What’s in a Name? Part 3
Explaining Worldview (4 min)
Thankfully, when we are considering the concept of worldview, we have a lot more to go on. Unlike religion I have no need to construct something original. Though I build on the concept as it links so heavily with religion. So in this case, I am going to be keeping this shorter, with a more succinct overview. I give all credit to Steven Chisham because his work on clarifying and defining worldview is foundational. In fact, his understanding of worldview is what helped me in my work defining religion. His work was the key to truly understanding religion. Because you cannot understand it without understanding worldview.
Therefore, I first want to point to these two papers by Mr. Chisham in order to understand worldview properly. Both can be found in the Creation Research Society Quarterly:
He has more on this topic, but these two are the most important to understand what a worldview truly is and how it functions.
How I use worldview is based on Mr. Chisham’s definition. In particular, what he explains as “the range of replies to the question, ‘How do I understand myself relative to ultimate truth?’” (found in the abstract of “The Anatomy of a Worldview”). While this is not sufficient by itself, it is the most succinct way to understand what a worldview is and why it is universal to all human beings. It is epistemologically fundamental. Having a worldview is essential for understanding, and our worldview influences how we understand.
Now Chisham explains that worldview can be thought of in four different ways. Which, at least in one sense, explain parts of a worldview total. These are the following:
Worldview mechanism refers to the overall system by which all one’s opinions and views are generated. This is the worldview process and functionality of it as a whole, and when we describe the mechanics of a worldview, we are talking about the worldview mechanism.
Worldview structure is the collection of views and answers to questions. Think of it as the “bucket” with which all views within a worldview are collected. It should be understood as the collection of views and the “container” that they all fit within, as opposed to the individual views themselves. In computer terminology, it is the folder versus the files that sit within the folder.
Worldview perspective(s) are all the individual worldview beliefs that a person/worldview has. These are the files in the folder. So worldview perspectives are the specific values, answers, or beliefs that fill the worldview structure.
Social worldview, on the other hand, is what Chisham describes as the “second-order expressions of views accepted or adopted by individuals” within a social context. It is a person’s specific worldview perspective, or aggregate collection of worldview perspectives, as it relates to society and others more broadly. You can think of it as a part of a person’s worldview, or worldview taken as a whole, and how it fits within social environments. For example, you would have things like a Christian worldview or an Islamic worldview, which are more properly understood as social worldviews. Since they represent aggregates of worldview perspectives collected together and compared across individuals in society. As opposed to something that refers to the exact worldview a specific individual has, through which they interpret reality.
Mostly when referring to a worldview, people will mean a social worldview. So “worldview” by itself is frequently a metonym for social worldview. I do this myself unless I have need of much greater precision.
Additionally, the structure of a worldview in relation to religion is important to grasp. I describe the linkage between worldview and religion elsewhere, as they are inextricable and represent different sides of the same concept. Going into much detail is beyond the scope of this article, but it will be given an overview here.
We can best understand worldview by zooming into the worldview structure. Within the worldview structure, there are four major categories that result from the core question a worldview answers: “How can I understand myself relative to ultimate truth?” These are epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and origins/eschatology. Everything that a worldview question asks, or a worldview perspective provides an answer for, fits within one of these four fundamental philosophical categories.
A religion asks the counterpart question of “How do I live my life relative to ultimate truth?” The worldview provides the framework for thought and understanding. It is the theory to the praxis of religion. A worldview directly affects a person’s religion and vice versa. We can never understand a worldview without considering religion and a person’s life. Influence on a person’s worldview/religion comes from both ends (from the praxis of religion on one end and the theory of worldview on the other). This remains true even though worldview is much more fundamental (as it is the foundation upon which reason and comprehension of the world itself is built). A worldview is necessary for reason and intelligent thought (at least for finite beings, as Chisham explains) whereas religion is necessary to actually live a life in practice.
So whenever worldview is used, this is the best way to understand it, especially within my work. Please look at Steven Chisham’s work for some details that I gloss over, as his papers are very important to be familiar with if you want to know what a worldview is. Both worldview and religion are topics I intend on developing much further in both detail and structure, but that level of detail belongs elsewhere. This article summarizes it in order to be used within my work and to help others understand it properly and with more precision.