“Worldview” is a reactionary word. Evangelicals found themselves embattled with innumerable, well-accepted ideas in complex fields requiring specialization that seem to oppose conservative Christianity. The average person lacks the expertise in these fields to challenge them on their own terms and by their own methodology. Yet they need to be challenged, because modern life strongly imposes them on everyone. “Worldview” was introduced to neutralize these ideas for the average person, not by analyzing data, refuting propositions, showing invalidity, criticizing methodology, knowing the actual facts on the ground, etc. but by blaming them on “presuppositions.”

BLMc replies,

Of course Wolfe is wrong here as Orr notes above;

“The thing in itself(Worldview)  is as old as the dawn of reflection and is found in cruder or more advanced form in every religion and philosophy with any pretension to a historical character.”

Worldview did not jump out of Zeus’ head in the 20th century as Wolfe errantly writes. As such, it is clearly not a “reactionary word” or concept. Here Wolfe just makes assertions without any proof.

In point of fact, an argument can be made that it was not the Christians who first developed an epistemologically self-conscious muscular worldview but rather that it was the Darwinians. If one considers the writings of Herbert Spencer in “Worldviewizing” the Darwinian conclusions in biology one can easily see that it was the pagans who were going all reactionary against the already established Christian Worldview.

For the evidence that a pagan worldview had long been established we read;

 (This essay) shows that his (Spencer’s) evolutionism was originally stimulated by his association with the Derby philosophical community, for it was through this group—of which his father, who also appears to have espoused a deistic evolutionary theory, was a member—that he was first exposed to progressive Enlightenment social and educational philosophies and to the evolutionary worldview of Erasmus Darwin, the first president of the Derby Philosophical Society. Darwin’s scheme was the first to incorporate biological evolution, associationist psychology, evolutionary geology, and cosmological developmentalism. Spencer’s own implicit denials of the link with Darwin are shown to be implausible in the face of Darwin’s continuing influence on the Derby savants…

Paul Elliott
Erasmus Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and the Origins of the Evolutionary Worldview in British Provincial Scientific Culture, 1770–1850

What the above quote demonstrates is that

1.) Worldview thinking was already in high gear as practiced by the heathens long before the timeframe that Wolfe errantly proclaims in his observation above.

2.) Worldview thinking was decidedly not introduced by Christians for the reasons that Dr. Wolfe asserts.

3.) Worldview as a philosophical concept long predated the 20th century as Wolfe errantly asserts.

4.) As such worldview as a philosophical concept was never a “reactionary word” as Dr. Wolfe errantly insists.

5.) Dr. Wolfe doesn’t know what he is talking about when he writes,

“Worldview” was introduced to neutralize these ideas for the average person, not by analyzing data, refuting propositions, showing invalidity, criticizing methodology, knowing the actual facts on the ground, etc. but by blaming them on “presuppositions.”

Worldview decidedly was NOT introduced for the reason that Wolfe elucidates. As the opening Orr quote indicates Worldview was not introduced in the 20th century by Christians quaking in their boots at the onslaught of modernity but rather is a truth that, as Orr wrote,

“itself is as old as the dawn of reflection and is found in cruder or more advanced form in every religion and philosophy with any pretension to a historical character.”

All of the above demonstrates that Dr. Wolfe just doesn’t know what he is talking about when he writes about the history of Worldview thinking. In brief what Wolfe says above is embarrassingly stupid and could only be written by someone whose worldview had an a-priori interest in claiming that worldview thinking is not true.

Dr. Stephen Wolfe continued his diatribe;

And “worldview” explained social phenomena with exclusively Christian explanations.

BLMc continues,

Here Wolfe contradicts the Reformed theology of the antithesis which claims the antithesis is a theological principle that is meant to describe the difference between believers and unbelievers and the way they think. There are many ways that we could describe that difference, but we must at the very least describe that difference as limning out the fact that because believers and heathens have different ultimate faith commitments those different ultimate faith commitments color the way each view the totality of life.

As such it is inevitable that Christians, because of the Reformed doctrine of the antithesis would explain matters with exclusively Christian explanations.

In previous explanations Dr. Wolfe has demonstrated that he does not understand the idea of total depravity. Here we see that Dr. Wolfe does not understand the Reformed theological idea of “the antithesis.” Dr. Wolfe has previously admitted that he is not a theologian. We wish he would remember that when he gets into these theological forrays. 

Dr. Stephen Wolfe wrote,

These explanations are typically simplistic and don’t explain much. Further, in effect no evangelical sees the need to know anything about these fields. They only need to know a universal method of “worldview analysis.” It’s a general skill for everything.

BLMc responds,

Let me get this straight … owning a uniquely Christian epistemology (we know what we know by way of revelation vs. naked reasoning or some kind of mystic experience or by human tradition) is “simplistic and doesn’t explain much?”

Owning a uniquely Christian ontology (things did not happen by chance or circumstance but by the supernatural intent of a divine creator) is “simplistic and doesn’t explain much?”

Owning a uniquely Christian axiology (the highest value is the Glory of God, the Kingdom of God and the work of Christ as opposed to a axiology that claims that the highest value is the glory of man, the kingdom of man, and the Utopian work of man) is “simplistic and doesn’t explain much?”

Owning a uniquely Christian teleology (the ultimate end/ destination of man is to be homo adorans — man the worshiper who worships the God of the Bible, not owning a teleology wherein man worships himself in either his individualistic or corporate capacity) is “simplistic and doesn’t explain much?”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe writes,

No specialization required.

BLMc  responds,

This is what is called the red herring fallacy. No Christian who embraces worldview thinking in an epistemologically self conscious way suggest that “no specialization is required” is a host of different fields. Wolfe is just poisoning the well here in order to advance his idiotic Thomistic thinking. It’s all very insulting.

Dr. Stephen Wolfe writes,

This is why, I think, some evangelicals convert out of Protestantism. They find that their conservative professors, who actually know the field of study well, are often Roman Catholics (or maybe Anglicans), and they find among them an intellectual ecosystem that favors inquiry and critical thought without importing these “worldview” lenses to explains things away. (I’d also add that evangelical academics tend to be political squishes and center-left, at least in disposition). There is nothing about Protestantism or Roman Catholicism in themselves that explains this. Protestant intellectuals dominated intellectual thought in Europe for centuries. It’s entirely to due to historical dynamics, reaction, and the democratization of apologetics. We would become much smarter if we dropped “worldview” entirely.

BLMc responds,

1.) Nobody denies that a Roman Catholic or Anglican can be inconsistent in their worldview, holding to false doctrines touching soteriology but still managing to be correct on some matters in their field of expertise. Nobody denies that Thomistic mathematicians, for example, can count. The question is always, “can they account for their ability to count given their Thomistic worldview that teaches the autonomy of fallen man’s thinking.

2.) Worldview lenses, contrary to Wolfe’s naked assertion, do not merely “explain things away.” That is another red herring and poisoning the well. Is Wolfe really suggesting that those who embrace Worldview thinking who happen to be in any number of fields have not done the heavy lifting of diving into their field of study but instead merely, (presumably with a flippant wave of the hand) “explained things away?”

What is amusing here is that Wolfe himself is merely “explaining worldview thinking away” with a mere wave of the hand as accompanied by a few mindless and untrue assertions on his part.

3.) In this take down of Wolfe I have not used “worldview lenses” to explain things away. I have taken the time to explain and demonstrate where and how Wolfe is wrong in his various assertion. In point of fact it is Wolfe who has used his worldview lens of autonomous Thomistic thinking to explain things away with a mere wave of his hand followed by insulting comments.

4.) I’ve known plenty of Thomists who have been hard left in their specific fields. When Wolfe talks about Evangelicals (presumably with their Worldview thinking in tow) being squishy leftists this is another shot at Worldview thinking that doesn’t taken into account the many “Christians” in various fields who were Thomistic in their thinking and gave up the flag of Biblical Christianity to the Left. (R2K anybody?)

5.) Of course, I’m convinced that “we would become much smarter if we just dropped Dr. Stephen Wolfe entirely. He is poisoning the whole Christian thinking movement.

Now, I’ve been pretty direct here. Part of the reason for that is the gross inaccuracy on Wolfe’s part. Part of it is because how insulting Wolfe has been. The largest part of it is because there is a great deal of stake here. If we as Christians go the direction that Wolfe and the R2K chaps want to take us on Worldview thinking it will be a matter of once again returning to the chaos and dark night of intellectual advance.

This is important.