Why Does Worldview Matter? The Impact of Worldview II – Experiential Accommodation
Worldview is the conceptual lens through which we see,
understand, and interpret the world and our place within it. Worldview develops
in and flows through the heart, the center of the human person, and necessarily
involves answers (propositional or narrative) to four questions: What is our
nature? What is our world? What is our problem? What is our end? Every person
possesses a worldview that provides an answer or set of answers to these core
worldview questions, but these individual worldviews can be compiled under
broad categories.
But why does worldview matter? How does worldview
affect us? Why bother learning about it as a concept, and one’s own worldview
specifically? What does it have to do with life? Simply put, worldview matters
because one’s worldview affects everything that one thinks and does, through confirmation
bias, experiential accommodation, the pool of live options,
and life motivation. Last week, I considered confirmation bias – today I
want to take a look at experiential accommodation.
Worldview and experiential accommodation.
Worldview
influences us by driving us to interpret new data or arguments in a manner that
affirms or fits within our existing worldview. Whenever possible, we interpret
new data in a worldview-affirming manner.
One example is the various strata of
rocks evident in the Grand Canyon. Mainstream geologists look at the data,
carbon-date the rocks within the layers, and conclude quite logically that the
various layers consist of sediment laid down one layer atop the other over
millions of years—a conclusion that fits quite nicely within their basic belief that the
earth is billions of years old and that events on earth have progressed over
time through predictable and lengthy physical processes (thus answering the worldview
question, what is our world?).
A
minority of geologists, however, look at the same physical data and come to
radically different conclusions about what these data mean. From these
geologists’ perspective, the layers and even the ancient appearance of the Grand
Canyon are not the result of millions of years of erosion but rather represent
the catastrophic effects of the global flood described in Genesis 6. The dire
consequences of the flood, in their view, explain the inaccuracy of
carbon-dating the rocks in those sediment strata: the flood changed the
composition of the atmosphere, thereby rendering long-term past carbon-dating
useless. Young-earth geologists begin with a radically different set of
assumptions and thus interpret the same physical data in a radically different
way.
It
must be emphasized that both groups of geologists cannot possibly be right. The
data of the Grand Canyon cannot mean both that the earth is billions of years
old and the rocks are layers of sediment laid down over millions of years and that
the earth is only thousands of years old and the evident layers are the result
of a single catastrophic flood. One camp is correct in its interpretation and
the other is incorrect—or, perhaps, both camps are incorrect and some other explanation is the
right one.
The
point is that we inevitably seek to interpret new data, evidence, or arguments
in a manner that fits within our existing worldview. Young earth geologists
accommodate the data to fit their prevailing worldview; old-earth geologists do
the same. Most often, people will accommodate
new
data within their worldview rather than altering their worldview to suit new
data.
In
another Monk episode, Monk suspects a publisher of murder. However, the
publisher has an alibi for the night of the murder: he was with a young woman.
The woman confirms the alibi, insisting that they were together all night.
Someone who believes the man was (or could be) innocent would take the alibi as
conclusive proof that he could not have done it. But Monk is not convinced.
Rather than allaying his suspicion, he seeks to understand how this new datum
could fit within his preexisting hypothesis. He still believes the publisher to
be guilty but has to explain why the woman would lie to protect him. He
concludes that the man has to be paying off the young woman to provide a false
alibi for him—a suspicion that is eventually proven correct. The point, again, is that
we naturally seek to accommodate new data or information within our existing
worldview.
Consider
again the relative lack of transitional species in the fossil record. What does
one do with that? It depends on the underlying worldview. The creationist
simply points out that Darwin proposed a way of falsifying his theory: if the
fossils were not there, his theory would be false. The fossils are not there;
ergo, Darwinian evolution is false. The Darwinist is not so easily swayed.
Perhaps fossils are not retained with equal frequency in various geologic ages
such that most transitional fossils have simply not been preserved. Or perhaps
Stephen Jay Gould was correct in proposing punctuated equilibrium as a way that
Darwinian evolution could be maintained despite the absence of fossil evidence.
The point is simply that the “new” evidence is dealt with differently, and the difference is determined
by the underlying worldview.
I
am not suggesting that the data have no impact on worldview. During the stage
of worldview formation, such data can play a determinative role in answering
the second worldview question (what is our world?). Indeed, there is a reciprocal
relationship between the young worldview and the data, each influencing the
other. Once the worldview becomes established, however, influence flows
predominantly one way—worldview directing the interpretation of data. Awareness
and conscious examination of worldview can help us be more aware of this
process.
Being
aware of one’s own (and others’) worldview, then, can help identify when and where one is being
affected by experiential accommodation. Am I rejecting the implications of the
fossil record because it conflicts with my evolutionary understanding of the
world? Am I unduly
emphasizing
the paucity of transitional fossils solely because that supports my understanding
of divine creation?
For more on experiential accommodation, and all things
worldview, check out:
Tawa
J. Anderson, W. Michael Clark, and David K. Naugle, An Introduction to
Christian Worldview: Pursuing God's Perspective in a Pluralistic World. IVP
Academic, October 2017. 384 pp. Amazon link
No comments:
Post a Comment