Actually, I think that we can judge world views from the perspective of an
outside observer, even though we are all embedded in a world view. The
laws of logic and reason and clear special revelation in the Scripture, in
my opinion, are universal and objective enough to adjudicate between world
views. Thus, I do not buy into Quine's view of not being able to judge
the truth or falsity of different world views because of being stuck with
an understanding incommensurate with other world views. This view leads
ultimately to a radical relativism, and is the root of Thomas Kuhn's
thinking.
Maybe this mis-represents what you were trying to say, though. (It was a
brief comment without much detail.) I know from earlier posts that you
do not agree with Kuhnian relativism.
On Tue, 12 Mar 1996, Paul Arveson wrote:
> In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.960311200739.11176F-100000@linux4.ph.utexas.edu>
> Stephen Froehlich writes:
>
> > What first attracted me to Christianity, in fact, is that it was so
> > much more than a world view but was a relationship in which one could
> > evaluate various world views and deal with them knowing they didn't
> > matter in the end. Christianity, of course, excldes ceratin world views
> > (e.g. strict relativism, or strict naturalism) but why are we so
> > concerned about secondary issues when the issue is how and when does God
> > make his love for us manifest and how do we deal with those events?
> >
> > In his love,
> > Stephen
>
> Dear Stephen:
>
> That's right! In fact, that's why thoughtful theologians like James Houston
> prefer to speak of a "life-world" than a world view (which implies the old Greek
> idea of an autonomous outside observer), or "standing-under" instead of
> "understanding".
>
>
>
> Paul Arveson, Research Physicist
> 73367.1236@compuserve.com arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil
> (301) 227-3831 (W) (301) 227-1914 (FAX) (301) 816-9459 (H)
> Code 724, NSWC, Bethesda, MD 20084
>
>