"I reject Christian presuppositionalism, worldview-ism, and coherentism: They ignore the goodness of created, finite human nature in itself and the possibility of natural human knowledge."
I think that worldview studies can be entirely empirical. That is how I have encountered them. It seems to require a leap to get from worldview studies to presuppositionalism or coherentism.
For example, most ancient religions (and hence ancient worldviews) had a cyclical view of time, while the Judeo-Christian worldview has a linear view of time. The cyclical view of time tends to lead to fatalism, while the linear view of time tends to lead to a belief in progress. These are all purely empirical observations.
Moving from empirical worldview analysis to apologetics can proceed in a number of directions. The Judeo-Christian worldview can be argued to be the only coherent worldview, or the only one that matches Judeo-Christian presuppositions, or the only worldview that is well supported empirically.
Clark, I would agree. I want to specify "worldview-ism" is the idea that we all see the world through a worldview.
But I agree that people have worldviews; I just think they should be taken to be something that can be examined philosophically and - at least for thinking people - they can be conclusions of thought rather than presuppositions or lenses.
Empirical study of different worldviews would be about the different worldviews people have had. But, for example, without revelation, a cyclical view of history is a sensible conclusion to come to - not a presupposition of thought. The empirical datum of God entering into history and progressively acting/revealing is evidence that there is progress/change in history.
Likewise, I agree with presuppositionalism that people often have unexamined presuppositions, even philosophers. (I'm always disappointed when reading a philosopher, as I was just now, when they bring in dogmatic presuppositions!) However, I think that the examination and testing of these presuppositions by something even more fundamental is the business of philosophy. We are not just stuck with our presuppositions.
Hope that helps! In short, I absolutely agree with you. I want to separate good analysis of worldviews, presuppositions, and coherent systems of thought from the related "ism's." The good version of each, I would argue is *philosophy*.
"I reject Christian presuppositionalism, worldview-ism, and coherentism: They ignore the goodness of created, finite human nature in itself and the possibility of natural human knowledge."
I think that worldview studies can be entirely empirical. That is how I have encountered them. It seems to require a leap to get from worldview studies to presuppositionalism or coherentism.
For example, most ancient religions (and hence ancient worldviews) had a cyclical view of time, while the Judeo-Christian worldview has a linear view of time. The cyclical view of time tends to lead to fatalism, while the linear view of time tends to lead to a belief in progress. These are all purely empirical observations.
Moving from empirical worldview analysis to apologetics can proceed in a number of directions. The Judeo-Christian worldview can be argued to be the only coherent worldview, or the only one that matches Judeo-Christian presuppositions, or the only worldview that is well supported empirically.
Clark, I would agree. I want to specify "worldview-ism" is the idea that we all see the world through a worldview.
But I agree that people have worldviews; I just think they should be taken to be something that can be examined philosophically and - at least for thinking people - they can be conclusions of thought rather than presuppositions or lenses.
Empirical study of different worldviews would be about the different worldviews people have had. But, for example, without revelation, a cyclical view of history is a sensible conclusion to come to - not a presupposition of thought. The empirical datum of God entering into history and progressively acting/revealing is evidence that there is progress/change in history.
Likewise, I agree with presuppositionalism that people often have unexamined presuppositions, even philosophers. (I'm always disappointed when reading a philosopher, as I was just now, when they bring in dogmatic presuppositions!) However, I think that the examination and testing of these presuppositions by something even more fundamental is the business of philosophy. We are not just stuck with our presuppositions.
Hope that helps! In short, I absolutely agree with you. I want to separate good analysis of worldviews, presuppositions, and coherent systems of thought from the related "ism's." The good version of each, I would argue is *philosophy*.