What I find most disturbing here, is that even if they think “biblical worldview” is too simplistic, they think it’s within their right to keep you from using it. I think my colleagues discussion of the Euthyphro dilemma in his classes is much too simplistic. I may try to persuade him, through argument, if this, but I would never try to stop him through some kind of power play.
A worldview is a conceptual organizing principle, applicable to all religions and philosophies. There are versions and variations within each basic category. We can speak of essential Christian beliefs down through the ages; we can state them philosophically as a worldview. We can emphasize that worldview is not exhaustive in its description. We have also creeds, confessions, and the whole Bible.
You’re exactly right. But they would object to the word “essential.” They are skeptics and extreme empiricists. They only believe in particulars. There are no universals. There are only Christianities.
If so, they cannot affirm much of anything about anything. We must define terms abstractly for much of our communication, especially in philosophy. "Humans," "numbers," and "male" are abstractions and have a definable essence. We need universals for coherent communication. If they deny this and try to communicate anything meaningful or true, they fail.
What I find most disturbing here, is that even if they think “biblical worldview” is too simplistic, they think it’s within their right to keep you from using it. I think my colleagues discussion of the Euthyphro dilemma in his classes is much too simplistic. I may try to persuade him, through argument, if this, but I would never try to stop him through some kind of power play.
A worldview is a conceptual organizing principle, applicable to all religions and philosophies. There are versions and variations within each basic category. We can speak of essential Christian beliefs down through the ages; we can state them philosophically as a worldview. We can emphasize that worldview is not exhaustive in its description. We have also creeds, confessions, and the whole Bible.
You’re exactly right. But they would object to the word “essential.” They are skeptics and extreme empiricists. They only believe in particulars. There are no universals. There are only Christianities.
If so, they cannot affirm much of anything about anything. We must define terms abstractly for much of our communication, especially in philosophy. "Humans," "numbers," and "male" are abstractions and have a definable essence. We need universals for coherent communication. If they deny this and try to communicate anything meaningful or true, they fail.
They can’t. They are academics skeptics and must stay silent if they are consistent at all. Spoiler: they aren’t consistent.
See my discussion of biblical worldview in Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed.