People have often asked me if meeting and/or interacting with another American, or even another white person for that matter, is a positive occurrence. One would think, in light of the fact that I live alone in a village in which there have been stretches as long a month-and-a-half with no interaction with someone besides the resident Aukaaners, that I would jump at the chance to converse in my native tongue. The reality, I have learned, is quite the contrary.

There are typically what could be eloquently categorized as three “white people” groups you meet in the interior of Suriname. The more common two: Peace Corps volunteers and European Tourists from France or Holland, who are generally somewhat risky because of their perception of missionaries–which is unfortunately often negative and with Europeans, the whole language guessing game: not knowing exactly where they’re from, both of us being unsure if we might be proficient in the other’s language and to what degree they understand and speak English (which is, more often than not, pretty well). With the Peace Corps, it’s a real grab-bag. You might find a guy like a friend we have who is born-again, evangelistic, and down-to-earth, or you might get a liberal, pluralistic, feminist who sees you as someone destroying the beautiful and harmonious indigenous culture. [...]

Sometimes it is easy to fall into the gloom and doom prophecies provided to us by our modern media. This video should be a great encouragement. This is not a guy trying to build his ratings through fear and intimidation of the uninformed populace; he is simply trying to get out his message that the world is not as bad as we may think. Unfortunately, he is under the impression that all of this is unaided by the will of a sovereign God. Hopefully someone in his life will be able to share with him the good news that human success is not determined by green initiatives, personal health, or any other man-centered venture which could fail with human weakness; our improvement is based upon the love of a good and sovereign God.

Question:  Are all religions the same?

Are all religions equally valid? There is one philosophy of religion that states exactly that; philosophy and theology label this position as religious pluralism. Pluralism states that all religions lead to the same god (the use of the title “god” is meant to center the argument around a central idea, though the existence of a god is not completely accepted by many pluralists). There are two aspects to this argument worth analysis, because this philosophical position takes two forms that can be addressed in separate ways. The first form of this argument is a simple, usually unexamined, statement of preference expressed by the majority of people one will encounter in western society. The second form is a much more developed argument which one only encounters through the study of philosophy. In this article we will explore the popular expressions of religious pluralism and the common underpinnings that are used to support it.

[...]

Perhaps the most basic issue that should be settled before your exploration of the Veritas internet resource is recognition of your personal worldview. In order to understand this fundamental idea, we will work through the definition of worldview and end with the practical application of this knowledge in your everyday life.

Worldview. If you have not had any formal training in philosophy this word probably means nothing to you, but let me assure you that you have spent the majority of your life working, building, and refining a worldview that is one hundred percent unique to you. Put simply, a worldview is quite literally the filter through which someone interprets, defines, and engages with the world around them. Your worldview assists you in making every decision throughout your day. From flippant thoughts, the ones passed over and forgotten in a second, to the ultimate questions, such as “who am I” and “why am I here,” you operate every moment within this epistemic framework. Let me be clear, this is not an elaborate system of personal philosophy. This is the fundamental result of our experiences during the formative years in our lives, yet most people will live out their life never thinking twice about the reasons behind their presuppositions. James Sire, in his book The Universe Next Door, provides a more explanative, albeit lengthy, definition of this concept.

            A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.

We can work through his definition one point at a time to get a full perspective of the nature of a worldview. As a commitment, we would consider the fact that our worldview has an inescapable depth and dimension to it that goes far beyond our making a rational decision. As Christians, we would hold that our most fundamental belief about God is that he exists. If someone asked you to provide an argument for that, most professed believers could not do so, but it does not change the fact that within their heart, they know or presuppose that He exists. The same is true of the naturalists explaining that God does not exist. They developed a separate worldview, many points of which cannot be expressed or proven, but, nonetheless, it remains fundamental to the way they live their lives.

This brings us to the fact that our worldview can be expressed through propositions. A single proposition does not encompass it, but a group of propositions can be used to form a story that expresses our worldview. For an atheistic naturalist, the story would follow Darwinian evolution pushed by survival of the fittest, or natural selection. For the Christian, our worldview can be expressed by the story of creation, the fall, and the redemptive work of Christ. 

These propositions which we use to express our worldview may be true, consistent, or conscious. They could also be false, inconsistent, or subconscious. If my proposition is that God exists, someone else could just as easily propose that he does not exist. One of those propositions is true, but the veracity or fallaciousness of the proposition does not need to be known in order for it to be incorporated into someone’s worldview. People are frequently inconsistent in their worldview. For example, the naturalistic worldview holds that humans are simply the next animal in the long line of creatures left in the wake of natural selection, but naturalists would also say that humanity has a certain dignity above that of other animals. These people are not acting within the framework of their espoused worldview, which brings us to the final point.

Our worldview is best evidenced by the way that we live, not the words that we say. We could claim any worldview as our own, but in truth, it is something that is so profoundly engrained in our subconscious that we may not even know our own worldview without serious analysis of the way we live our lives.

This brings us to the most crucial aspect of the way that worldview interacts with our daily lives. David Naugle wrote a book entitled Worldview: A History of a Concept. David Naugle rightly claims that “the formation of a Christian worldview among other worldviews is a primary function of grace and redemption in Christ: salvation has fundamentally to do with the transformation and rectification of one’s worldview.” The redemptive work of Christ does not just capture the heart of a believer; it radically reorients the way that a person interprets, defines, and engages the world around them.