Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Jesus Creed

Home
Evangelical
Testable Truth (RJS)

Testable Truth (RJS)

Last updated on: August 16, 2016 at 6:57 am by RJS

Testable Truth (RJS) 2016-08-16T06:44:03-05:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

All of us have some kind of worldview or philosophy of life. It may be a carefully reasoned position, or an organic entity that we grew into (or up in). In any event it can be helpful to examine the elements of our worldview and put them to the test. Truth should survive the test.

I recently picked up a book by Kenneth Samples A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test. Kenneth Samples is a senior research scholar at Reasons to Believe (RTB) and lectures in the MA program in Christian Apologetics at Biola University. He is a philosopher and theologian by training – with an MA in Theological Studies from the Talbot School of Theology at Biola.

In chapter 2 of his book Samples suggests a series of nine tests that can be used to critically consider the elements of one’s worldview. (pp. 33-37)

Coherence Test: Is a particular worldview logically consistent.

Truth will always be wholly consistent within itself, displaying internal logical harmony. The coherence test stresses the crucial unity and relatedness of all truth. Therefore any logical inconsistency in the basic elements of a worldview is a mark of essential error. …

Incoherence shows that a worldview must be false; coherence shows that a worldview may be true. As important as coherence is, more is needed for a worldview to pass the ultimate truth test. (p. 33)

Balance Test: Is the worldview properly balanced between simplicity and complexity?

All things being equal, the simplest worldview that does justice to all aspects of reality deserves preference (p. 33)

A credible interpretation of reality will be neither overly simple nor unnecessarily complex. In short, the simplest, fully orbed worldview possesses superior explanatory power. (p. 34)

Explanatory Power and Scope Test: How well does a worldview explain the facts of reality (“power”), and how wide is the range of its explanation (“scope”)?

A viable worldview explains the phenomena of the material realm and life in sufficient detail. This description should account for what can be observed external to humanity (the physical universe) as well as internal to the same (hopes, desires, aspirations, and so on). (p. 34)

Correspondence Test: Does a particular worldview correspond with well-established, empirical facts, and does it correspond to a person’s experiences in the world. (p. 35)

Both facts and experiences are important – and neither of these should be disregarded in a coherent worldview.

Verification Test: Can the central truth-claims of the worldview be verified or falsified?

Testability increases a worldview’s intellectual credibility. The concept of “testable truth” contains persuasive power. (p. 35)

Pragmatic Test: Does the worldview promote relevant, practical, and workable results?

An acceptable worldview must be sensible and workable and, therefore, “externally livable.” This pragmatic approach applies to both society and individuals. A worldview should meet peoples needs, both theoretically and practically. … It should provide direction to people and help them solve problems. (p. 35)

Existential Test: Does the worldview address the internal needs of humanity? (p. 36)

Is there meaning to life, the world, and everything?

Cumulative Test: Is the worldview supported by multiple lines of converging evidence that together add increasing support for its truth-claims and extend the breadth of its explanatory power? (p. 36)

Samples turns to a CS Lewis quote to illustrate this point (more info):

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” For Lewis, the Christian worldview illumined the world and all of life, particularly the enigmatic human condition. The multiple strands of evidence in support of the Christian worldview had resulted in a cumulative case argument for the faith. (p. 36-37)

Competitive Competence Test: Can the worldview successfully compete in the marketplace of ideas?

As a corollary Samples points out that a robust worldview needs to be able to accommodate new data. Human knowledge and understanding is continually growing. “The ability to adjust makes for a successful contender and workable belief system in the marketplace of competing ideas.” (p. 37) Certainly there must be a sufficiently firm core – but a perspective cast in stone at some time and place and then held to with blind determination will not be competitive in the intellectual arena.

Do you agree with these tests?

What else might you suggest?

I will offer a few reflections, but would like to hear other perspectives as well. There are interesting ideas here – and ones from which we can learn, both to agree and to challenge.

The first (coherence), ninth (cumulative) and tenth (competitive) tests are particularly important. To stand the test of time and focus on truth rather than comfort our view of the world should be coherent, accounting for all of the evidence. In order for this to be true, it must have a level of adaptability – knowledge and understanding are not static. To pick a simple and relatively straightforward example, a Christian worldview cannot rest comfortably on a flat earth with a vault, the absence of antipodians, a geocentric universe, or even a heliocentric universe. Nor should it rest on our current understanding of the extent and form of the material universe.

Of course, we must also leave room for mystery – for phenomena so far outside of our realm of experience that they seem incoherent even if true. The wave/particle duality of modern quantum theory is an example of such a phenomena. There are scientifically predictable phenomena that seem bizarre to our intuition. Could there not also be aspects to reality that move beyond our expectations and are foreign to mere human experience and intuition?

The existential test seems intrinsically circular (as does the pragmatic test). On a fundamental level, truth about the world need not address human existential concerns at all. If the bald materialist is right humans are nothing special, no matter how much we might wish otherwise. On an emotional level we may have a need for meaning and purpose – but does require that there is actually any meaning or purpose to our lives? On a pragmatic level, worldview grounded in classism, racism, sexism, and ethnocentrism may work very well for those in power and even for many of those on the downside it may produce a stable society providing a basic level of comfort. Such a view may also satisfy the desire for existential meaning providing everyone a purpose and place in society. Is this a valid criterion for evaluating the truthfulness of the view?

The verification test is interesting. Certainly there are elements of a worldview that are amenable to objective verification. But this isn’t true of everything. I do not believe that it is possible to objectively demonstrate or disprove the existence of God. As a Christian I believe that God has revealed himself to his people – in creation, in the preserved record of his interaction with his people, and in ongoing interactions with humans. But none of these constitutes a ground for objective verification. God’s self-revelation seems inescapably subjective. Even most who met Jesus in 1st century Palestine did not recognize him for who he was.

Any thoughts?

Should our worldview be verifiable?

How important is pragmatism or coherence?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 16, 2016

What's an Anabaptist? Or is it, Who's an Anabaptist?

Next Post

August 17, 2016 The History of Calvin's Institutes

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What fruit of the Spirit is described as "patience" or "longsuffering"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Pride Anger Apathy Patience