One thing that is shared by all of humanity is that we tell stories. All cultures have myths, stories, and parables that are shared through out generations. It is our stories that shape our society, that shape our world views. Some within philosophy talk about an over arching story that is the foundation of our beliefs, this over arching story is referred to as our “meta narrative.” Our Meta narrative is an underlying story about reality that shapes how we interpret and understand all of reality. I will give a quick example from literature to help illustrate this idea.
When you read anything you begin by reading individual words. These words only make sense by their relation to surrounding words that make up a sentence. We understand a sentence based upon its place within the greater thought or paragraph. But each paragraph gains it’s meaning from the greater story at large. To transfer this to reality. Specific facts and events are like words, that are understood in relationship to surrounding facts like a sentence. These combined facts or events make up a theory. These theories are understood in light of our “meta narrative” or the over arching story.
In the instance of science, all scientific work and discovery is borne out of a shared narrative. A scientist must first hold a “meta narrative” that describes reality to be coherent, that rationality exists, that the physical world is not illusion, that reality is governed by laws, among many other things. Scientific testing would be futile if, say, one believes that reality is governed by inconsistent chaos. If that was so then one would have no basis to assume that if a test produces a given result, that the same would be true tomorrow or in another location. Even basic things such as the continued existence of the physical laws are accepted based upon the assumption that these laws are constant and will not change tomorrow and were the same thousands of years ago. You cant “prove” that the physical laws will remain tomorrow, for tomorrow hasn’t come, you can only assume that they will remain based upon a “narrative” that states that the universe will remain constant. Also all scientific discovery is borne out of “premises” that come from an accepted narrative about the physical world. It is out of a scientist’s narrative that he forms his hypothesis, he then goes out and tests his hypothesis to formulate a theory. If science was based solely upon “facts” as some propose, then no scientist would be able to form a theoretical hypothesis to test. Also if one did not hold a “meta narrative” that tells the individual that humans have trust worthy rational cognitive abilities, that humanity has the capability to have empirical connection with reality, or even that the physical world exists and is not an illusion, that person would have no reason to even begin down the road of scientific testing and investigation.
Hopefully you can follow what I’m saying here. I’m not a scientist (so I’m sure I’ve butchered the scientific process) but I wanted to use the example of science because it is often the scientist that excludes himself from being foundationaly rooted in narrative presuppositions.
But the reality is we all interpret facts and events in light of a greater story. Just last week my wife and I were sitting in our living room and we heard sirens in the distance, while multiple military helicopters flew over our house. Immediately one would begin to formulate a story in order to understand the “facts”. I could speculate that the sirens are from police vehicles, and the number of sirens seem to mean that something bad has happened. The existence of the military helicopters could mean that a war or attack has occurred. I would then formulate a story to understand the facts. A possible story could be that “Pittsburgh is under attack from a terrorist group” which would account for the sirens and helicopters. Now I could then talk with my wife who has a different story. Let’s say my wife has read the paper and saw that the G20 is in town and that there is expected to be thousands of protesters in Pittsburgh. My wife tells a different story. Her story leads to the conclusion that because the G20 is in town the sirens and helicopters indicate that there must be a protest going on nearby. As I pit my story against her story I would conclude that her story better takes into account the given evidence and I would change my story (unless I’m feeling really stubborn and unwilling to admit I’m wrong!)
You see the reality is, whether it is waking up and walking down the stairs expecting to see what existed there the day before or determining whether the holocaust really occurred and if it was a bad thing, we all need stories to make sense of the facts.
In light of this reality many today conclude that since we all have different stories no one can claim to know what is true. We are all left with different interpretations based upon different, but equally valid, “meta narratives”. I completely disagree with this assertion. Just as I could begin to refine and change my story to better reflect the evidence given the superior explanatory value of my wife’s story. I believe that we can engage other “meta narratives” taking into account our shared experience, and begin to refine our stories to come to a fuller understanding of Truth.
We all hold some type of grand story that shapes how we interpret things, how we perceive things, what we value, what we despise, even determining how we live our lives. The question is “is our story the right account of reality?’
In light of all of this, I find it very interesting that the core of the Christian message is a story. It is a story about God, humanity, meaning, and purpose. It all culminates on a story or “Good News” about a God that entered into our story, through His Son, who was crucified, and raised for the redemption of the world. If how we perceive things, interpret reality, even live our lives is borne out of a foundational story, then the Gospel message is given as an alternative story that when accepted would change everything. Now I personally believe that the Gospel is not just a “good story” but that it is the “true story”. I also believe that the Gospel should only be accepted and adopted as our foundational narrative if it is True.
If putting your faith in the Gospel is nothing less than accepting the Gospel as the true “meta-narrative”, then the Gospel can do nothing less than Change Everything about our lives. The only way one could “accept” the Gospel while not finding their whole world view (perceptions, values, and daily lives) radically transformed, would be for them to accept the Gospel as “a” story not “the” story.
Now I haven’t laid out any arguments for the “Gospel” being the true foundational story, but instead I’m trying to show us all that everyone builds their entire lives off of a narrative, and we all must ask ourselves what that narrative is. For the Christian, is the Gospel just another “story” that you have placed within some other greater narrative, or is the Gospel your foundation that all other “stories” are understood through? In other words is the Gospel a paragraph, a chapter, or is it the grander story of your life. For the non christian. It is a false stance to write off Christianity because it is foundationaly based upon “stories” while you claim that you follow “facts”. We all ultimately determine truth based upon foundational “stories”. I ask you to try to truly understand the Gospel story, and begin to understand your “meta narrative” to honestly seek to find out if the Gospel is not the true “story” to interpret all of reality through.
