Most helpful critical review
0 of 4 people found the following review helpful
Not Historic Christianity
on September 14, 2014
The book is a thorough account of this subject and helpfully informative. It is well written and can therefore be fairly easily understood, although there are philosophical concepts here and there which are slipped in under a jargonistic disguise that the ordinary reader may not detect and indeed may not understand.
The 'Worldview' concept comes from modern idealistic German philosophy, specifically G W F Hegel who derived it from Kant. It amazes me that writers in the Reformed evangelical mold, who adopt this genre, don't see how this goes in the face of Christianity. Both Kant and Hegel are notoriously anti-Christian, and Hegel's impact in Europe anti-human also, if it is measured in terms of the body count induced by its consequences. This writer, like the Kuyperians he keeps company with, rejects the possibility of knowing objective reality without distortion by prejudice. The prejudice being your own 'worldview', which he alleges, in line with the fashion current in liberal infidel humanities departments throughout western universities, is inescapable. Thus he is asserting that 'perspective', or in other words 'ideology', determines truth, hoping that if you are 'Christian', having of course the right perspective, you will see the truth, but the others, all being infidels, won't. In so doing he asserts the Platonic theory of knowledge as the correct one, instead of Aristotle's simpler philosophic realism, the formula of which is 'what you see is what you get.' Indeed Aristotle quite perceptively stated, "What we believe is, that we affirm to be, and he who would subvert this opinion, will surely advance nothing further to profit." What these folk are telling us is that this is not so, and set forth instead the crotchet that "The thing perceived is different from the thing that is." That is, your ideology has transformed it into something else. As James Henley Thornwell so tellingly observes "this crotchet, transmitted in various forms, (in this instance under the title 'worldview'), is not questioned until it has brought forth the universal fruit of scepticism." Naugle concedes this more or less when he talks about the "prejudice against prejudice." It is also quite telling that Naugle informs us that no less an authority than Sigmund Freud saw through the 'worldview' principle, remarking of it very helpfully that it is an attempt to "replace the Church catechism with a guide book." Freud also reflected upon the air of arrogant superiority that 'worldview' advocates affect.
Christians need to know that they are fallible also, as evidenced by the fact that they do not necessarily speak with one voice. Also, Plato indicates, in his theory of knowledge, that though most persons adopt Naugle's view, i.e. "perspective determines truth (inescapably)", one way or another, this is primitive and undesirable. Plato recommends as a higher pursuit the search after ideal forms. So both of the great philosophers, Plato and his pupil Aristotle, would reject the 'worldview' formula if it was put to them. Christians should reject it also because it is not truthful and comes from an infidel source, as pointed out.