty stands. The Team will respond to the Fans. And the relationship goes the other way as well. If I am a Fan and my team plays terribly, year after year after year, then one can anticipate that my commitment may falter. But what might really damage my commitment is if a Team did something that I fundamentally thought was at odds with the rules of the game. Finally, and oddly enough, if my Team was so successful that no other Team even had a chance, then I might actually start to cheer for the underdog! All this to say is commitment is not static, they are very dynamic. They interact with Reason and Experience. Our Faith is influenced by Reason and by Experience, and in return Reason and Experience influence Faith. Thus Faith, Reason and Experience are not in opposition. They are complementary. No realm can ever provide absolute Knowledge because of their dynamic relationship. But my the very nature of Faith, we posses a commitment to one area of Knowledge. We suppose that that one is better than the other, and that the key to one lies within the other.
If we are willing to accept the idea that one’s Worldview is determined by the individual commitments of a person, what accounts for the presence of periods where large groups of people shared a commitment? Again, because of dynamic functioning of commitment, Worldviews are not only prescriptive, but also descriptive. (Olthuis) That is to say that our Worldview reflects our experiences, and our experiences are historically and culturally bound. We share an environment and resources with our neighbors. We develop organizations to facilitate our interactions, economics and governments. We share communicative techniques, we use the similar language , read similar books, watch similar TV. We share a cultural which reflect our commitments. Not only is our worldview shaping how we live, it is being shaped by how we live. This conception of Worldview, more than any other, brings dignity to the Realms of Knowledge and respect for different ways of knowing. Each realm is worthy of commitment, but one no more than the other.
—-
1.According to Wolters (1985), Abraham Kuyper, and Dooyeweerd, his disciple, used “Worldview” Lifeview” and “World and Life View” almost interchangeably. Dooyeweerd, in his later writing, uses “Religious Ground Motive” as a consistent substitute for all three.
Worldview: Acknowledging Faith’s Role in Knowledge
Worldview: Bridging Enlightenment and Postmodern Epistemologies
I have contrasted the Enlightenment and Postmodern Epistemologies, while at the same time developing the story of the concept of Worldview. I now want to advance a different conceptualization of Worldview, one that I think does a better job justly recognizing the contributions of Reason, Experience, and Faith to Knowledge. At the same time Heideggar was writing, a Dutch philosopher, Herman Dooyeweerd (1894–1977) was also wrestling with Worldview. In 1932 Dooyeweerd wrote a book entitled, “The New Critique of Theoretical Knowledge” in which he asserted that Reason was not Neutral. This, of course, was not a radical new claim. However, the explanation he provided was significant in that Worldview1 played a key role. Worldview, Dooyeweerd argued, is best understood as a function of the Realm of Faith. And it operates in a religious manner on Reason and Experience. I want to quickly unpack his claim. I take Dooyeweerd to mean that the nature of Faith is commitment. It is an allegiance to something, setting apart of something as unique. If I am a committed fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers, then my allegiance lies with the Steelers. I may enjoy watching other football teams play. But when it comes down to it and I have to cheer for a particular team, I side with my beautiful Gold and Black Steelers. I wave my terrible towel. Doing so demonstrates my committments. It marks me as one of the faithful. Even when they are down, if I am committed to their success, I am a pulling for them, my hope is oriented toward them. Even before they take the field, and even though their opponent is 10 and 0, if I am steadfast in my confidence of their success, if I am committed to seeing them through, I am faithful. I have a vision of them winning the Super Bowl. And I interpret their actions according to that commitment. The degree to which my commitment is strong is the degree to which others say I am a religious fan. Worldviews are religious because the nature of commitment is that it demands its adherent to be faithful.
THE HEART
According to Dooyeweerd the religious impulse is part of human nature. It is not a component of mind, therefore rationalistic, nor is it a component of body, therefore subject alone to our experiences. Rather it is located in what Dooyeweerd called the heart. Whether we are conscious of it or not, we have set our hearts on something. In the words of Woody Allen, “The heart wants what the heart wants.” The implications of our religious impulse is that humans are never neutral in our position toward Reason and Experiences. We have some degree of commitment to them. Reason and Experience, he argued, could never be free from the commitments of an individual.
RELATIONAL COMMITMENT TO THE STRUCTURE OF KNOWLEDGE
Commitment, however, is relational. If I am a fan of the Steelers, I may attend a game and yell at the top of my lungs. And the Team will respond to my commitment. A team plays very differently at Home then Away. Very differently in front of fans then in front of empty stands. The Team will respond to the Fans. And the relationship goes the other way as well. If I am a Fan and my team plays terribly, year after year after year, then one can anticipate that my commitment may falter. But what might really damage my commitment is if a Team did something that I fundamentally thought was at odds with the rules of the game. Finally, and oddly enough, if my Team was so successful that no other Team even had a chance, then I might actually start to cheer for the underdog! All this to say is commitment is not static, they are very dynamic. They interact with Reason and Experience. Our Faith is influenced by Reason and by Experience, and in return Reason and Experience influence Faith. Thus Faith, Reason and Experience are not in opposition. They are complementary. No realm can ever provide absolute Knowledge because of their dynamic relationship. But my the very nature of Faith, we posses a commitment to one area of Knowledge. We suppose that that one is better than the other, and that the key to one lies within the other.
If we are willing to accept the idea that one’s Worldview is determined by the individual commitments of a person, what accounts for the presence of periods where large groups of people shared a commitment? Again, because of dynamic functioning of commitment, Worldviews are not only prescriptive, but also descriptive. (Olthuis) That is to say that our Worldview reflects our experiences, and our experiences are historically and culturally bound. We share an environment and resources with our neighbors. We develop organizations to facilitate our interactions, economics and governments. We share communicative techniques, we use the similar language , read similar books, watch similar TV. We share a cultural which reflect our commitments. Not only is our worldview shaping how we live, it is being shaped by how we live. This conception of Worldview, more than any other, brings dignity to the Realms of Knowledge and respect for different ways of knowing. Each realm is worthy of commitment, but one no more than the other.
—-
1.According to Wolters (1985), Abraham Kuyper, and Dooyeweerd, his disciple, used “Worldview” Lifeview” and “World and Life View” almost interchangeably. Dooyeweerd, in his later writing, uses “Religious Ground Motive” as a consistent substitute for all three.