House's Humanity

I don't watch TV much, but I do have a couple shows I really enjoy and watch rather religiously. My favorite show on right now is '24' - I like it not only for its intense pacing, (usually) inventive plot, and interesting character development, but also for the way it deals with ethical questions and moral theory played out in a sort of thought-experiment mock-reality.

The other show I watch fairly frequently is 'House' - though often the morality portrayed on this medical drama is questionable and should be viewed carefully. My interest with this show, however, is far more myopic; unlike '24' there aren't a number of reasons I find myself drawn to it. There's really only one: I think Dr. Gregory House's character, played wonderfully well by Hugh Laurie, is one of, if not the most interesting on television, and the other characters are great foils. In many ways, he is like a child that never grew up. In other ways, he is jaded beyond belief. I find his view of people, ethics, science, and God to be fascinating and instructive for me as I apply worldview analysis to his character.

For instance, last night's episode ended differently than all the others. Every time, House and his team have a last minute epiphany and diagnose the mysteriously (and ususally terminally) ill patient just in the nick of time. Not so last night. The patient died - died, in fact, directly as a result of a mistaken diagnosis and treatment by both House and Dr. Foreman that proved to be fatal. As Foreman was dealing with the guilt, he received the following advice from House: it doesn't matter how you feel. The numbers say that, though this kind of thing happens much more frequently to doctors in their line of work, they save many more lives and much more difficult cases than most other doctors, and the numbers don't lie. The guilty feeling is meaningless, because it is rooted in subjective emotion, and should be ignored.

As often is the case, though, House's quite inhuman comments collide headlong with his own very human actions. One of the subplots involved his best friend, his best friend's ex-wife, and their dog who lived with her but who wouldn't stop misbehaving since the ex-husband left. House had manipulated her for information, and then at the end of the show, after just having given Foreman this pep-talk on the illusory nature of guilt, ended up taking the dog in himself out of guilt. House's callous philosophical stance was undermined by his own undeniable humanity. He can espouse the outworkings of his presuppositions, but at key points in his humanity, he cannot live with them. This is the tension Francis Schaeffer spoke and wrote so often about:

...in fact, no non-Christian can be consistent to the logic of his presuppositions. The reason for this is simply that a man must live in reality and reality consists of two parts: the external world and its form, and man's 'mannishness', inclusing his own 'mannishness'. No matter what a man may believe, he cannot change the reality of what is...

...every man is in a place of tension. Man cannot make his own universe and then live in it...

...every man is somewhere along the line between the real world and the logical conclusion of his non-Christian presuppositions. Every person feels the pull of two consistencies, the pull towards the real world and the pull towards the logic of his system. He may let the pendulum swing back and forth between them, but he cannot live in both places at once. He will be living nearer to the one or to the other, depending on the strenght of the pull at any given time. To have to choose bewteen one consistency or the other is a real damnation for man.

Prejudice - Wrong, but why? The answer matters.

Even in our deeply - and often simply - relativistic cultural milieu, the notion that it is wrong to be prejudiced (specifically in the sense of an unfair bias toward a perceived minority group) enjoys widespread acceptance. In fact, it is often taken as an unquestioned truism, and few people give much thought to if it is indeed wrong, and if so, why it is wrong. The Christian has a unique answer to offer to both questions, and (leaving aside the implications of calling something "wrong" that should be highlighted for our culture) the difference between those answers and the answers given by most secular non-Christians is quite telling, though often unarticulated.

A couple of days ago, I had occasion to talk about this with the youth group at my church. A parent had noticed displays of prejudice both from some of the youth and from himself, and wanted to talk with the group about it. There was some discussion at the outset about what prejudice is, how we can identify it in our own lives, and how we can avoid it. I didn't let the conversation get very far, however, before asking the question, "Do you know why prejudice is wrong? Specifically, why is it wrong for you as a Christian?"

The first answer I received was not really all that suprising. It is the answer usually given from the secular worldview- in fact, the only logically consistent answer available to today's common combination of moral relativism and the materialistic view that reduces morality to an evolved characteristic of the human species derived from self-interest (a la Dawkins' The Selfish Gene) . "You wouldn't want someone to treat you that way, so you shouldn't treat other people that way. If you're prejudiced towards other people, they'll probably be prejudiced towards you, so that makes it wrong."

This idea does more than merely root morality in empathy (as many have mistakenly done*); it says morals, even the most altruistic, are driven by the evolutionary forces of self-interest and self-preservation. That, because we evolved as social animals, and these rules of social interaction were advantageous to our ancestors in getting their DNA passed on into the next generation, we now have moral notions like "it is wrong to be prejudiced" - and that ultimately, whether something is "right" or "wrong" depends on how it will benefit or harm me, and my moral reasoning should be subject to my own self-interest.** So prejudice is wrong because it will have a negative impact on me - which is really the only consistent answer a materialist can give.

The Christian, though, has a different answer, as I tried to explain to the youth that night, and that answer makes all the difference in the world. For the Christian, basic human dignity and equality is grounded in the imago dei - that we are all created in the image of God and because of that have intrinsic value as individuals. Furthermore, "good" derives its definition from God's character; "evil" is a deviation, a departure from that character. We as humans were originally created to be in line with the character of God, but, as Francis Schaeffer said, man is now abnormal - we have been separated from our Creator by our sin through the Fall. This has had dire ramifications on our relationships with our fellow man. We do not treat each other as we should, as we were originally intended to treat one another. When we participate in evil, then, we are not being true to what we were initially created to be.

This helps to make sense of the two greatest commandments Jesus pointed out: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself (neighbor here meaning fellow man, not just the folks next door). You see, because of the relational love within the Godhead between the Father and the Son from all eternity (Jesus spoke of this in John 17), and in light of our being created in God's image in this way, we should love our neighbor; and acts of prejudice (pre-judging), whether verbal or mental, is a falling away from - a bending and twisting of - our original purpose as people. It is certainly not loving. That is why, as a Christian, I can say that prejudice is wrong.

This is one of those increasingly rare areas where a popular, politically-correct moral notion does in fact correspond to a Christian moral principle. It is incumbent upon us as Christians to not just unthinkingly agree with this sentiment, but to be clear about why we hold prejudice to be wrong, and thus bring glory to God and an avenue of hope for a world in rebellion.

* Quite the opposite, actually - empathy is a result of moral knowledge, not its cause.

** This is dealt with rather well by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason.

The Problem of Problems

I have been around the block long enough now in the Christian apologetics, theism vs. atheism, naturalism vs. supernaturalism, moral relativism vs. moral objectivism (etc.) neighborhood to be able to say very honestly that Christianity has its problems. So does theism in general. And so does atheism, and naturalism, and relativism. I continue to find the problems with atheism, naturalism, and all the other associated isms to be more difficult and insurmountable than those facing Christian theism, but the fact remains: not one worldview I have encountered is free of problems.

So, in the vein of such arguments as the Problem of Evil and the Problem of Divine Hiddenness, I am starting to become aware that there is an existential Problem of Problems for anyone who examines worldviews and systems of thought. Unlike these other Problems, however, this one does not reside in the system itself. In other words, the Problem of Evil points to an alleged inconsistency or dilemma located in the worldview of Christian theism; the Problem of Complexity, or the Problem of Being from Non-Being, within naturalism. But my newly-coined problem is not specific to a particular worldview; one could almost call it a meta-problem, as it overarches all worldviews. One cannot even begin to examine a worldview without being confronted with this existentially taxing snag.

So now for me the question is, what is the source of this problem? Is this simply indicative of the fact that worldview examination is a human endeavor? I am a thorough-going realist; I believe that there is a world out there, independent of me or anyone else, which presents itself in a way that I can know true things about it. But I also know that human understanding is finite and, even should one possess a worldview that accurately represents how the world really is, the perception of problems would still persist. So one possibility is that the problem lies in human perception. But I have just started thinking about this, and am open to other ideas. Any thoughts?

"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.