Senior Capstone Course

PS 491

Worldviews in Politics

Worldviews as a concept
Why?
It’s the real ‘elephant’ in the political room. Most people who lobby on behalf of the welfare of animals do not do so because animals are cute. They arrive at the conclusion that animals ought to be defended because they bring to the plight of animals certain philosophical assumptions about the world, man, and morality. Example from reading: Christopher Reeve and Joni Eareckson Tada.
It’s an inescapable part of human thought. Facts do not interpret themselves. The world does not interpret itself. Rather, we all approach the facts of experience with an interpretative framework. That framework is a worldview.
Ultimacy - Newbiggin “Every kind of systematic thought has to begin from some starting point. It has to begin by taking some things for granted. In every domain of thought it is always possible to question the starting point, to ask ‘Why this rather than another?’ No coherent thought is possible without taking some things as given.” We have to start with presuppositions that are not derived from experience or verified through scientific testing. Further, “every society depends for its coherence upon a set of what sociologist Peter Berger calls ‘plausibility structures,’ patterns of belief and practice accepted within a given society, which determine which beliefs are plausible to its members and which are not.” Individuals say they believe things, but those beliefs are said “to be ‘reasonable,’ this is a judgment made on the basis of the reigning plausibility structure.” In some cultures, it is simply ludicrous or “unreasonable” to believe that women are as significant intellectually as men. Class Exercise: Why are you in my class? Required. Why do you want to take required classes? College degree. But why do you want a college degree? To get a job. But why do you want a job? To make money. Okay, why do you want to make money? To buy things. Why is it important to buy things? To be happy. And why do you want to be happy? No answer. You are saying that the goal of life is to be happy, but there is no proof that being happy is the ultimate goal of life. It’s simply assumed without proof. Or why did you get out of bed? Why did you put on clothes? Why do you use math, logic? Are miracles possible? What is “success”? Etc. Etc.
Ultimate axioms – Every system of thought has an axiom or a fixed starting assumption that need not and cannot be demonstrated, and from which all other elements of the system is derived. The axiom is put forward as what is ultimately true or ultimate reality or ultimately authoritative (ultimate standard of truth). Or more generally, every worldview has a set of basic or ‘foundational’ beliefs, first principles, presuppositions, about reality, human nature, values, and truth which take precedence over all other beliefs and from which other beliefs and interpretations of the world are derived (consistently or not). Since the starting axiom or premise is considered ultimate or first, then it cannot be justified by any prior or greater authority; otherwise, it would not be the first or ultimate. Quote Pearcey p. 41
True even of science– Science is not an assumption-less, neutral, exercise.
Not philosophically: Rather, scientists make philosophical assumptions before the experiments ever begin. 1. They make ethical assumptions (honesty is good, vital for research; we ought to answer questions in certain ways). 2. They make metaphysical assumptions (the universe is regular, uniform, orderly). 3. They make epistemological assumptions (knowledge is possible, there is a real correspondence between physical phenomena and the human mind).
Not practically - Bertrand Russell argued that science tells us what we “know” as distinct from what “some people believe.” “In arriving at a scientific law there are three main stages: the first consists of observing the significant facts; the second in arriving at a hypothesis which, if it is true, would account for the facts; the third in deducing from this hypothesis consequences which can be tested by observation.” Clear, but does this explain what actually happens in science? No. Significant facts: Which facts? What standard of judgment are you using when you choose between facts and label one as significant and another as insignificant? He certainly does not select facts at random (get nowhere and is a waste of time). They answer “good problems,” but what is a good problem? Read Newbiggin (p. 30-31 red). Arriving at a hypothesis: Never a step-by-step process. No rules for forming a hypothesis. More a matter of intuition and imagination. Einstein said that what is true of a great poet is true of a great scientist, intuition (rather than some mechanical neutral process) is essential to good science. “The mechanics of discovery are neither logical nor intellectual. It’s a sudden illumination, almost a rapture. Later, to be sure, intelligence and analysis and experiment confirm or invalidate the intuition. But initially there is a great leap of the imagination.” Finally, Verification by experiment: every day, in laboratories all over the world, there are experiments which yield results different from what the theory requires. How are these results treated? Typically, they are assumed to be aberrations, mistakes in procedure, put aside as a puzzle. But the prevailing theory is rarely abandoned UNTIL there is another theory which is more intellectually and aesthetically satisfying and which can account for more of the facts. Even then, the new theory will be debated for years between advocates of the old and new. The outcome is in doubt for years. But scientists do not abandon a theory simply because some experiments have yielded results that do not confirm it (Kuhn; quote him on Newton’s laws).
This shows us that there are not two separate avenues to understanding, one marked “knowledge” and the other marked “faith.” There is no knowing without believing (knowledge apart from a worldview or way of thinking or philosophy of thought). Rather believing is the way to knowing.
Sum: We are told that there is the realm of believing (values, opinions) in which we are non-neutral; then there is the realm of knowing (facts, science and reason) in which we are neutral. What we see instead is that science is not ethically, metaphysically, epistemologically or practically neutral (it’s not worldview neutral). Rather than two paths to learning, there appears to be one. To know is to believe; no knowing without believing; believing is the path to knowing. Science does not proceed without a priori commitments (a priori vs a posteriori or blank slate). Read Lewontin, Polanyi.
What is a worldview? (other names: plausibility structure, philosophy of life, belief system, interpretive framework). Coined by Immanuel Kant.
NOT an ideology. Ideologies seek to control accompanied by a political agenda, not explain (make sense of) or philosophically justify beliefs of all sorts (political or otherwise); they are simplistic and narrow and concrete, not complex, broad, and abstract. Ideological statements sound very different that comprehensive worldview claims: “nationalize or starve, privatize or go moribund.” So you will have Christians who may be politically liberal or Naturalists who may be politically conservative. (, etc. Christianity, Naturalism, Scientology are worldviews, not ideologies. Ideologies answer the question, what form of government ought we to have? Worldviews answer the question, on what basis are the laws that governments enact justified? Ideologies may tell us that we ought to have universal government provided healthcare, but worldviews may attempt to explain why we may or may not, why we ought or ought not care about the health of others in the first place.
General definition: a network of core or basic or fundamental presuppositions or assumptions which we hold about the basic makeup of our world (Sire). Or, it’s a network of related presuppositions in terms of which every aspect of man’s knowledge and awareness is interpreted and by which man’s life and behavior is governed. Sire (p. 17), “A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in set of presuppositions (challengeable assumptions) which we hold (consciously, consistently, or not) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.”
Key “corners” of a worldview(puzzle analogy). What it tells us about ultimate reality (what is ultimate), truth (can we know things, how do we know things), ethics (on what basis do we make moral judgments), and origins/destiny (where did we come from and where are we going). Four corners of a puzzle. Find them, and from them you put or fit together the rest of the picture (the world).
Sire’s 7 worldview questions: (1) What is prime reality – the really real? Ultimate reality? Carl Sagan self-consciously making different philosophical assumptions putting his worldview over against the Christian one when he says, “Nature is all there is, was, or ever will be” contrasted with the Gloria Patri’s Trinitarian hymn: “As it was in the beginning, is now and ever will be.” Definition of ultimate reality or the divine: that which is believed in a particular worldview to be unconditional and nondependent (self-existent). This could be and has been any number of things (The Bible’s God, the Hindu’s gods, Plato’s forms, the materialist’s matter, Russell’s logical laws and sets) and may or may not be accompanied by secondary beliefs about man’s relation to those “divinities.” Roy Clouser: “To those who are seriously put off by this discovery I can only say that by finding the common characteristics of any type of things often results in a definition that is surprising. People outside botany are surprised that lilies and onions are defined as in the same class.” One may or may not choose to call this a religious belief. (2) What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us? Universe personal or impersonal, created or autonomous, chaotic or orderly, etc. (3) What is a human being? A complex machine, a sleeping god, a person made in the image of God, a naked ape (4) What happens to a person at death? Cease to exist or go on existing? Transformation to another state of being, reincarnated? (5) Why is it possible to know anything at all? God has equipped man with capacity for true knowledge; consciousness and rationality evolved in response to man’s struggle to survive (6) How do we know right from wrong? Human choice, will of majority, personal preferences, reason, that which brings pleasure, that which enhances our survival; that which reflects the character of God. (7) What is the meaning of human history (where is history going)? To realize the purpose of the gods, to make a paradise of earth, total human equality, a ball of fire, prepare people to live a life in community with a loving and Holy God.
Implications of and objections to worldview thinking
Public vs Private (no neutrality). If true, then the fact/value; public/private dichotomies are not nice and neat non-overlapping compartments anymore. We will have recognized that worldviews do not cloud our judgment; they determine our judgment.
Society – you can discuss someone’s views, but not their worldview. Take Huckabee’s answer concerning Romney’s faith. Better yet, take Rev. Wright’s interview with Sean Hannity. Hannity would/could only ask about statements made from the pulpit, isolated from the worldview that undergirded them (Black Liberation Theology). Wright kept asking, “Have you read James Cone? Dwight Hopkins?” He was asking Hannity to have a worldview discussion pitting Black Liberation Theology against Hannity’s worldview (or some other one). But Hannity would not for two reasons. One, Hannity and Fox News knows that ordinary people in this sound-bite-entertainment-culture will not sit through and digest that sort of philosophical discussion. Second, we as a secular culture have bought in to the notion that worldviews/religion should play no role in public discourse/politics. It is a purely private, subjective, personal affair belonging to another sphere altogether (“I’m not electing a pastor; I’m electing a President!”).
The public space: Worldviews in a liberal democracy –

Argument for exclusion (naturalistic monopoly). Goes like this: In political discourse, liberal democracy requires that we limit our input or reasoning to only those premises held in common with other citizens. Why? Because in a pluralistic society, people will not share belief in the same god or belief in any god, etc. So, when it comes to politics, where we all have to meet and work together, religious motivations and religious arguments are unjustified (inappropriate). This is not only what justice requires in a democracy, it also is a pragmatic necessity since religion is a “conversation-stopper.” It’s not trivializing religion to privatize it anymore than it is trivializing our love lives to privatize them. See Richard Rorty and John Rawls. Wolterstorff’s response: The problem: “How can persons who embrace such profoundly different comprehensive perspectives as do Rorty and I on reality, human life, and the good, nonetheless live together as equals in a just stable, and peaceful society (130)?” (1) Even if religion for some is a menace to society, motive for quietism, etc. Rorty still does not want to abolish it. So, he favors privatizing it totally (excluding it). Why must it stop the conversation? Perhaps it does, if it does, because we have been socialized into believing that conversation must stop when someone quotes the Bible. Does not mean we should. Further, “a Darwinian pragmatism reason tossed into a discussion by religious people might well stop the conversation…is it OK for Darwinian pragmatist reasons to stop conversation but not for religious reasons to do so?” (2) Rorty’s real problem is that he is committed to the Rawlsian idea that our reasons must only be those which stem from premises we share with everyone. First, as a historical matter, honesty requires that the full story of explicitly religious input (un-privatized religion) report the role of religion in the CR movement, abolition movement, welfare movement in England, revolutions of “South Africa, Poland, Romania, and East Germany.” It also requires that we report the role of secularisms and the carnage of Nazism, Communism, and nationalism. Really, anything people care deeply about can be a menace to freedom, even freedom itself (French Revolution). Further, what does it mean to say that conversation must be so limited? Rorty and I reached this conversation believing what we did, and we just started talking. We did not worry about premises held in common. One would have to be blind and naïve to believe that the reasons Rorty gives for his social positions (in other articles/books addressed to the public) are not based on his Darwinian pragmatism. They are not based on premises held in common. Logically, what Rorty, then, has called for is that the justification for his political positions are OK because they stem from Darwinian pragmatism, but the justification for political positions stemming from theistic ones are invalid EVEN THOUGH neither justification stems from premises held in common. In reality, if we were so limited, we would never be able to have a discussion because if we pushed the political question back far enough we would discover that there are few if any premises held in common with everyone. (3) Solution: let people say what they want. “Permit the different voices!” Just because someone argues from a worldview perspective does not mean that no one else can do nothing with what is said. We make allowances. Not all who heard MLKing were Christians, but they made allowances and were moved and inspired with others even though they did not share common premises. Also, so what if conversations, after premises are unveiled, come to a halt? What’s wrong with an impasse in politics? Why not step inside the worldview of the other guy in politics and see if you can change his mind according to his own premises (arguing for the sake of argument). But if he fails, what’s so bad about just saying we disagree fundamentally on this issue? After all, when we reach that point, in a liberal democracy we can solve the impasse by simply voting. “Conversation-stopping is not some appalling evil perpetuated upon an otherwise endlessly-talkative public by religious people.” It’s a feature of democracy; voting is the solution. (4) Rorty suggests that religion must shape up if it wants to be tolerated in democracy. For him, shaping up means to be privatized. But why? Are religious people actively seeking to deny Darwinists their right to vote or speak up? They want it to shape up because they disagree with the political views of some religious people. Perhaps Darwinian pragmatism ought to shape up too. They advocate policies that religious people disagree with. When they go public with those ideas, conversation may stop. But liberal democracy does not tell people from different worldviews that they must shape up (privatize). It ensures basic rights, gives people the right to vote and speak up (to come as they are). Perhaps Rorty understands democracy differently. He wants democracy to realize a certain Darwinian pragmatism (Dewey) and religious people all-to-often get in their way. Summary:We have been socialized into thinking that worldviews ought to play no role in political discourse. We would rather send a barrage of assertions about the need to feed the poor or outlaw abortion than debate the presuppositions that leads one to take that position. In elections, is it irrelevant what someone’s philosophical pre-commitments are? Suppose they are worldview-committed to anti-Semitism. Would you say, “oh that’s just their personal life. Keep what is private, private. I’m not electing him to be my ethics guru or pastor, I’m electing him to be my congressman.” Can we really expect that one’s overarching core commitments in life will not influence his/her political behavior? Not realistic. (Note: this does not necessarily mean that one must or should vote for only those who adhere to their worldview; I suppose that would depend on one’s worldview). Or take 9/11 and Bush. Bush stated that in the war against terror, the nature or theology of Islam is not under inspection; all that we are interested in is our security and their actions. But failing to understand Islam and how it does or does not explain 9/11 is clearly going into the confrontation willfully blind and deaf, refusing to understand valuable and highly relevant information, and is also unfair and patronizing to them (these are not dumb people, they are consciously trying to workout their worldview in society). In the latter case, we are sometimes more offensive in our indifference to others’ worldviews than in our objection to them. Tolerance can sometimes come across as disrespectful condescension.