I have had the privilege of reading about and teaching on the concept of "worldview" for the past eleven years. It is one of those concepts that is extremely practical because it relates to all areas of our life. There are several questions that can be used to bring the content of our worldview from assumption to conscious thought: What is real? Is there a God and what is he/she/it like? How do you define right/wrong? etc. I have been challenged by several authors over the last few years to add a new question: What is wrong with the world? As I have opportunity to listen to people's answers, I have heard several options: poverty, ignorance, sin and religion. Recently I was struck by the fact that if everyone thinks something is wrong with the world (even though they cannot define that problem clearly), then that means that everyone also has a concept of "perfection". If this were not true, then why would we look at the world and say, "that is not the way it should be." Why do we believe the world should be "better"? Why do we think that things are wrong? Why don't we just accept political situations (war), human situations (child abuse) and social situations (poverty)as just "normal" - the way things are?
I wonder if there is an argument for the existence of god in this observation. Perhaps god has hard-wired human beings with the concept of perfection. We may not be able to define what that looks like clearly or what the problem is that is keeping perfection marred (that is why we need special revelation), but we still have this nagging assumption that the world is not as it should be. Rene Descartes (1596-1650/philosopher, mathematician, generally "big brained" guy) argued for the existence of God based on the fact that since he could think of a perfect being, there must be a perfect being. I have always found his argument border-line absurd. I only say "border-line" because Descartes is smarter than I will ever be, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. But I wonder if this is what he was arguing. Since humans have the concept in them of "perfection", then there must be someone who gave them this idea, because otherwise where would they get it?
This argument will only get us to theism (little 'g' god) and not to the God of the Bible as Descartes attempted; but that does not diminish that fact that humans seem to be hard-wired with a concept of "perfection", and that needs to be explained. I wonder how non-theistic worldviews argue for their sense that all is not "right" in the world? I also am trying to find weaknesses with this argument, so if you have any fire away.
Very good thoughts Michael. I have never thought about it that way. In my mind it makes sense. But I agree, that does just get us to A god, not the God of the Bible. But hey, everyone needs to start somewhere.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Michael. It really got the cognitive juices flowing. So as i have been reading this over I'm not sure I agree outright that we have an innate God given idea of perfection. I'm not saying i disagree either just hear me out. What if our ideas of perfection are derived from our moral authority? For us Christians that is the special revelation that you referenced (ie God's word). I think in Descartes writings he's obviously being influenced by his theism. He identifies God as perfection and his ontological argument is in support of that. Though I really do like the idea of using perfection as a proof for the existence of God. It parallels the idea of a moral law giver analogy that if there is a moral law then there is a moral law giver. I think there is a book in there somewhere =)
ReplyDeleteSo to add my own two cents Michael, I think the absence of perfection is what we humans experience and or "know". In other words Perfection could be defined as the inverse of the sum of the problems in the world. So i would argue that we in the world can define perfection only by what it isn't.What do you think Michael about perfection being interrelated to depravity? So we know we aren't perfect because we are unable to achieve perfection. Perhaps in a platonic sense we have a God given idea or form of what perfection is but we only experience imperfection?
I'm not even sure what i'm saying is coherent. I did have surgery today and the Vicodin is strong stuff.
@Philip - It is good to hear from you. Thanks for taking the time to interact with the post. I hope you are doing well. I agree about the starting point. It is not a "silver bullet", but maybe the first step on a path.
ReplyDelete@Chris - Thanks for interacting as well. I was actually thinking about you when posting this, as I thought it would be up your alley. I like your idea of understanding perfection only by what we see it is not. That is similar to what I was alluding to above when I described humanity as being able to recognize that things should be "better", but may not be able to conceptualize what "better" is. And in some ways this argument does parallel the moral argument. It observes that all humans have this "trait" and seeks to explain it.