What is a worldview? Simply put, it is how an individual personally sees the world and evaluates what is just, unjust, right, wrong, true, lie, good, bad etc. How is this kind of understanding achieved?
That question is where the rub is. As it stands in America now, those determinations (values if you will) seem to be determined by the individual. When two individuals disagree on the basics listed in the first paragraph, then how are they reconciled?
For example, there are those that believe that the government should be able to take money from everybody, in order to run schools that teach what those people believe. What happens to those people who don’t believe the same way?
Would the proponents of pedophilia have the high moral ground in order to teach that that is o.k.? How about if Jews wanted every male to wear a Yarmulke on Saturdays? How would the Sikhs feel about that? How about if the vegans were able to legislate that nobody could eat meat? How would the professional athletes react when they need lots of protein to perform at the highest level? What if certain people insisted that any woman claiming to have been raped must be a virgin prior to the rape in order to make the claim in the first place?
As you can see, there are different views of right and wrong, proper and improper, just and unjust etc. Yet, these views are part of different individual’s “worldviews” It’s not likely that any of the above dilemmas will be a serious problem in America. So what about a more realistic basis for a worldview – something that has real practicality? Certainly, just because one person, or a group of persons believe a certain way, there will be differences of opinions, and they need to be reconciled.
In America, “majority rule” has become the mantra of the day. This has some limitations though because not all issues affect everyone equally. Some issues are of no interest to some people. Therefore, we end up with a majority of a minority ruling. That can lead to some of the disinterested being affected ultimately, and that can lead to discontentment, and contention between factions. Rioting in the streets, fist fights, and other forms of retaliation can ensue, and have ensued as we’ve all witnessed Ferguson, Oakland etc. Personal “feelings” are not the best arbiter.
So if majority rule and personal feelings are insufficient, then what could possibly work? Think of personal feelings as “subjective” thinking. What would be the alternate to subjective? Theoretically, “objective” would be the only alternative, and the opposite as well. Objective would be outside of the thinking and feelings of the individual. Now, there’s a novel thought!
One example of “objective” application would be a football game. Imagine the halfback takes the ball, runs out of bounds, up the stairs of the stands down three sections, comes back down the stairs, jumps the fence, lands in the end zone and raises his hands as if he just scored a touchdown! The referee would say the play ended when he went out of bounds. The referees, and the opposing team would all agree, and the ruling would stand, or the home fans would riot, and there would be chaos. Games have rules, and the game of life has rules also.
What would an objective perspective look like? Ideally, it would be person who is not ruled by emotions, and plays no favorites when deciding right and wrong, good and evil, truth and lie, justice and injustice. It would be someone who does not change with circumstances and who cannot be bribed or react to flattery. It would have to come from someone who cannot be threatened or strong armed. It would have to be someone who does not have the weaknesses of human nature – that is greed, lust, hunger, laziness, lying, cheating, stealing etc.
If you haven’t guessed by now, the Person about Whom this discussion is directed is the God of the Bible. The Bible has been in its finished form for roughly 2000 years. It has transcended wars, mayhem, idolatry, murders, nations rising and falling and so on. The principles and precepts it offers have not changed. They are not liked by everybody, but they are good for everybody. They even, within the context of the Bible, allow for “majority rule” as long as the majority rule doesn’t violate the rules of life. Study the Bible, and see if this is not true. If it is true, then pursue virtues which are eternal over values which are vague and subject to change.
Pensamiento Peligroso writes the truth as he sees it, and if it upsets you, then it makes you think!