Sayers on Education's Failure

One of the writers my wife and I just started reading recently (on the issue of today's largely ineffectual education system and the philosophy on which it is built, versus a classical education) is Dorothy Sayers. Here is an except from The Lost Tools of Learning which I found particularly lucid and insightful:

For we let our young men and women go out unarmed, in a day when armor was never so necessary. By teaching them all to read, we have left them at the mercy of the printed word. By the invention of the film and the radio, we have made certain that no aversion to reading shall secure them from the incessant battery of words, words, words. They do not know what the words mean; they do not know how to ward them off or blunt their edge or fling them back; they are a prey to words in their emotions instead of being the masters of them in their intellects.

Oh no - they're showing up already

That's right - bad blogging habits. This may be a carry-over from my normal writing habits, but it seems like every time I sit down to write a post, as I am composing it, about three new ideas for separate posts (tangentially related in differing degrees to the original) come to mind, and I must quickly open another document to jot it down before the epiphany is lost.

This post case in point.

The problem is that I see this as a good way to generate new posts - even to tie a few separate post thematically together - but it makes it darned difficult to get just one of the stinkin' things finished. I suppose I'm going to find a way to make the productive bit of this system work without impeding production more than it contributes, or I'll just have to dump the whole system. It's hard to change how you're wired, though. We'll see, I suppose. The upshot is that, when I do post, I'll probably have a lot to offer - at least quantity-wise.

When given a chance...

Last night in his State of the Union Address, President Bush made a statement that I found interesting but I doubt will get punted around much by the various analysts, pundits, politicians and talking heads. The comment provides the philosophical animus for most of Bush’s Iraq policy and strategy:

What every terrorist fears most is human freedom -- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they're given a chance.

Is this true? Is it true that, when given the chance, most people will reject “violent and malignant ideologies” and embrace democratic freedom? From whence, then, come totalitarian regimes? From whence come suicide bombers?

"What in the World is a Worldview?"

Not only does everybody have one, but I think understanding them is key to a careful analysis and response to the cultural forces and beliefs around us. In light of this, and because much of what I will be writing on this blog will center around the concept of "worldview", I thought it fitting to address the subject directly in my first post. As with the title of this post, much of what follows is taken from Ken Samples' article of the same name in the latest issue (First Quarter/2007) of Reasons to Believe's publication, Connections (here, though this issue not available online as of this posting).

"Worldview" is derived from the German term Weltanshauung, and refers to the cluster of interconnected beliefs (not just isolated ideas, but a unified, basic conceptual system) an individual holds about life's most significant concepts. It seeks to answer questions such as:

• Does God exist? If he does, what kind of God is he?
• What can be known, and how can anyone know it?
• Where did I come from?
• How should I live?
• What is wrong with humanity, and how is the problem solved?

In its simplest form, a worldview could be defined as how one sees life and the world. Samples says:

In this manner it can be compared to a pair of glasses. How a person makes sense of the world depends upon that person's "vision," so to speak. The interpretive "lens" helps people make sense of life and comprehend the world around them. Sometimes the lens brings clarity, other times it can distort reality (emphasis added).

So one way of putting it is that one's beliefs on the "Big Questions" form a big picture, a general outlook and perspective on life and the world. Another, more complex definition, again given by Samples, would be:

...a mental structure that organizes one's basic beliefs. This framework supplies a comprehensive view of what a person considers real, true, rational, good, valuable, and beautiful. In this vein, philosopher Ronald Nash defines a worldview as "a conceptual scheme by which we consciously or unconsciously place or fit everything we believe and by which we interpret and judge reality."

Critical to a worldview is its unified nature - a carefully examined and reflective worldview is not a collection of disconnected and unrelated beliefs, but an interconnected framework and conceptual structure that informs all of our decisions. This is why some have compared a worldview to a road map for life - our values inform our decisions and actions, and our worldviews guide the development of those values. Answering the fundamental questions of a worldview is necessary for making decisions and navigating through life, and every person's worldview in essence works like a chart or plan to supply direction.

So not only are worldviews necessary and important to any functioning human being, but their ramifications are far-reaching. Much of this blog will be devoted to testing the various worldviews held by the people with whom I come in contact. As for me, I seek to hold a carefully examined worldview in which all of my disparate beliefs fit into an overall framework.

Worldview Thinking (or its functional equivalent) in the Book of Acts, Pt.1

So is the concept of a worldview even a Biblical one? Did the apostles think in these kind of terms? Or is Weltanschauung merely the latest philosophical fad, irrelevant to the thinking of the biblical writers? If, however, it does have some signifigance here, how should it inform our understanding and application of Scripture? The first place we will go in search of answers to these questions is the Book of Acts, Chapter 17.

Here we find Paul's famous address to the Athenians on Mars Hill. While perhaps the specific term worldview may not have entered Paul's thoughts, the functional equivalent of the concept was certainly in play. The Athenians Paul was talking to had certain foundational concepts about what the world was, where it came from, the nature of humanity and the divine, etc., that Paul had to challenge first from a distinctly Jewish (and hence Christian) way of seeing these things before he could talk about Christ and even be coherent. What you see in this passage of Acts is Paul deftly building conceptual bridges with his Hellenistic audience (which doesn't necessarily work across the board, as evidenced by many of the Athenians' reactions to his rustic and “intellectually inferior” ideas).

Besides drawing attention to the fact that Paul apparently understood the ramifications of such foundational concepts of God, origins, Man's fundamental problem, etc. (all of which can be properly identified as worldview questions), I'd also like to make the point that he didn't overlay his worldview prematurely on that of the Athenians - he understood that he had to go back to the beginning, as it were, with his non-Jewish audience, and not assume they would understand a statement such as "repent, believe in Jesus Christ, and be saved" without the proper groundwork laid. In fact, it is much the same point Nancy Pearcey makes in Total Truth – that any presentation of the gospel today must first START with Creation (nature of God and Man) rather than falsely assuming an understanding of these things by your audience BEFORE getting to the Fall (we are sinners culpable before a moral God) and Redemption (Jesus died to save you from your sins). Though possible in times past, we can certainly no longer assume that those with whom we share the gospel believe there is a God who created the world. We must take into account the worldview we face, and always build from the bottom up.