Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
This is from a message I wrote to an atheist. I had suggested that, in principle, only one worldview could be correct. He gave me an analogy that multiple operating systems could run the same program, Excel. Let me know if you guys think this is right and if you have any other ideas.
___
I will give you points that this analogy has a good rhetorical appeal (rhetorical in the best and classic sense of the word, ala Cicero). I have thought about this exact analogy too. I don't think it works in the end, though. One reason is that it does not properly account for the relation between the two operating systems.
Anytime one posits the existence of multiple worldviews, one must ask, "What is the relation between those two worldviews?" In the operating system analogy the two computers either cannot make sense of each other or they communicate through some third system (an API, protocol, or whatever). If they cannot communicate, then they are not accurate examples of worldviews, as worldviews by definition are what we use to account for all human experience. If they can make sense of each other (through a protocal, API, or whatever), then the part of the analogy that corresponds to human worldviews would be the entire structure (both operating systems and the protocol).
In essence, the analogy fails b/c the operating systems are better likened to pieces of worldviews than entire worldviews themselves. In principle there can only be one correct worldview.
[Edited on 3-7-2006 by Scott]
___
I will give you points that this analogy has a good rhetorical appeal (rhetorical in the best and classic sense of the word, ala Cicero). I have thought about this exact analogy too. I don't think it works in the end, though. One reason is that it does not properly account for the relation between the two operating systems.
Anytime one posits the existence of multiple worldviews, one must ask, "What is the relation between those two worldviews?" In the operating system analogy the two computers either cannot make sense of each other or they communicate through some third system (an API, protocol, or whatever). If they cannot communicate, then they are not accurate examples of worldviews, as worldviews by definition are what we use to account for all human experience. If they can make sense of each other (through a protocal, API, or whatever), then the part of the analogy that corresponds to human worldviews would be the entire structure (both operating systems and the protocol).
In essence, the analogy fails b/c the operating systems are better likened to pieces of worldviews than entire worldviews themselves. In principle there can only be one correct worldview.
[Edited on 3-7-2006 by Scott]