# How many worldviews are there ?



## Peairtach

How many worldviews are there, and which do the major world religions belong to?

E.g. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are monotheistic.

I'm trying to think a bit more about false religion presuppositionally, and in the light of Deuteronomy 32:31.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## earl40

I know of only 2. Right and wrong.

Those who hold to the wrong one know in their heart they are wrong and they know the real one when they see it, or more precisely when they see the proper worldview God has put before their eyes.


----------



## DMcFadden

As many as there are people on earth?

Some of the major ones (with substantial overlap)

Naturalism - Matter is all there is
Pantheism - God is all
Panentheism - God is in all
Monotheism - there is only one God
Polytheism - there are many gods
Christianity - there is only one Triune God
Postmodernism
Secular humanism
Marxism
Animism
etc.


----------



## GloriousBoaz

I was going to say two the worldview of those surpressing the truth in unrighteousness which can then be further subdivided into the list above, such as materialism, existentialism, catholicism, etc and then the other worldview would be those with open eyes to the truth and unbound wills but it can be further subdivided into camps of biblical interpretation (differing thoughts but all among the elect, some just more mature in their understanding than others by God's grace alone)


----------



## Peairtach

Thanks for these responses.

I'm disappointed that able presuppositionallists haven't devoted books to comparing the strong foundations of true Christianity with the poor foundations of each of the major world religions. 

They each merit a book length treatment of their own by someone who knows the false religion very well, and who is an able VanTillian. By "merit" I mean that each false religion deserves the attention of a thoroughgoing and sound apologetic refutaion, for the sake of the millions of deluded followers, and for the sake of those who say things like "all religions are the same".

Maybe there is more material out there, or maybe presuppositionalists don't see the need. Maybe they don't see the need to thoroughly demonstrate the falseness of each false religion on a case by case basis, because they've demonstrated the truth of Christianity.

I think it would be a desideratum for there to be a presuppositional book length treatment of each of the major false religions, so that simple people could see each one knocked down one after the other, and know how best to go about knocking them down.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Claudiu

Peairtach said:


> Thanks for these responses.
> 
> I'm disappointed that able presuppositionallists haven't devoted books to comparing the strong foundations of true Christianity with the poor foundations of each of the major world religions.
> 
> They each merit a book length treatment of their own by someone who knows the false religion very well, and who is an able VanTillian. By "merit" I mean that each false religion deserves the attention of a thoroughgoing and sound apologetic refutaion, for the sake of the millions of deluded followers, and for the sake of those who say things like "all religions are the same".
> 
> Maybe there is more material out there, or maybe presuppositionalists don't see the need. Maybe they don't see the need to thoroughly demonstrate the falseness of each false religion on a case by case basis, because they've demonstrated the truth of Christianity.
> 
> I think it would be a desideratum for there to be a presuppositional book length treatment of each of the major false religions, so that simple people could see each one knocked down one after the other, and know how best to go about knocking them down.
> 
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2



We don't devote much attention to the East because it is "unreasonable," and in the end we are in the West (it's not something we deal with everyday). So I don't think you'll see much written on Hinduism, Buddhism, ancient Chinese philosophy, or anything of that nature, from a Van Tillian perspective. 

We are starting to deal more with Islam, and I think James White is becoming a very able apologist in interacting with Islam.


----------



## ReformedChristian

Naturalism- Matter and the physical are all that Exist
Pantheism- Buddhism Taoism and all Eastern Religions
Theism- The belief there is one God who creates all things
Polytheism-Many God's
Postmodernism- Truth is dictated by language and the culture ie Moral and Culture Relativism


----------



## GloriousBoaz

The east is already absurd, we don't have to reduce it to absurdity. Dustin Segers a Van Tillian quotes a letter he recieved from an atheist a lot, when engaging atheists when he wants to demonstrate the impossibility of defeating presupp he says something to the effect of: "i have discovered how to defeat the TAG there is only one way and that is to give up reason, to just admit absurdity" so we see if they do that then they've lost anyways, its pretty much the same with the east. 

There is a lot of good classical.evidential apologetics for eastern stuff, even Josh McDowell's "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" has a good article on mysticism and some stuff on Buddhism, also the classic "Kingdom of the cults" by Walter Martin is helpful just to name a couple there's lots more out there i'm sure, but yes I too look forward to more presupp stuff on this and yes James white is doing awesome at Islam and numerous other worldviews, He has books on Mormonism and other subjects as well.

Here is a great recording of my fav Presupp guy Dustin Segers meeting with some LDS missionaries, it is epic http://www.sfofgso.org/sermons/MormonWitnessing052105.mp3

I was also going to suggest even if you do a simple google search of "Presuppositional apologetics and Islam" or "internal critique of Islam" or "internal inconsistencies of Islam" or Mormonism and some Jehovah's Witnesses, you will find a bit of stuff, people are working on it more and more. 

I've never read any of this guy's books but he seems to be tackling some of these religions Amazon.com: mike robinson apologetics Mike Robinson here are listed a book on presupp against Mormons and one against Jehovah's witnesses

I've been desiring to see some work done on using the TAG or other presupp thought (like internal criques etc) against Arminianism and Catholicism. Possibly also charismania/prosperity and emergent junk.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Dr. Bahnsen gave a short critique of major worldviews in his lectures on apologetics. They may be on youtube under "worldviews".


----------



## GloriousBoaz

OOOO Bahnsen! Sweet, thanks! It's on the list!


----------



## MarieP

One day, there will be only one!  Unfortunately, our worldview isn't enough to save us.

"Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"- Philippians 2:9-11


----------



## Claudiu

GloriousBoaz said:


> The east is already absurd, we don't have to reduce it to absurdity.



Perfect example of the typical Western response.


----------



## Peairtach

Claudiu said:


> GloriousBoaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The east is already absurd, we don't have to reduce it to absurdity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect example of the typical Western response.
Click to expand...


The dedicated Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, etc, doesn't think it is absurd, and ignorant people who are not e.g. Buddhists sometimes need to see the absurdity of e.g. Buddhism so we need the best possible apologetic to be applied to each one of those false religions to demonstrate their inadequacy at their very foundations.

Atheism is as absurd as anything from the East, and yet great attention has rightly been paid to it by VanTillians, or should it just be dismissed as absurd and nothing more be said about it.

For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges ( Deut 32:31).


----------



## Claudiu

Peairtach said:


> Claudiu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GloriousBoaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The east is already absurd, we don't have to reduce it to absurdity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect example of the typical Western response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dedicated Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, etc, doesn't think it is absurd, and ignorant people who are not e.g. Buddhists sometimes need to see the absurdity of e.g. Buddhism so we need the best possible apologetic to be applied to each one of those false religions to demonstrate their inadequacy at their very foundations.
> 
> Atheism is as absurd as anything from the East, and yet great attention has rightly been paid to it by VanTillians, or should it just be dismissed as absurd and nothing more be said about it.
> 
> For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges ( Deut 32:31).
Click to expand...




All worldviews other than the Christian one reduce to absurdity (although I must admit that Christianity has some seemingly "absurd" (as Kierkegaard would use it) elements in it as well). Some worldviews may be more, or may be less absurd than others. And even with the supposed absurdity of all these views, there are still some elements of truth found in them. After all, we are human, and our experiences shape our worldviews, which in turn shape our experiences as well.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Oliphint's latest, Covenantal Apologetics, contains sample dialogs between a Christian and: a Humanist, Atheist Objector, Daniel Dennett, Muslim.


----------



## GloriousBoaz

Well if this helps I used to be buddhist and now I can see that it is absurd, and my meaning in saying that isn't in regards as to it being as absurd as any none christian lie, which is it, but i say that because it doesn't see a problem with not holding to the law of non contradiction, so therefore they accept contradictions and therefore they are already absurd. 

P1 Buddhism does not hold to the law of non contradiction
P2 Without the law of non contradiction all is reduced to absurdity
C1 therefore, Buddhism is self refuting and reduces itself to absurdity 

Sorry maybe I should have said that at the outset, I just assumed you guys were up to speed on that


----------



## Peairtach

GloriousBoaz said:


> Well if this helps I used to be buddhist and now I can see that it is absurd, and my meaning in saying that isn't in regards as to it being as absurd as any none christian lie, which is it, but i say that because it doesn't see a problem with not holding to the law of non contradiction, so therefore they accept contradictions and therefore they are already absurd.
> 
> P1 Buddhism does not hold to the law of non contradiction
> P2 Without the law of non contradiction all is reduced to absurdity
> C1 therefore, Buddhism is self refuting and reduces itself to absurdity
> 
> Sorry maybe I should have said that at the outset, I just assumed you guys were up to speed on that



Thanks for that Petros. I see what you're getting at. I still think that every major false religion deserves a book length treatment by an able apologist. Some (many) of us aren't as philosophically clever as others and like to see them thoroughly described, analysed and refuted, one by one. Obviously our faith doesn't depend on such a project, but I think such apologetics of offense, or on the offensive, tackling each major ''faith'' would be a worthwhile project for able men, and for the future good of the Church.


----------



## Claudiu

Peairtach said:


> GloriousBoaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if this helps I used to be buddhist and now I can see that it is absurd, and my meaning in saying that isn't in regards as to it being as absurd as any none christian lie, which is it, but i say that because it doesn't see a problem with not holding to the law of non contradiction, so therefore they accept contradictions and therefore they are already absurd.
> 
> P1 Buddhism does not hold to the law of non contradiction
> P2 Without the law of non contradiction all is reduced to absurdity
> C1 therefore, Buddhism is self refuting and reduces itself to absurdity
> 
> Sorry maybe I should have said that at the outset, I just assumed you guys were up to speed on that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that Petros. I see what you're getting at. I still think that every major false religion deserves a book length treatment by an able apologist. Some (many) of us aren't as philosophically clever as others and like to see them thoroughly described, analysed and refuted, one by one. Obviously our faith doesn't depend on such a project, but I think such apologetics of offense, or on the offensive, tackling each major ''faith'' would be a worthwhile project for able men, and for the future good of the Church.
Click to expand...


Moreover, a worldview can't be reduced to one simple point. They are more nuanced than that. I agree, they deserve more attention.


----------



## GloriousBoaz

Mr. Tallach I could not agree more. The circles i used to travel in were not fond of researching cults beccause they thought that it was entirely suitable to only know your bible, and they always used the analogy of a person who works for the treasury department and roots out counterfeits, he only studies the genuine bill in order that when he sees a fake he spots it and can tell you why it doesn't match up. Now all of that is completely valid and every single Christian should be in that ream but I think there is a place in God's kingdom for those who do that AND they research the in's and out's of cults in order to be able to refute them. this group I used to be a part of also wasn't into church history and I believe that every Christian should at least know the councils and the heresies that were condemned through the centuries because most of the "new" stuff to come out isn't new, its a rehashing of old heresies, like Jehovah's Witnesses being a form of Arianism etc. Satan isn't a creative being so he has to borrow from God (the christian worldview) and twist it, and once Christians are on to his ploys then he has to take that same error, that doctrine of demons and repackage it to a new culture and mindset in order to try to sell it. 

I agree that a full length treatment of each of these would be greatly beneficial, I still recommend Walter Martin's "Kingdom of the Cults" for a thorough introductory treatment of each cult all in one volume. And also his book "Kingdom of the Occult" for occultic practices. 

Yeah i'm just getting into the philosophical aspects of apologetic recently and it boils it down to a simplicity, but you should know their views. I'd suggest James White on Islam "What Every Christian Needs to Know about Islam" and on Mormonism "Letters to a Mormon Elder" (and he has a book with great quotes on Catholicism). I just listened to 8 hours of lectures by MacArthur on catholicism Explaining the Heresy of Catholicism and by the end of it you are an expert and there is no way to have fellowship with them or classify them as a "Church" in fact if you just read their work "The glories of mary" by Alphonsus Liguori which is a collection of creeds and prayers etc of mary, you will quickly see the sickening idolatry there. MacArthur "Charismatic chaos" for that field, and Hank Hanegraeff's free work on equip.org "Counterfeit revival" here is all the different parts of his work for free or it is available in book form for purchase Search - Christian Research Institute. Also Harold O.J. Brown's book "Heresies" is a classic sketching historical heresies. Gary Bate's work I just finished readying on UFOs and alien abductions and demonic activity is brilliant instant classic, it is called "Alien Intrusion". 

Thats just a quick list of some fuller treatments I am familiar with, that have good scholarly standards.


----------



## Claudiu

GloriousBoaz said:


> Well if this helps I used to be buddhist and now I can see that it is absurd, and my meaning in saying that isn't in regards as to it being as absurd as any none christian lie, which is it, but i say that because it doesn't see a problem with not holding to the law of non contradiction, so therefore they accept contradictions and therefore they are already absurd.
> 
> P1 Buddhism does not hold to the law of non contradiction
> P2 Without the law of non contradiction all is reduced to absurdity
> C1 therefore, Buddhism is self refuting and reduces itself to absurdity
> 
> Sorry maybe I should have said that at the outset, I just assumed you guys were up to speed on that



It does indeed reduce to absurdity. But in talking with a Buddhist, I have found that there is more to talk about than this. Many are Buddhist for pragmatic/psychological reasons. Just showing the absurdity sometimes isn't enough.


----------



## GloriousBoaz

Very true, "faith comes through hearing and hearing of the word of God". When said that the buddhist position reduces to absurity I was only making a general statements about worldviews not addressing witnessing or anything else. The original poster asked about how to think about other worldviews presuppositionally, that is what I was addressing. I agree we need to know our enemy and "be on guard for satan prowls the earth as a roaring lion seeking to devour christians". That is why after I finish reading "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" by Jason Lisle which is an excellent presupp book which covers all the basics including logical fallacies your opponents tend to use especially in the realms of creation. I plan on reading either the Book of Mormon or the Qur'an as I have never read them cover to cover though I took a 400 level course on the Qur'an at a secular university years ago. If you are talking with a Buddhist it would be helpful to know what Samsara is, what the four noble truths and the 8 fold path is. What enlightenment is and even some of what Siddhartha Guatama taught. How their whole view boils down to suffering in the world, and how to escape that cycle (Samsara). But is it 100% necessary to know those things? Will the Holy Spirit cease to work through the proclamation of His Word if you don't know those things?


----------



## Claudiu

GloriousBoaz said:


> Very true, "faith comes through hearing and hearing of the word of God". When said that the buddhist position reduces to absurity I was only making a general statements about worldviews not addressing witnessing or anything else. The original poster asked about how to think about other worldviews presuppositionally, that is what I was addressing. I agree we need to know our enemy and "be on guard for satan prowls the earth as a roaring lion seeking to devour christians". That is why after I finish reading "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" by Jason Lisle which is an excellent presupp book which covers all the basics including logical fallacies your opponents tend to use especially in the realms of creation. I plan on reading either the Book of Mormon or the Qur'an as I have never read them cover to cover though I took a 400 level course on the Qur'an at a secular university years ago. If you are talking with a Buddhist it would be helpful to know what Samsara is, what the four noble truths and the 8 fold path is. What enlightenment is and even some of what Siddhartha Guatama taught. How their whole view boils down to suffering in the world, and how to escape that cycle (Samsara). *But is it 100% necessary to know those things? Will the Holy Spirit cease to work through the proclamation of His Word if you don't know those things?*



That's a good point. I think that one could successfully interact with a Buddhist without knowing everything about Buddhism. Knowing helps, but it is not a necessity. That's where pressupositionalism can come in handy. It takes things a step back and doesn't argue so much the specifics of a certain worldview, but the starting assumptions of that worldview. That, in my opinion, can be easier and better in argumentation than arguing points. The foundation is what's faulty in the wrong worldview to start off with.


----------



## GloriousBoaz

> That's a good point. I think that one could successfully interact with a Buddhist without knowing everything about Buddhism. Knowing helps, but it is not a necessity. That's where pressupositionalism can come in handy. It takes things a step back and doesn't argue so much the specifics of a certain worldview, but the starting assumptions of that worldview. That, in my opinion, can be easier and better in argumentation than arguing points. The foundation is what's faulty in the wrong worldview to start off with.


----------



## GloriousBoaz

I thought I'd mention I'm reading Jason Lisle's "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" and he quickly gives a proof against Mormonism which amounts to Since they are polytheistic they have no rational for the Laws of logic, morality or the uniformity of nature since those are only grounded if they are derived from the mind of God, since their god's "evolve", change, and multiply who says according to their worldview that the laws of logic, morality, and uniformity of nature won't change. 

And his internal critique of Islam is that in Sura 42:11 It explains the Islamic doctrine of Tanzih which states that Allah is so superior that nothing in human experience is comparable to him. Which then causes a problem for them trying to justify the laws of logic according to their worldview because then the laws of logic cannot be a reflection of the way Allah thinks and therefore they have no justification for the laws of logic.


----------



## Apologist4Him

earl40 said:


> I know of only 2. Right and wrong.
> 
> Those who hold to the wrong one know in their heart they are wrong and they know the real one when they see it, or more precisely when they see the proper worldview God has put before their eyes.



One criticism of non-presuppositional apologetics goes something like this, because a "neutral ground" is assumed, any worldview is an equal opportunist so to speak, and therefore for non-presuppositionalist apologists to be effective in their approach, it is almost necessary to have some knowledge of hundreds of thousands of worldviews and sub-views. One beauty of the Reformed presuppositional apologetic is that worldviews can be boiled down to two views, the Christian worldview, and the Non-Christian worldview. This comes down to the *Scriptures vs the world*, Christian philosophy (epistemology, metaphysics, ethics) vs non-Christian philosophy, Christian theology vs non-Christian theology, science, history, etc. Right and wrong.


----------



## MW

Peairtach said:


> I'm disappointed that able presuppositionallists haven't devoted books to comparing the strong foundations of true Christianity with the poor foundations of each of the major world religions.



Van Til wrote a series which includes epistemology, ethics, and comparative religions. One could also work through the writings of McCosh and Orr. Clark's Christian View of Men and Things is very helpful. Ronald Nash wrote a work on Worldviews which is a good introduction. Johannes Vos has a small book on Religions which is also worth reading. If one is looking for a topical analysis Nash is probably the place to begin. His Lectures at RTS are also available through iTunes. I also recall Vos' Lectures are available through Sermon Audio.


----------



## psycheives

Richard, rather than seeing each religion as a completely distinct worldview, perhaps we should see them as grouped into 3 types of worldviews. I highly recommend reading Michael Horton's Christian Faith book and see how he divides the worldviews. Dr. Horton applies Paul Tillich's paradigms of "overcoming estrangement" and "meeting a stranger" to worldviews to demonstrate all those other philosophies and worldviews are really just different versions of one view that is repeated with only slight changes. To Tillich's label's, Dr. Horton also adds a third type: "the stranger we never meet". So there are essentially these 3 worldviews and all the religions are versions of the 3 types. 

Notice: (Below are quotes/summaries from Dr. Horton's Christian Faith copied/pasted)
*Overcoming Estrangement* (man's attempts to rejoin the one reality/god/essence, climbing the ladder to god): Is the story that the ultimate source of reality is not outside of us but inside. God does not enter into the times and spaces that he has created; rather, all of reality emanates from this divine principle of unity like rays from the sun. Think Plato's philosophy: the lower physical world of the senses isn't real, but the upper world of essences/forms philosophy is real. Think a light bulb, where the further from the bulb you get, the light gets dimmer. So Plato taught reality gets dimmer as it descends into the physical. All of reality is ultimately one. There is no distinction, finally, between God and the world. The world is a dimmer version of god.
Plato, Pantheism, Panentheism are repeated in Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, Gnosticism, Dualism, Mysticism (Meister Eckhart), Islamic Sufism, Jewish Kabbalism, Benedict Spinoza, German Romanticism, American Transcendentalism, New Age, Neopagan Spirituality, Process Theology, "Christian" Word Faith cult (tv prosperity preachers) all seek through human works/attempts to rejoin or find the god within. 

*"Meeting a Stranger"*: Nietzsche advocated an “inverted Platonism,” where the upper world is illusion and the lower world is real. Amid important differences, there are some surprising similarities between pantheism and atheism. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin. Both embrace the view that being is univocal: in other words, that there is only one kind of reality or existence. pantheism assumes that the upper world is real and this world is mere appearance, while atheism assumes that this world is real and the upper world is nonexistent. In their drive toward immanence, both paradigms locate the divine within the self (reducing theology to anthropology or psychology). Neither scheme allows for the personal intervention of God in nature and history.
Atheism, Deism, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud

*"The Stranger We Never Meet"* (God descends to humanity and finds us, we do not find Him): This model assumes that God and the world are distinct—Creator and creation. God is indeed a stranger, but one who has condescended to meet us. God is qualitatively distinct from creation. God is not only qualitatively different from us but morally opposed to us. We are estranged from God by sin. Salvation is achieved not by human ascent from the realm of shadows into the unity of divine being but by God’s descent in our flesh. the world has never been divine. The triune God created us to share in his drama, not in his essence. the history of the covenantal relationship of God and humanity rather than the metaphysics of being and becoming is the interest of this model.

Where the pagan worldviews locate evil somewhere in the essence of created, material, plural, finite, and embodied existence as such, the biblical worldview identifies evil with a historical violation of God’s loving will and command by free creatures who demanded an autonomous existence that did not belong to them.


----------



## Peairtach

Thank you for all this informative material, and reading suggestions.


----------



## psycheives

Ack... Upon reviewing my notes, I realized I mixed up two of the views: Meeting a Stranger and The Stranger We Never Meet and incorrectly stated them above. Christianity is the "Meeting a Stranger" view, while the deists/atheists are under "The Stranger We Never Meet" view. Dr. Horton can be difficult to understand.  Enjoy the book!


----------

