How do you ascertain the worth in a worldview?

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: Law does need a giver. If a law is deemed "natural" by a humanist, then nature is deemed to be the lawmaker. The earth or the universe itself. The value in seeing a designer, is that the beauty has a reason. A purpose. It can be related to. Put simply with belief I can appreciate everything about a leaf the nonbeliever does - and then some. Rather than just the physical there is the spiritual appreciation.

What makes you so certain that your way of viewing is the only way to see and appreciate deeper, into the spiritual realm? To suppose so strikes me as approaching a sort of spiritual arrogance. Even an Atheist may perceive deeply into the nature of meaning. Who are you to say that you value a leaf more? Or life more? Or the universe more? Or all of existence? Presumptuous indeed.

The Law requires a Maker argument is based on a logical fallacy, btw. It confuses different meanings of the word "Law." Man-made "law" is Prescriptive -- it is a command ordering either to do an act refrain from an act. "Law" in this sense does require a lawgiver. A command implies a commander.

The laws of Nature, on the other hand, are merely Descriptive -- they are descriptive models which humans have formulated from observation which describe how nature and the universe does in fact behave, not orders or commands for it to behave a certain way.









[This message has been edited by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown (edited 09-04-2001).]

Individuals make up any collective, whether its a shared viewpoint or a corporation. As Individuals vary, it would be short-sighted to judge a belief or system of beliefs by the actions any one individual, or small group of individuals. So I dont.

The benifits of a worldview have a cause and effect relationship with it's ideals and philosphys. An ideal of compassion has the benifit of a sense of peace. A belief in abundance can lead to wealth. This cause/effect relationship is one way I ascertain the value of a belief within a system. It is both the individual ideals and the benifits of such that attract me to a belief system.

The originator of a viewpoint usually isn't. Someone knew it before they did, and all they are is the messenger. If the originator is an individual or small group, I can only put a limited amount of value in using one to judge, as I stated above.

I incorporate many "worldviews" under one "umbrella".

I see my place in the universe, whatever I know or don't know, and that somebody else does/doesn't know.

Behavioral choices, hmmmm. The worldview I chose concerning behavior is a do unto others sort. "Harm none and do as though will" ,The Wiccan rede sums it up nicely.
It causes inner-conflict to go against one's beliefs. Its not that uncommon for a person to believe something and then act in away that isn't in accordance with that belief. Guilt is the likely to be felt in this classic inner-struggle. Perhaps it builds character or something, to learn from yourself like that? Anyway, once again I point out a cause-effect relationship between action and belief.

Supernatural...does that mean beyond nature or Nature enchanced? Ive definitly had some enchanced expiriences with nature. I believe in the inner-realm of each individual, and that angels and spirit guides are exist within and without. They told me so.
Also -ghosts, astral projection, esp, remote viewing. All Perfectly Natural if you ask me

So I think as much introspection as extraspection is important to ascertaining a world view. Being open-minded and juggling ideas for oneself and relying on logic and intutition together to judge fairly and accuratly.

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Yorick: [B You get what I'm saying? The belief gives an extra abstract dimension to the viewing an object. Oh and don't try and say "oh but I can see the wonder of evolution in a lamb" because evolution is still the end result - part of created reality. I too can say that. A Christian can be an evolutionist marvelling at the theory and still be appreciating the creator. I realise this concept must irritate you tremendously Fjlotsdale... [/B]

Oh, I know what you are saying ok, Yorick! I can just see your smug grin!! And yeah, it irritates me into paroxysms of fury! Becaue believing in creation AND evolution is a total contradiction, whatever you say!

------------------

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: What makes you so certain that your way of viewing is the only way to see and appreciate deeper, into the spiritual realm? To suppose so strikes me as approaching a sort of spiritual arrogance. Even an Atheist may perceive deeply into the nature of meaning. Who are you to say that you value a leaf more? Or life more? Or the universe more? Or all of existence? Presumptuous indeed. The Law requires a Maker argument is based on a logical fallacy, btw. It confuses different meanings of the word "Law." Man-made "law" is Prescriptive -- it is a command ordering either to do an act refrain from an act. "Law" in this sense does require a lawgiver. A command implies a commander. The laws of Nature, on the other hand, are merely Descriptive -- they are descriptive models which humans have formulated from observation which describe how nature and the universe does in fact behave, not orders or commands for it to behave a certain way.

Thank you, Diogenes!! You put it MUCH better than I did!



------------------

Nice selection, Yorick. I think I'll take a shot at this...

Do you go on the actions of its practitioners.
To a certain extent, but mostly in an investigatory sense. It is educational to me to observe how groups of people interpret and act on a particular worldview.

Do you go on the apparent benefits the worldview brings their mindset and life?
As above

Perhaps you ignore the practitioners and look at the originator and their life.
When possible, yes. It is much easier to investigate L. Ron Hubbard than it is to investigate the originators of Druidic Paganism, for example. Often the life and circumstances of the originator shed light on the context of the belief system.

Do you focus on the ideas alone. Do the ideas inherant within a philosophy attract you?
Absolutely, especially if it is an idea that I haven't run across before

Do you incorporate different views under one umbrella? If so:
Yep, all my life experiences, direct or vicarious, have influenced my worldview.

(a)How do you balance the worth of accumulated wisdom within a balanced and layered view with your own perspective and the idea that you can know more than the originator(s).
I see the development of a worldview as I do the development of technology. You don't need to go back to the stone axe to design a drill press. However, a clear understanding of the history and development of a worldview is necessary to place it all in context, just as an understanding of math is needed to use a calculator. (that may be a crappy analogy, but it's all i've got right now!)

(b)What is the balance between your behavioural choices and your theological/cosmic beliefs. Does one outweigh the other?
I try to live my life in harmony with my beliefs. I'm not in perfect balance yet, and likely never will be. I believe the disparity is one of the primary ways in which I improve myself.

Have you had a supernatural experience?
Hmmmm, I don't regard anything as "supernatural" insofar as if it exists, it is part of the universe, and therefore natural. I've had a number of things happen which I have no explanation for other than the existence of the event. That is what makes life worth living, in my mind: the existence of mystery.

Perhaps you have balanced all the above?
Would that I could, I might have more to offer... still working on it...

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown:
What makes you so certain that your way of viewing is the only way to see and appreciate deeper, into the spiritual realm? To suppose so strikes me as approaching a sort of spiritual arrogance.

Did I say that I did? I used the words "spiritual" and "belief in a Creator". Islamic Suffis or Jews or anyone else that percieves an independant creator could have the same appreciation of Artist/Art. You are again presuming a mindset that does not exist. Read what I say and take the words as they are.

Even an Atheist may perceive deeply into the nature of meaning. Who are you to say that you value a leaf more? Or life more? Or the universe more? Or all of existence? Presumptuous indeed.

Could they indeed? By way of logic an athiest would see the physical, a spiritualist would see the physical and the metaphysical. Even if they are wrong (this is not about who's right or wrong) The person that percieves a creator is seeing TWO THINGS in the one object, whereas one who sees only the physical sees just one. This is logic. If you see two things you are seeing one thing more than the person who sees one.

Furthermore I made no judgement on how much someone values something. I actually clarified it if you would have read it. I distanced the amount seen from the amount valued. Again, read what I write Dio. Please!

The Law requires a Maker argument is based on a logical fallacy, btw. It confuses different meanings of the word "Law." Man-made "law" is Prescriptive -- it is a command ordering either to do an act refrain from an act. "Law" in this sense does require a lawgiver. A command implies a commander.

The laws of Nature, on the other hand, are merely Descriptive -- they are descriptive models which humans have formulated from observation which describe how nature and the universe does in fact behave, not orders or commands for it to behave a certain way.

Dio with either descriptive or prescriptive, something needs to exist for those "laws" to be enabled and work. Law is the word we have chosen to use to describe both, but this doesn't change the fact that without this particular earth or universe those "laws" would not exist. In that case the universe or planet itself is the "lawmaker", as a creator would be.


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 09-04-2001).]

[AliCat]

Moni -- nope, no cravings. Rather disappointing. I was hoping to convince my husband that I had a craving for some expensive ice cream, but... no such luck. I'm almost having the opposite -- chocolate no longer does anything for me. Quite disappointing. That's a major change in my life. (change it back!!!)

Fljotsdale -- like Yorick, I still find in a sense that if you have a design, there's a designer around somewhere. And I believe that everything has a design -- black holes, whatever -- but we haven't necessarily discovered it yet. I'm not sure that chaos really exists, or that it's just a word we use to define things we don't understand the design of yet. Yes, crystals and microbes and all have a design, yet can differ even so. But to me, the incredible intricacy and weaving together of this web just proves even more that there is a higher power at work, even if you want to call that higher power the Tao or Great Spirit or whatever.

You said something about the fact of not having a Creator helped you view better that it's our responsibility to clean up the messes we make of nature (at least that's how I interpret what you said). That's fine, and to some extent I agree if you are only going by the 18th or 19th century view of man being justified by the Bible to have dominion over all living things (by the historical view, I mean the prevailing view that justified a lot of destruction of farmland and abuse of animals -- rather similar to the less godly ideas of certain capitalists these days that the US needs more energy to support the population's decadent lifestyles so therefore let's drill the heck out of our national parks without thinking of the consequences or truly justifying our actions).(okay, off the soapbox).

I guess the way I view the situation is that Creator or not, I really don't think it's the Creator's responsibility to clean up our messes, and in a sense, we are purposefully being left in this position to teach us responsibility, like a bunch of children who've wrecked their playground. My other view here is that nature, by design, has a way of dealing with things -- like how there's a type of bacteria that eats up the oil in oil spills. Or like how a plague or an ice age can wipe a species out, yet enable another species to exist or flourish. There's a reason for everything, and perhaps one mighty purpose is that nothing lives forever, and it (life) wouldn't be any fun that way anyway.

Immortality is not an option, thank heavens. I talked to one lady today who said, "I'm only 83. That's still fairly young." Most of the more aged folks I've talked to are happy to be over 90 or 100 so long as they still feel good (bones aren't breaking, organs intact), but a lot of the rest of the population does not want to get that old, either for fear of physical failure or, like my grandmother, because all her friends and relatives her age had already died before her, and she had no one in that age group left. To some extent, that's another example of a design being present, and thereby, a designer.

I digress. Back to "The Yorick and Diogenes Show"! Just kidding, guys -- love watching the dialogue here.

AliCat (P.S. I'm introverted and quiet in "real life"... can't tell, can ya?)

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: Furthermore I made no judgement on how much someone values something. I actually clarified it if you would have read it. I distanced the amount seen from the amount valued. Again, read what I write Dio. Please! Dio with either descriptive or prescriptive, something needs to exist for those "laws" to be enabled and work. Law is the word we have chosen to use to describe both, but this doesn't change the fact that without this particular earth or universe those "laws" would not exist. In that case the universe or planet itself is the "lawmaker", as a creator would be.

Yorick, you keep alluding to assumptions I am supposedly making about your religious beliefs. I am not. I am basing my comments on what you say. I know nothing else about your personal religion nor presume to know. If I am misunderstanding, then I trust you will correct me as the conversation progresses

As for spiritual value, how could one measure it? You cannot simply quantify it. It defies quantificiation. I believe reality is such that people cannot escape being spiritual, whether they realize it or not, even atheists like Fljotsdale -- even though I suspect she is a rare atheist who actually realizes the spiritual essence of life

Regarding the Cosmic Law Giver: Sorry, but I have never been moved by the Necessity of a Creator argument. Why can't you just accept that reality simply is? Why must you add the extra step of a creating force? There is no reason to assume as much, nor does it make logical sense. Eventually, you MUST accept that something can simply be -- whether it be God or the universe. If you can accept that, logically, then why take the extra step to begin with?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: Regarding the Cosmic Law Giver: Sorry, but I have never been moved by the Necessity of a Creator argument. Why can't you just accept that reality simply is? Why must you add the extra step of a creating force? There is no reason to assume as much, nor does it make logical sense. Eventually, you MUST accept that something can simply be -- whether it be God or the universe. If you can accept that, logically, then why take the extra step to begin with?

I cannot help but go by what I see. As God is outside my comprehension it is easier to accept him just "being" than nature. All in nature has beginnings and endings. It is cyclic. Our life itself is cyclic. Nothing in nature simply "is". The concept of something not starting is an anathema to our experience. Also as humans we create. Every human has the potential to be artisticly creative. If you hope or plan for tomorrow you are creating scenarios. Creating. It is part of what defines us as human. The ability to hypothesise different scenarios and take the best course of action, instead of relying on instinct.

In tune with my own creative forces I cannot do anything other than see design, plan, order, ordered chaos, beauty, unecessary artistic beauty that screams of artistic design.

Secondly I choose to believe this. This is faith. By choosing this, everything makes sense to me. Death, pain, love, rain, beauty, shame. It gives me a calmness. A polarity no matter what gets thrown my way. When my marriage failed I very nearly died. In the events leading up to it and after it live was too hard, there was too much conflict, to much of a gaping hole, too much of a void that it left. I felt God through it. I have felt Gods healing as I've travelled afterwards. Seen his hand in a sunset or a persons smile, in the song of a bird or the taste of a plum. Life contains to many unecessary joys, to much that needs to be learned, to much commeraderie through despair to be without design. When I was lying on a hospital bed, unable to walk, not allowed to eat, my distressed wife falling to pieces beside me. I again felt God, reordered my priorities. I had a charting record and was so caught up in the shallow promotion of it and the world of appearances, urgency, need for success despite my having a Christian ethos and relationship with God.

To much have I learned the hard way to throw it away. It would be like saying light just "is" when I can plainly see the sun, shadows and darkness when it leaves, despite being burned by it, warmed by it, guided by it. How can I not see a creator, a guide, a God that loves me, a God that has forgiven the many many failings I have, the mistakes that I've made. A God that continues to provide such wonderful experiences and people in my life.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Fljotsdale]

I'm pretty sure you won't believe this, Yorick, but I relate exactly to almost everything you have said in the above post (nothing musical, not the illness) - but without having god in the picture. I could have written it and meant it as passionately as you do.

So wherein lies the difference of experience?

------------------