TechNews

STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY SINCE 1928
McCormick Tribune Campus Center
Room 221
3201 South State Street
Chicago, Illinois 60616

E-mail: editor@technewsiit.com
Website: http://www.technewsiit.com

TECHNEWS STAFF

Editor-in-Chief
IT Manager

Karl Rybaltowski
Piyush Sinha

Vlada Gaisina
Becca Waterloo
Graeme Port
Ryan Kamphuis
Utsav Gandhi

Opinion Editor
AbE Editor
Sports Editor
Campus Editor
Campus Editor

Layout Editor Vikram Ramanathan
Layout Editor Hannah Larson

Art Editor Adin Goings
Financial Advisor Vickie Tolbert
Faculty Advisor Gregory Pulliam

GENERAL INFORMATION

TechNews is written, managed, and edited by
the students of, and funded in part by, Illinois
InstituteofTechnology.The materialherein does
not necessarily reflect the opinions of Illinois
Institute of Technology orthe editors, staff, and
advisorofTechNews.Therewillbe no censorship
of TechNews publication by the faculty or staff
of IIT. Sole authority and responsibility for
publication and adherence to the values set
forthinthis policy restswiththeTechNewsstaff.
This paper seeks to bring together the various
segments of the Illinois Tech community and
strives through balance and content to achieve
a position of respect and excellence. TechNews
strives for professionalism with due respect to
the intellectual values of the university and its
community. All material submitted becomes
the property of TechNews, and is subject to any
editorial decisions deemed necessary.

SUBMISSIONS

TechNews is published 0 n the Tuesday of each week
of the academic year. Deadline for all submissions
and announcements is 11:59PM on the Friday prior
to publication.Articles ,photos, and illustrations must
be submitted electronicallytotheTechNewswebsiste
at technewsiit.com.

EDITORIAL POLICY

The editors reserve the right to determine if
submitted material meets TechNews' policy and
standards.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letters to the editor may be submitted by anyone,
but are subject to review by the editor-in-chief.
All letters-to-the-editor become the property of
TechNews upon submission. TechNews does not
accept or publish anonymous letters.

ADVERTISING

Legitimate paid advertisements, from within
or outside the IIT community, which serve to
produceincomeforthe paper,areaccommodated.
TechNews holds the right to deny any
advertisement unsuitable for publication. Media
Kits are available upon request. Ad space is limited
and is taken on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Contact the Business Officer at business@
technewsiit.com for more information.

LOCAL ADVERTISERS

To place an ad, contact us via email at
business@technewsiit.com.

NATIONAL ADVERTISERS

To place an ad, contact Mediamate at
orders@mediamate.com

CLASSIFIEDS

To place a classified ad, contact us via email at
business@technewsiit.com.

 

VLADA GAISINA opinion@technewsiit.com

 

TechNews I Tuesdayjanualy25,2011

 

  

Wrangling worldviews

By Jared Berg
TECHN ews WRITER

I applaud the authors of both of last week’s
Opinion pieces for bringing up the impor7
tant topic of differing worldviews and how
these affect one’s approach to life? However, I
disagree strongly with their analyses and con,
clusions and believe that the issue needs to be
addressed further? As the articles are closely
linked conceptually, and the Christian sentii
ments contained within virtuale identical, I
will treat them together as one thesis?

The authors’ definitions of “worldview" are
fairly clear? A worldview is a set of beliefs that
allows us to understand reality and guides our
interactions with the external environment?
With this definition they explain that a world,
View is an interpretation of the real world,
which objectively exists separate from what
people may believe about it This assumpi

of this revolution is found where it proposed
natural laws and causes, not supernatural ones?

Declaring that other worldviews cannot ac,
count for the success of science is quite an ex,
traordinary statement? While even a rudimeni
tary discussion of alternative, secular theories
of epistemology, ontology, a.nd metaphysics is
far beyond this article, suflice it to say that only
certain Christians believe that Christianity is
the lone “rational explanation" Even if there
were no competing systems, counting the fail,
ure of other worldviews to account for any par,
ticular fact as a point in favor of Christianity is
logically fallaciousl To quote one of the precede
ing articles, “If we are truly here as a result of
random evolutionary processes, why is the law
of gravity universally true?" The non sequitur
contained in this question should be obvious
to any attentive reader?

Additionally, it is not that clear to me ex,

Rejecting the existence of a neutral VIEW?
point or any objective common ground would
be standard postmodernism, but Christian
presuppositionalists hold other beliefs that
seem to be in conflict with this relativism? At
a minimum, a Christian usually believes that
God exists, the Bible was inspired by Him, and
that Jesus was the son of God and died for the
sins of humanity They believe these things
both as part of their worldview and as objec7
tive facts? However, if a set of objective facts ex,
ists apart from worldviews, then some things
are independent of subjective interpretation
These separate facts could serve as a common
ground from which to evaluate how well a
worldview corresponds to reality

Here is a direct conflict between the idea
of a worldview as a selficontained explanatory
“bubble" and the logical structure of Christian
presuppositionalisml If some objective facts
exist, then these should be the basis for
critiquing different worldviews? Therefore,

 

tion is important to identify, as it implies
that certain worldviews could be superior
to others at capturing truth about reality
In contrast, postmodernist thought says
that truth itself is relative and all world,
views are equally valid?

Why is this important? It is insight,
ful to understand the philosophical cone

\\

Science, broadly defined,

was invented by the ancient
Greeks, who were pagans. II

Christianity is subject to criticism from
people of opposing worldviews, and must
justify its claims from the common ground
of agreed factual information Whether or
not Christianity is an internally consistent
worldview is irrelevant, what matters is
how well it corresponds to objective facts
about reality

 

text in which the previous articles stand?
They both draw heavily on the tradition
of Christian “presuppositional" apologetical
technique? Instead of focusing on evidence
for the claimed historicity of Biblical events
or traditional arguments for the existence of a
particular god, the presuppositional approach
employs some of the language of postmodi
ernism to aim directly at the foundations of
knowledge When asked to justify their relii
gious beliefs, the Christian presuppositionalist
usually describes how their worldview neatly
integrates their theology with all other knowli
edge and answers the fundamental questions
of life and existence? They then will challenge
the ability of other worldviews to “account" for
various things, including reason, science, moi
rality, or nature? This move was made explicitly
in one of the articles to which I am responding

It was claimed that noniChristian world,
views are unable to explain why science is so
successful at describing and understanding
the natural world? Further, the IudeoiChrisi
tian conception of god was said to be central
to the logic of science? These claims falter on
both historical and philosophical grounds? Sci,
ence, broadly defined, was invented by the an,
cient Greeks, who were pagans? The Scientific
Revolution that followed centuries later, while
certainly centered in Christian Europe and
carried out largely by religious people, erupted
during a revival of humanism and a rejection
of traditional medieval thought The success

actly what characteristics of Christianity are
specifically conducive to doing science? The
Christian god has been described as an or,
derly lawgiver, but the purported behavior of
this entity contradicts this portrait The god of
the Bible supernaturally intervenes in nature
and history in ways inscrutable to scientific
methods? The central event of Christianity, the
resurrection of Jesus, is a miracle and therefore
contrary to all scientific understanding Sirnple
deism, with a noniinterventionist god who set
the universe in motion, seems to provide the
same foundation for scientific induction as
Christianity Why, at a minimum, is deism not
just as rationally adequate as the IudeoiChrisi
tian worldview?

The strategy of presuppositionalism,
whether intentional in this case or not, is to
shift the burden of proof from the one making
a specific religious faith claim to anyone who
may challenge this claim? It also makes an end
run around arguments or evidence that may be
seen to conflict with certain religious beliefs?
If a worldview is claimed to be all encompass,
ing, than any apparent incongruities can be
explained away in terms of the worldview it,
self Simply put, this conception of a worldview
makes it unfalsifiable, because any contrary
fact can be dismissed as merely the artifact of
observing from the vantage point of an oppose
ing worldview?

Determining just what these facts are
returns us to the realms of philosophy
and science, in which all can share? One is
not justified in making “Christianity is true" a
foundational, unassailable assumption of their
worldview It is also improper to equivocate
and label all unproven statements as “faith"
and “religiously held beliefs?" Induction, or
even the existence of an external reality out,
side of our own minds, have not been logically
proven However, they are basic ideas that are
pragmatically necessary to start understanding
reality They are not comparable to a compli7
cated theological claim like “God is a Trinity’ '
or other Christian doctrines? Such attempts at
inverting reason by starting with conclusions
and making them initial assumptions should
be abandoned
I propose that those with different world,
views continue in rational, evidenceibased die
aloguel They should find the common logical
ground which they share and start from there?
It is pointless and counterproductive to sim7
ply chalk up differences in belief exclusively
to the existence of worldviews or subjectivity
Everyone should critically examine their own
worldview and see how it corresponds to real,
ity Does it allow for new knowledge, evidence,
and argument to alter beliefs, or is it dogmatic
and inflexible? A worldview is not better than
any other merely by containing true beliefs,
but also by its ability to acquire additional true
beliefs and expunge false ones?

 

 

 

*‘T‘HEY wake 0N sALEf’

 

 

Cartoon by Rob Bou-Saab [http://rbousaab.blogsp0tcom/J