Thread: Help: Bahnsen's Definition of a Worldview

I have a question concerning Dr. Greg Bahnsen's definition of a worldview. Below is his definition given in his "Introduction to Worldviews" Lecture.

A worldview is a network of presuppositions that are not tested by natural science and in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted.

What exactly does "in terms of which" mean here? Is he saying that using the terms previously laid out the result can only be arrived at within these given parameters? So to say then, there is another valid definition for a worldview that may be in other terms not here expressed?

I'm still pretty green in the apologetics area, so any help in bringing me to an understanding of this definition would be appreciated. I may possibly be on the wrong path here, but I can't figure out what other reason "in terms of which" needs to be inserted to define a worldview.

Quite possibly its presence is purely grammatical, but I'm no grammarian! Also if anyone can provide any links to a differing definition that would be cool, or maybe an article that explores the topic satisfactorily.

Thanks ahead!

My inexpert view would be that when Bahnsen says that "and in terms of which all experience is related " he is not expressing that "the result can only be arrived at within these given parameters" but rather only that when interpreting data such interpretation is made on the basis of certain presupositions.

The difference being that we are not looking at a scientific formula where "can only" is appropriate, the key to presupositions is that they are usually subconsious, people are usually unaware of their own presupositions.

A good example is when people consider the virgin birth, if one presoposes that Jesus is divine then tehre is no problem withb the proposition, if you do not presopuse divinity then it is logical to deny the proposition.

I listened to both series that he recorded on defending the Christian worldview (they do pretty much duplicate each other) and and these explain the concept and importance of worldview in a very clear and practical way.

I am now convinced that an understanding of worldviews is the bedrock concept that allows the Church to challange liberalism in a constructive and helpful way. If you do not understand worldviews then it is quite logical to be seduced by liberalism as if you accept liberal worldviews then liberalism is logical.

dont' worry about challenging liberalism. it is already dead.

bahnsen means a worldview is something like a spider web.

Thanks for the help guys.

I wasn't exactly looking for a better understanding of what a worldview is, but simply what the significance of the clause(?) "in terms of which" served. I feel that I have a good understanding of the concept of a worldview, but I didn't want to loose something that might have been valuable by overlooking this point.

Hippo, i agree with your sentiments. I would go further and claim that the grasp of the genuinely Christian worldview expressed in scripture is the bedrock concept (or doctrine) that allows the Church to defend itself against any threat. That along with God's grace. But an apologist would know that, I'm only reinventing the wheel for my own education and entertainment.

I'd agree that liberalism is dead, but what about postmodernism, a concept I can't understand why anyone would buy into, but seems to be so popular.

Originally Posted by GMcClain20

I'd agree that liberalism is dead, but what about postmodernism, a concept I can't understand why anyone would buy into, but seems to be so popular.

Postmodernism has about as many definitions as adherents. This isn't off-topic from the Bahnsen discussion because his statement, along with my thoughts on postmodernism, imply that interpretation is ubiquitous.

~Is it simply a rejection of the Enlightenment? (if so, wonderful)

~Is it hard core nihilism? (if so, boo. But most pomos aren't nihilists)

~Is it a denial of moral absolutes (e.g., all truth is relative. That is popular among college sophomores, but the more published pomos dont' espouse that).

Is it low-grade culture? (sometimes, but not necessiated)

Is it simply a recognition that interpretation is everywhere? (If so, that is great. Van Til).

Is it a rejection of secular metanarratives? (I can go with this, provided a Christian metanarrative, but most pomos won't grant taht).

I used to read Postmodernism through fuzzy lenses. There are bad versions, but it doesn't have to be that way. I have found postmodern discussions of power, ontologies of violence/peace, differance, to be liberating. I don't think I am pomo, though.

Here are some good resources.
Amazon.com: Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church (The Church and Postmodern Culture): James K. A. Smith: Books

Amazon.com: The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a Creational Hermeneutic: James K. A. Smith: Books

Amazon.com: Solomon among the Postmoderns: Peter J. Leithart: Books

Amazon.com: The Beauty Of The Infinite: The Aesthetics Of Christian Truth: David Bentley Hart: Books

The latter was extremely hard to read.

Thanks for the postmodernism links Ivanhoe. The extent of my knowledge is restricted to the popular versions being sold ATM, ala Maclaren and his cohorts. Or all the folks having a "conversation" with him. So most of what i see as the "movement" is flavored by connections to him in some way. And from what I understand his relativism in a biblical narrative where it's a really good story, and needs to be interpreted this way is sickening to me. I'm quoting from memory, and will find some material of his to quote at some point.

The way I see it is books like "a Generous Orthodoxy" would probably appeal to college sophomores, but the rationale vanishes like a dream when you wake up. Wishful thinking IMO. There's nothing generous about his orthodoxy, behind the warm and fuzzy stories and the colorful prose it's just bad theology.

Ivanhoe, can you recommend a link that might show me some positive aspects of postmodernism, and something a bit more broad than my current grasp? And do you think that postmodernism has anything to say about how we "interpret" the Christian worldview? Or any worldview for that matter?