Home » Dorms » Student Lounge

What Einstein's Brain Can Teach Us About Worldviews

(Editor's note: Find the term epistemology
[i-pis-ta-'mä-la-jE] in this article.)

"EINSTEIN'S BRAIN COMES TO LIFE — AND GOES ON RAMPAGE!" exclaims the cover story headline of an issue of Weekly World News.¹ Beneath the name of the periodical you'll find the words, "The World's Only Reliable Newspaper." As if this weren't enough to secure its self-proclaimed veracity, bold text on the cover declares:

• SHOCKING
• BIZARRE
• INCREDIBLE
  and it's ALL TRUE!

Like most people, you don't need any help discerning truth and error in supermarket tabloid articles. Even without reading the Weekly World News, you're probably fairly certain that Einstein's brain has not come to life or gone on a rampage.² If you're not, let me assure you that Albert's brain will not harm you.

Of course, it's easy to spot basic errors in reasoning, but what about evaluating ideas in a movie, a novel or a textbook, where the underlying worldview is not always so obvious? We all have a philosophy that shapes how we think and interpret reality. But how do we go about discerning truth and error when it comes to worldviews? A good place to start is knowing what "worldview" means.

You, Too, Have a Worldview

Although the term "worldview" originated with German philosopher Immanuel Kant's (1724-1804) usage of the German Weltanschauung, he never developed the concept in detail. Since then "worldview" has been used by a number of scholars,³ but in recent years the term has captured the interest of Christian thinkers such as Francis Schaeffer, Os Guinness, Ravi Zacharias, and others. Dr. Del Tackett, the visionary behind Focus on the Family's The Truth Project, says, "A worldview is the framework from which we view reality and make sense of life and the world."⁴

Typically a worldview will address the big questions of life, such as "What is ultimate reality?" (metaphysics); "How do we know?" (epistemology); and "Why does it matter?" (ethics). A worldview is the filter we use, consciously or subconsciously, to interpret our world and what happens in it.

Examples of worldviews include naturalism, pantheism, nihilism and postmodernism. Christian theism is also a worldview — one that believes in the existence of a personal God who reveals Himself to us through the person of Jesus Christ, through the Bible, through creation (Psalm 19, Romans 1:20), and through our conscience (Romans 2:13-15). A biblical worldview is foundational for accurately interpreting reality in a manner that coincides with God's revealed truths.

Putting Worldviews to the Test

We know Einstein's brain has not really gone on a rampage because the far-fetched claims of the article don't correspond with reality. With the exception of science fiction stories, the minds of brilliant but dead scientists don't get zapped and then participate in wild outbreaks.

But how do we test a worldview? Let's use naturalism as an example. Naturalism is the belief that the material world is all that exists and that human beings are merely mechanistic products of chance and time.

Author Kenneth Samples lists several worldview tests,⁵ but we'll just look at a few. First, he lists the "coherence test," which asks, "Is a particular worldview logically consistent?" In his book Miracles, C.S. Lewis articulately argues that naturalism fails to account for the reliability of human reasoning. If human beings are merely the products of chance, why should we think that our randomly generated brains — even Einstein's — have any ability at all to reason accurately and come to true conclusions? Lewis's answer is that, from a naturalistic perspective, we have no reason to trust reason.⁶

Another worldview test we can apply is what Samples calls the "Explanatory Power and Scope Test." This test asks, "How well does a worldview explain reality (power), and how complete is the evidence in support of the view (scope)?" If there is no God and we are just the products of chance and time, what is our basis for right and wrong? Naturalism has no reliable reason for the reality of moral standards. On the basis of naturalism there is no good reason for calling anything right or wrong. In a naturalistic system we can't even praise moral reformers such as Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi because there exists no absolute standard by which to judge behavior.

But can't we determine right and wrong for ourselves or as a culture? The question, though, is not whether or not we can establish certain moral standards, but whether or not they have a firm foundation. If we think we can determine right and wrong on the basis of our own feelings or disposition at a given time in a given situation, what happens when we come across someone who also makes moral choices this way, but their actions conflict with ours?

We may appeal to culture and the "norms" of our society, but that just pushes the question back another step. Where does society get its standards?

If a culture sets its moral standards but someone goes against them — even for a good reason — such a person is going against their own cultural norms. Why then do we praise certain people for being moral reformers (i.e., someone who declares that their culture's norms are in need of change) or for taking some action that we consider heroic?

Naturalism has no foundation for condemning wrong behavior or praising right behavior and, therefore, doesn't pass the explanatory power and scope test.

Naturalism also falls short when it comes to offering evidence in support of macro-evolution. Though space does not allow a detailed examination of this point, the Intelligent Design movement has made significant strides in arguing that the biological world around us shows clear signs of intelligent engineering and craftsmanship.⁷

One last worldview test is one Samples calls the "Competition Test." This one asks, "Can a worldview successfully compete in the marketplace of ideas?" A worldview should be able to address criticisms and challenges and hold its own against competing worldviews. If we consider two worldviews on the topic of the human condition — naturalism and Christian theism — we find naturalism fails to compete.

Blaise Pascal (1623-62) argued, "Man's greatness and wretchedness are so evident that the true religion [or worldview] must necessarily teach us that there is in man some great principle of greatness and some great principle of wretchedness."⁸ We see human beings doing great things, but also bad things. Pascal argued that the only adequate explanation for this paradox is found in Christianity. We have potential for greatness because we are created in God's image, but we also have potential for wretchedness because of the Fall. Naturalism fails to explain the puzzle of the human condition.⁹

The Importance of Worldview Discernment

Discerning truth and error in worldviews is not always as easy as knowing that Einstein's brain has not come to life. That's why it's important to have a strong grounding in the Christian worldview, to be able to rationally critique other worldviews, and to know that worldviews can turn up everywhere, including college textbooks and out of the mouths of university professors.

By the way, if you're interested in knowing what really happened to Einstein's brain, it was removed in 1955 by Thomas Harvey, a doctor at Princeton Hospital. Harvey secretly kept Einstein's brain for more than 20 years until a reporter tracked down the brain in 1978 and wrote an article about it.

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

How have you seen people's worldviews affect the way they live?

Join the discussion!

Since then pieces of Einstein's brain have been shared with a number of universities, but the bulk of it is now in the possession of Princeton Hospital, where, to my knowledge, it has not come to life or gone on any rampages.