worldview

Habits of the mind also provide our mental framework _ the way we see the world

The world, I soon learned, held a different estimate: and I make no doubt, the world is very right in its view, yet believe also that I am not quite wrong in mine.

Science has the capacity to uplift us to heights of undreamed of sophistication and quality of life or to drag us down into an abyss, from which we may never return. I do not believe science and/or technology are bad. However, I am very concerned with the beliefs the majority of scientists have about the world, which is its overriding view of reality_ the mainstream scientific worldview. I believe it is the greatest weakness of science and so the greatest weakness of modern society and poses a serious risk, as we accelerate toward the biggest upheaval in human history, within the context of the enormity of global issues we face.

Ideas do have consequences in history, yet not because those ideas are inherently truthful or obviously correct but rather because of the way they are embedded in very powerful institutions, networks, interests, and symbols.

From my earliest works written in the 1950s and 1960s, I have claimed that there is such a thing as Islamic science with a twelve-hundred-year tradition of its own and that this science is Islamic not only because it was cultivated by Muslims, but because it is based on a worldview and a cosmology rooted in the Islamic revelation.

Every story is informed by a worldview.

Unfortunately in this world of ours, each person views things through a certain medium, which prevents his seeing them in the same light as others_

The American political experience can therefore be viewed as optimism in the collective.

We are stimulated to emotional response, not by works that confirm our sense of the world, but by works that challenge it.

For an entire wing of the G.O.P., a dysfunctional government, whose only visible activity is mismanaging crises, is not an embarrassment but the vindication of a worldview.

Religion is the most fragile of all freedoms. And that__ because it is the most threatening to those in power.

The modern virtues fail because they concern the outer self, the human facade, the part of ourselves the world sees most readily _ while the classical virtues form an organizing framework for our inner selves_ for our souls.

The world is so different when viewed through the light of God__ Word.

The world needs more love and Twitter just figured out a way to send 'hearts all over the world'.

Think about goodness like you think about gravity. Whether or not you believe in gravity, it is still there. Every day you are affected by gravity regardless of how well you understand the physics of it. In this chapter I am asking whether objective morality is something like gravity operating in accordance with the laws of the universe. Are there some things that are always right and some things that are always wrong? Put another way, has there ever been a time in history where it would have been acceptable for Hitler to kill over five million Jews? Or is mass murder always wrong no matter when or where you are? If mass murder is always wrong, then it turns out that objective moral values and duties do exist.

Now having travelled from the pride of man in the High Renaissance and the Enlightenment down to the present despair, we can understand where modern people are. They have no place for a personal God. But equally they have no place for man as man, or for love, or for freedom, or for significance. This brings a crucial problem. Beginning only from man himself, people affirm that man is only a machine. But those who hold this position cannot live like machines! If they could, there would be no tensions in their intellectual position or in their lives. But even people who believe they are machines cannot live like machines, and thus they must __eap upstairs_ against their reason and try to find something which gives meaning to life, even though to do so they have to deny their reason.This was a solution Leonardo da Vinci and the men of the Renaissance never would have accepted, even if, like Leonardo they ended their thinking in despondency. They would not have done so, for they would have considered it intellectual suicide to separate meaning and values from reason this way. And they would have been right. Such a solution is intellectual suicide, and one may question the intellectual integrity of those who accept such a position when their starting point was pride in the sufficiency of human reason.

From all accounts, it seems the faithful opposition is reduced to Gideon's 300. The day has arrived for Christians to engage the battle...From now on, true Christians will engage the battle of ideas in academy. The time for giving up ground is over. Now we must fight. We must engage the [B]iblical worldview vigorously in the world of great literature. The greatests wars ever fought in history are not those fought by sword or artillery. The greatest battles are engaged in the realm of ideas

Some kind of philosophy undergirds every movie, commercial, lecture, or book. Everything we take into our minds is trying to teach us something about how we should think the world is. (Life Hacks, p.83)