Biblical Landmarks

Dreaming the Impossible Dream

There can only be one debate in the construction of a worldview. How do you have a discussion without assuming the implied truths of the Biblical worldview?

Imagine, for a moment – if you can – the idea of evolution. How did language begin? Perhaps it was something like this. The first form of life with vocal chords made a gesture towards an object and grunted something. And his or her mate replied, “Uh?” So the first grunter responded to that by repeating his first grunt, and again received another “Uh?” Oops! Sorry, in order to grunt a reply, there must have been two forms of life with vocal chords. Guess they evolved in pairs. Or, maybe they didn’t evolve. (But that’s another story.)

Now the important question is this one: Was the responding mate’s “Uh” a question (“Uh?”) or a statement (“Uh!”). Maybe it was a “Aha!” And were the different categories even known? If so, how? The world of thought and ideas? But we think with words! So how could you even think if there were no words to allow you to identify your thoughts?

We can be a little Kantian ourselves here and have some fun with our non-believing friends. Was the first “Uh?/!” (or was it really “Duh!”?) referring to a phenomenal or noumenal object? Since words (language) are merely sounds, how was the very first word explained when someone else didn’t understand it?

Here’s the difficulty of evolutionary ideas: to explain the beginning of language and thought.

If you are going to build a worldview that is unassailable, then you must begin with the presuppositions that form the foundation of thought and communication. You cannot begin with so-called empirical evidence, because you are already making an assumption that everyone, even non-believers in the Bible, view and interpret evidence the same way.

Nothing could be further from the truth. So, when one Christian writer states, “Objective empirical evidence for Jesus Christ and his message is the only truly valid Christian apologetic possible, for it alone is subject to the canons of evidence employed in other fields of endeavor,” he is surely begging the question. Canons of evidence?

St. Paul had something to say about this in the beginning of his letter to the Romans. Everything, all the empirical evidence you can muster, points to the God of the Old Testament. (Paul didn’t have the New Testament, so he must have been referring to the God of the Law and the Prophets that Jesus talked about.)

There are, then, some people who “hold down” or “suppress” the truth about creation. In other words, they do not interpret the empirical evidence the same way that other people do.

A worldview, then, is defined by its presuppositions, not by its empirical evidence. And this is why, in the formation of a worldview — and in defense of the biblical worldview — the establishment of that worldview must begin and end here.

This does not mean there is not a place for empirical evidence. By all means, use empirical evidence to get the discussion going about how the evidence will be interpreted. What are the principles of thought that even allow a disagreement over interpretation of the empirical evidence to take place?

When that question is insisted upon, then you will find there are no worldviews other than the one that originates with the Old Testament, is carried over to the New Testament, and forms the basis for a worldview that has taken mankind from paganism, poverty, and short life span to a world where jet airplanes, HD television, ski mobiles, guns and butter, and cheaper life insurance premiums are a regular part of the economy.

There are no other worldviews. There are only people who rebel against the truths of the Bible and suppress what they know in their heart to be true. Man is created. There was a beginning. And man is in the image of God. This is the basis of a worldview — a worldview that allows meaningful communication to take place.

These are the presuppositions that allow human thought and action to occur Anything else is just pretend.

The biblical account of the Fall identifies man’s desire to be his own god, knowing (i.e. determining, making the categories of) good and evil as the essence of sin. In his rebellion, man would like to think he can determine a coherent worldview without the Triune God of Scripture.

It is our task to show him this is man’s ultimate “impossible dream.”