Presuppositions, Assumptions, Worldviews and Control Beliefs.
In my book I explicitly state that some skeptics may not like the way I argue. One of the reasons is because I talk about presuppositions, assumptions, worldviews, and control beliefs. In one of my posts a discussion flared up about this starting with author Jeffrey Mark’s comment. While he wasn’t responding directly to anything I had written let me respond.
I think scientifically minded and theologically or philosophical minded people go head to head over these ideas. As a philosophical minded person let me try to explain this to scientifically minded people, if I can.
The definitions of these words are similar but not exactly the same. They apply differently depending on the particular subject at hand. And they involve different things depending on whether the context is a discussion with someone else, or simply describing what we believe to be the case.
Let’s say we are discussing or debating an idea with someone else. When we engage in any argument we all have our presuppositions and assumptions. Those beliefs are the ones we presuppose and are assumed to be true. These beliefs are not presently on the table at the moment. They are presupposed for the sake of further conversation. If two Christians are debating over Arminianism and Calvinism they do not need to begin by arguing whether or not God exists or whether the Bible is God’s word. They are presupposing them in this context. If two philosophers are arguing about the existence of God they must presuppose that they are communicating with each other in a real material world, and that the discussion is an important one. If two scientists are arguing about something the same thing applies with regard to the importance of science, the reliability of induction and their senses.
Any presupposition or assumption can be laid on the table though, and discussed. A Christian Arminian would be frustrated in discussing Christian theology with someone who didn’t accept the Bible as the word of an existing God. A philosopher may be frustrated in having to continually revisit whether there is a material world before he can argue other things with other philosophers about other topics. A scientist would abhor having to go back and revisit the reliability of his senses with a pantheist who might require it, since the pantheist believes everything is maya, or an illusion. So some discussions between people who see things differently might be extremely frustrating, for they don’t agree on some basic common beliefs. That’s why Christian philosopher James Sire’s book is called, The Universe Next Door. Some of us see things so differently we live in different intellectual universes. There is even debate among theologians, philosophers and philosophers of science whether or not there is common ground between people who live in these different intellectual universes. Philosophers of science debate whether differing scientific paradigms are commensurable or incommensurable (ala Thomas Kuhn). Applied scientists are usually not informed about this kind of debate.
When it comes to what we believe, our problem is to try and isolate one of our particular assumptions for analysis. It’s extremely difficult if not impossible to do. For all assumptions and presuppositions we hold to are placed within the context of a whole worldview. We try to make consistent sense of our beliefs about God, the universe, ethics, politics, history, death, and so forth. A worldview is our particular way of making all of our beliefs cohere into a single consistent system of thought. Since it's impossible to lay our whole worldview on the table for analysis we can only isolate and analyze one or two particular beliefs at a time within it. But when we do so the other beliefs that form our worldview play a part in our analysis of that one particular belief we are trying to isolate for analysis. These other beliefs are called background beliefs. Our background beliefs consist of everything we have ever experienced and everything we have ever come to believe (minus that one particular belief we are trying to analyze). These background beliefs of ours control how we evaluate that particular belief in question, so I call them control beliefs. They control how we view that one particular belief in question. These control beliefs can actually explain away the evidence if they are strongly held ones. This is little different than the differing stories that a prosecutor and defense attorney might tell based upon the available evidence, one showing the defendant guilty and the other one showing that he is innocent. The evidence is the same. How do you decide?
An additional and telling problem is that no one has probably analyzed all of his beliefs. There are beliefs we have assumed are true based upon early childhood experiences that we have never placed on the table. Analyzing all of our beliefs is probably impossible otherwise we’d have to revisit every book we’ve ever read, every conversation, and every experience. So we all have unexamined beliefs we assume to be true, all of us. Some beliefs are more important and controlling than others, some have less evidence for them than others, and some are so well founded in our minds that we cannot question them, but we all have them. And they control how we see things, everything, for they are all placed within our own particular worldview. Furthermore, every belief we have is disputed by someone else in the world who can offer his reasons for doing so, even if we may disagree. Throughout history you will find this the case as well. No matter what you believe there has been a scholar, a philosopher, or a scientist who believed differently. That’s why philosopher/scientist A. N. Whitehead wrote, “Some assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know that they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them.”
I haven’t covered everything on this topic but for the record I do think we should follow the evidence and I do trust the reliability of our senses and the scientific method as the only possible way out of this quagmire of beliefs. And I think it is intellectual dishonesty to assume with any kind of certainty a whole worldview like the presuppositionalists do. To do that is to be impervious to all outside criticism. It is to lock oneself inside an ivory tower in the sky that never has to touch down on earth. I do not assume my whole worldview web of beliefs are all true with any degree of certainty. Some beliefs form the center of my web, like logic and my senses, while those in middle and on the periphery become less and less firmly held ones. And I must continually isolate one belief after another for analysis, even I cannot give up those that are closer and closer to the center of my web because I have solid reasons for trusting in them.
In any case I acknowledge the problem. So when it comes to my critique of the Christian theistic worldview I spend over half of my book arguing for my particular set of skeptical control beliefs. I do not assume them when crossing over into a different intellectual universe such as Christianity. As an outsider I shouldn’t do this if I want to be heard. I must first argue for them. To anyone who attempts to critique a different worldview he must argue for why he sees things differently. In the case of Christianity he must argue why he trusts science, rather than assuming it, and he must argue for why he adopts a skeptical set of control beliefs, rather than merely assuming a skeptical position. He must truly engage their worldview by understanding it. And he must start by critiquing their supernatural assumptions and their belief in the Bible as God's word.
I think scientifically minded and theologically or philosophical minded people go head to head over these ideas. As a philosophical minded person let me try to explain this to scientifically minded people, if I can.
The definitions of these words are similar but not exactly the same. They apply differently depending on the particular subject at hand. And they involve different things depending on whether the context is a discussion with someone else, or simply describing what we believe to be the case.
Let’s say we are discussing or debating an idea with someone else. When we engage in any argument we all have our presuppositions and assumptions. Those beliefs are the ones we presuppose and are assumed to be true. These beliefs are not presently on the table at the moment. They are presupposed for the sake of further conversation. If two Christians are debating over Arminianism and Calvinism they do not need to begin by arguing whether or not God exists or whether the Bible is God’s word. They are presupposing them in this context. If two philosophers are arguing about the existence of God they must presuppose that they are communicating with each other in a real material world, and that the discussion is an important one. If two scientists are arguing about something the same thing applies with regard to the importance of science, the reliability of induction and their senses.
Any presupposition or assumption can be laid on the table though, and discussed. A Christian Arminian would be frustrated in discussing Christian theology with someone who didn’t accept the Bible as the word of an existing God. A philosopher may be frustrated in having to continually revisit whether there is a material world before he can argue other things with other philosophers about other topics. A scientist would abhor having to go back and revisit the reliability of his senses with a pantheist who might require it, since the pantheist believes everything is maya, or an illusion. So some discussions between people who see things differently might be extremely frustrating, for they don’t agree on some basic common beliefs. That’s why Christian philosopher James Sire’s book is called, The Universe Next Door. Some of us see things so differently we live in different intellectual universes. There is even debate among theologians, philosophers and philosophers of science whether or not there is common ground between people who live in these different intellectual universes. Philosophers of science debate whether differing scientific paradigms are commensurable or incommensurable (ala Thomas Kuhn). Applied scientists are usually not informed about this kind of debate.
When it comes to what we believe, our problem is to try and isolate one of our particular assumptions for analysis. It’s extremely difficult if not impossible to do. For all assumptions and presuppositions we hold to are placed within the context of a whole worldview. We try to make consistent sense of our beliefs about God, the universe, ethics, politics, history, death, and so forth. A worldview is our particular way of making all of our beliefs cohere into a single consistent system of thought. Since it's impossible to lay our whole worldview on the table for analysis we can only isolate and analyze one or two particular beliefs at a time within it. But when we do so the other beliefs that form our worldview play a part in our analysis of that one particular belief we are trying to isolate for analysis. These other beliefs are called background beliefs. Our background beliefs consist of everything we have ever experienced and everything we have ever come to believe (minus that one particular belief we are trying to analyze). These background beliefs of ours control how we evaluate that particular belief in question, so I call them control beliefs. They control how we view that one particular belief in question. These control beliefs can actually explain away the evidence if they are strongly held ones. This is little different than the differing stories that a prosecutor and defense attorney might tell based upon the available evidence, one showing the defendant guilty and the other one showing that he is innocent. The evidence is the same. How do you decide?
An additional and telling problem is that no one has probably analyzed all of his beliefs. There are beliefs we have assumed are true based upon early childhood experiences that we have never placed on the table. Analyzing all of our beliefs is probably impossible otherwise we’d have to revisit every book we’ve ever read, every conversation, and every experience. So we all have unexamined beliefs we assume to be true, all of us. Some beliefs are more important and controlling than others, some have less evidence for them than others, and some are so well founded in our minds that we cannot question them, but we all have them. And they control how we see things, everything, for they are all placed within our own particular worldview. Furthermore, every belief we have is disputed by someone else in the world who can offer his reasons for doing so, even if we may disagree. Throughout history you will find this the case as well. No matter what you believe there has been a scholar, a philosopher, or a scientist who believed differently. That’s why philosopher/scientist A. N. Whitehead wrote, “Some assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know that they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them.”
I haven’t covered everything on this topic but for the record I do think we should follow the evidence and I do trust the reliability of our senses and the scientific method as the only possible way out of this quagmire of beliefs. And I think it is intellectual dishonesty to assume with any kind of certainty a whole worldview like the presuppositionalists do. To do that is to be impervious to all outside criticism. It is to lock oneself inside an ivory tower in the sky that never has to touch down on earth. I do not assume my whole worldview web of beliefs are all true with any degree of certainty. Some beliefs form the center of my web, like logic and my senses, while those in middle and on the periphery become less and less firmly held ones. And I must continually isolate one belief after another for analysis, even I cannot give up those that are closer and closer to the center of my web because I have solid reasons for trusting in them.
In any case I acknowledge the problem. So when it comes to my critique of the Christian theistic worldview I spend over half of my book arguing for my particular set of skeptical control beliefs. I do not assume them when crossing over into a different intellectual universe such as Christianity. As an outsider I shouldn’t do this if I want to be heard. I must first argue for them. To anyone who attempts to critique a different worldview he must argue for why he sees things differently. In the case of Christianity he must argue why he trusts science, rather than assuming it, and he must argue for why he adopts a skeptical set of control beliefs, rather than merely assuming a skeptical position. He must truly engage their worldview by understanding it. And he must start by critiquing their supernatural assumptions and their belief in the Bible as God's word.